Dustin Kesselberg's Beliefs - His Very Own Thread

[Azure]

I wouldn't oppose giving money to Buddhism simply because it's not really a religion and as long as they don't divert their worship from Jesus It would not matter, however Islam? Would YOU want the govt funding Islam? C'mon. The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding. Especially now under Bush.

And the US government is WRONG about that.

They should be in cahoots with no one. The seperation of church and state is there for a reason.

 

[Wowbagger]

Dustin,
Let me be the first (apparently) to say that I find nothing wrong with simply believing in God. I will not challenge your faith in Christ. And I say this, even though I have no faith in such things, myself.

However, I find your idea of pushing your religion onto other people disturbing, and I was wondering if you were aware of the consequences such thinking has lead to, historically.
By allowing the Government to endorse one set of religions, and not any others, you are inadvertently building that which you hate most: An authoritarian government.

I am sure you are not a murdering extremist, by any means (as far as I am aware of, at least). But, you should know that your attitude of ideology has been the one of the primary movers of most of the world's most horrible tragedies. The Crusades are the obvious example. But, not the only one.

9/11 was masterminded by religious people. The difference between them and you is only a matter of degrees. They are willing to kill. You (presumably) are not. You are satisfied with just cash getting funneled towards you, and not anyone else:

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.

I have an idea. Let me know what you think of it:

Let us punish people who commit crimes, and not punish people who do not commit any crimes.
Instead of favoring one philosophy over another, why shouldn't we set up a government that allows all humans, willing to live in mutual tolerance and peace with each other, to do so.
Instead of giving money to any religions, allow the government to maximize its budget for the infrastructure necessary to support the said peoples.

What flaws do you perceive in that strategy?

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.

For what? How has MySpace and MTV caused irreparable harm to Christianity? Does it have to do with taste in clothing?

(Also, that means MySpace and MTV are stronger than God. You are not making a very good case for an omnipotent being. Not that I wish to argue this point much, though.)

Oh, and one more important thing: You are a bigot. (If you do not think so, please tell me how your insistence that a Government support one religion over all others is not bigotry. Thank you.)

 

[noblecaboose]

Wow, who would have thought a thread like this would dissolve into unitelligible gobbledyguck so fast?

 

[LibraryLady]

Lewis Carroll, aka Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, was a devout Christian and ordained minister. He felt that God would not create flawed human beings and then punish them eternally for being flawed. It's one of the reasons I admire him.

 

[TheAntiLuddite]

Because it's so esoteric and complex. It's hard to read the bible...
[snip]

Now that's funny. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard religious folk deeply intone that one of the divine hallmarks of the Bible is that its message is so simple even a child can understand it.

[...]

Oh, they meant the message of its hordes of apologetic, self-appointed interpreters.

[snip]
Apparently when God made the world he made it so that if humans ate from the tree of knowledge they would be poisoned with original sin for which blood could only forgive, thus due to our ignorance and incompetence Jesus had to come down and die for us so that he could forgive us.
[snip]

Here's where I'm just a wee bit smarter (or more moral) than an "omnipotent" deity. How about, and I know this is *heh*, just CRAZY...but how about, if the deity can't design a world where it later has to throw millions upon millions of sentients that it created into the Outer Darkness, it just doesn't create that world? Isn't that a level of mercy that a supposed omnibenevolent deity should display? Or is it simply omnivainglorious rather than omnibenevolent?

 

[andyandy]

Lewis Carroll, aka Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, was a devout Christian and ordained minister. He felt that God would not create flawed human beings and then punish them eternally for being flawed. It's one of the reasons I admire him.

didn't he also fall in love with a 12year old girl - and write Alice in Wonderland from the tales he used to spin her whilst punting in Cambridge?

 

[LibraryLady]

didn't he also fall in love with a 12year old girl - and write Alice in Wonderland from the tales he used to spin her whilst punting in Cambridge?

She was 3 when he first met her; scholars disagree about whether he felt romantic love for her. I am on the "not" side of that one.

They were in Oxford.

He did originally tell the story to her and two of her sisters while rowing with a friend of his, Rev. Duckworth.