To the Christians here...

[Huntster]

As a quick example, ever consider that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister? He's hardly what first comes to mind when you think of bigots.

Yes, he was religious, just not as religious as the Taliban.

Almost more sig line material, fool.

You're really a piece of work.................

That depends, if you're christian, then yes, you are supposed to dislike your Jewish girlfriend. That is, if you really take your religion seriously.

That is sig line material, but a little too long.

Can you be a bit more concise with your lunacy?

 

[Huntster]

Do you think, believe, or suppose that there is a single thing, anything at all, that does not exist?

I don't know.

Does absolutely everything exist?

I don't know.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by I less than three logic :
I honestly can’t think of a single reason why you continuously dodge answering a simple question. Do you think, believe, or suppose that there is a single thing, anything at all, that does not exist? Does absolutely everything exist?

really now, what a loaded question.

I am not entirely sure what you are even asking for....

Neither does he.

And he thinks I'm going to step into that obviously loaded bear trap.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Both government and religion are in the business of teaching and enforcing morality.

You are free to abstain from religion (even if it is foolish).

You are not free to abstain from civil law.

Please show me an instance of a civil law that dictates personal morality that is not somehow rooted in religion.

Why?

What does legal roots in religion (since religion likely came before civil law) have to do with the fact that you may freely and legally disregard religion, but not freely and legally disregard civil law?

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, it was and it still is.

God, I'm not trying to defend the KKK or anything, but let's just be clear. They came into being as a reactionary group. Religion had *nothing* to do with their genesis. The KKK evolved rather quickely in its first few years of existence, and this evolution was most certainly *not*, in any way, guided or prompted by anything having to do with religion.

Their most "religious" years were in the early few decades of the 20th century, as they were opposed to Catholic and Jewish immigrants who they felt stole jobs, lowered wages, and brought "vices" with them into the country. But here I'd insist that the prime motivations were economic, as the average KKK member was a poor farmer (in the North/Midwest at this point in time).

I wish you were more informed about things. I vasicllate between trying to take you seriously, or just treating you with slight regard. You're as dogmatic as the Christian who would damn everyone who doesn't share their particular beliefs to hell. You're the analog, sui generis. Of course you don't believe in hell, but your condemnations are relatively just as extreme as theirs.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

Interesting faulty dilemma you pose. What you said was "All anyone needs to know about 'Christianity' is right there" in two OT verses. To suggest that this idea is wrong is not to deny the validity of any verse in the Bible.

"All anyone needs to know" in order to form an accurate opinion about Christianity. Christians are self-admitted slaves. So are the members of all the major organized religions. All anyone like ME needs to know about the religion is THAT. My opinion is completely formed with that knowledge and nothing, no matter how wonderful the rest of Christianity is considered, will change it.

Look, this is the mentality of the worshipper. It is a priceless lesson in psychology. God, seeing that humans are trying to reach heaven on their own and realizing that humans can accomplish anything if they work together and put their minds to it, confuses human language so we cannot work together any longer.

The message is simple -- God does not want mankind to be able to pursue its own goals. We are supposed to pursue HIS, and if we don't, we will either get judged and thrown in hell for eternity (if our choice doesn't threaten his superiority) or he will directly intervene (if our choice does, such as with Babel).

 

[rocketdodger]

Just so I'm clear - "these people" means "Christians", right? Don't they believe that mankind is subordinate (regardless of choice) simply by virtue of the creator-creature relationship? And whence the charges of destroying progress and happiness?

No, "these people" mean anyone that believes that the relationship between their god(s) and humans inherently involves subordination. This includes Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and most of the other stuff.

A creator-creature relationship does not imply subordination. A child can easily surpass its parents in ability, and a robot its designer (in theory). The subordinate relationship in organized religion is chosen, not implicit in the idea of a creator.

My own theory is that such a relationship is chosen because it makes the believers much easier to control. If they think god owns them, then anyone proclaiming to be acting of god's will can that much easier control them. On the other hand, members of a religion that believed the individual was subordinate to nobody would be hard to control indeed.

As for destroying progress and happiness... Perhaps you misunderstood. Let me rephrase it as "destroying others' notions of progress and happiness in order to further their own notions of progress and happiness.

If you disagree with THAT, then how do you explain the assimilation of virtually the entire western hemisphere into Catholicism, or the current war between western secular values and Islamic ones? How else do you explain the church's opposition to every major advancement in human history that didn't further the 'glory of god?' How else do you explain the untold suffering that has happened on this planet as a result of people trying to reconcile human nature with religious doctrine?

 

[Huntster]

....I wish you were more informed about things. I vasicllate between trying to take you seriously, or just treating you with slight regard. You're as dogmatic as the Christian who would damn everyone who doesn't share their particular beliefs to hell. You're the analog, sui generis. Of course you don't believe in hell, but your condemnations are relatively just as extreme as theirs.

Kenny is informed enough about what he pontificates on.

His "opinion has the authority of reality"...........didn't you know?

"I'm hardly intolerant of the people of the other side, if they changed their mind I'd accept their position."

"I'm always right."

(See sig lines below).

 

[thaiboxerken]

You've never proven that the religious texts cause this bigotry.

Then is it safe to say that religious texts don't cause the religious to be peaceful and moral as well?

 

[thaiboxerken]

One other thing- can you tell me honestly that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is more bigoted than Stalin?

I can honestly say that I don't know. Was Stalin more religious or MLK?

 

[ceo_esq]

"All anyone needs to know" in order to form an accurate opinion about Christianity.

...

All anyone like ME needs to know about the religion is THAT. My opinion is completely formed with that knowledge and nothing, no matter how wonderful the rest of Christianity is considered, will change it.

But your opinions about Christianity are extremely skewed. That suggests that whatever you're basing them on is not sufficient to form an accurate opinion.

The part about not changing your opinion, frankly, is a little worrisome. That sounds dogmatic.

Christians are self-admitted slaves.

Er, kind of, but in a very particular sense that doesn't conform to any conventional understanding or earthly experience of slavery, so far as I can tell. In Newman's words (not an official source, of course):

This needs insisting on; for a number of persons who are not unwilling to confess that they are slaves by nature, from some cause or other have learned to think that they are not bound to any real service at all, now that Christ has set them free. Now if by the word slavery, some cruel and miserable state of suffering is meant, such as human masters often inflict on their slaves, in that sense indeed Christians are not slaves, and the word is improper to apply to them; but if by being slaves, is meant that we cannot throw up our service, change our place, and do as we will, in that sense it is literally true, that we are more than servants to Christ, we are, as the text really words it, slaves. Men often speak as if the perfection of human happiness lay in our being free to do or not to do, to choose and to reject. Now we are indeed thus free, as far as this, - that if we do not choose to be Christ's servants, we can go back to that old bondage from which He rescued us, and be slaves again to the powers of evil. But though we are free to make our situation worse, we are not free to be without service or post of any kind. It is not in man's nature to be out of all service and to be self-dependent. We may choose our master, but God or mammon we must serve. We cannot possibly be in a neutral or intermediate state. Such a state does not exist. ... We cannot be without a master, such is the law of our nature; yet a number of persons, as I have said, overlook it, and think their Christian liberty lies in being free from all law, even from the law of God. … Men seem to have thought that, since the law of sin was annulled, and the terrors of the law of nature removed, that therefore they were under no law at all; that their own will was their law, and that faith stood instead of obedience. In opposition to this great mistake, St. Paul reminds his brethren in the text, that when they were "made free from sin," they "became the servants of righteousness."

So yes, according to their writings, Christians are in theory supposed to be the servants of righteousness, justice, truth, mercy, etc., but the experience is one of liberation rather than captivity or subjugation.

Look, this is the mentality of the worshipper. It is a priceless lesson in psychology. God, seeing that humans are trying to reach heaven on their own and realizing that humans can accomplish anything if they work together and put their minds to it, confuses human language so we cannot work together any longer.

The message is simple -- God does not want mankind to be able to pursue its own goals. We are supposed to pursue HIS, and if we don't, we will either get judged and thrown in hell for eternity (if our choice doesn't threaten his superiority) or he will directly intervene (if our choice does, such as with Babel).

Well, that's a very personal interpretation of the story, for which we thank you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

God, I'm not trying to defend the KKK or anything, but let's just be clear.

The KKK is a religious group. They burn crosses as part of their religious ritual.

 

[ceo_esq]

A creator-creature relationship does not imply subordination. A child can easily surpass its parents in ability, and a robot its designer (in theory). The subordinate relationship in organized religion is chosen, not implicit in the idea of a creator.

Yet the designer and the robot, or the parent and child belong to the same order of created being. They are all creatures. The uncreated God, if he existed, would belong to a different ontological order entirely. I just don't see how it is possible for any non-supreme being to occupy a position other than a subordinate one vis-à-vis a supreme being. That seems to be a condition logically attendant upon the definition of supremacy. According to OED, supreme means "Highest in authority or rank; holding the highest place in authority or power." Subordinate, on the other hand, means "Belonging to an inferior rank, grade, class, or order, and hence dependent upon the authority or power of another." Accordingly, if the God posited by the major monotheistic religions existed, our subordinate status would not be a matter of preference but of nature.

My own theory is that such a relationship is chosen because it makes the believers much easier to control. If they think god owns them, then anyone proclaiming to be acting of god's will can that much easier control them. On the other hand, members of a religion that believed the individual was subordinate to nobody would be hard to control indeed.

That works only if you subscribe to a control-based based model of religion (and one which is universal across religions).

As for destroying progress and happiness... Perhaps you misunderstood. Let me rephrase it as "destroying others' notions of progress and happiness in order to further their own notions of progress and happiness.

If you disagree with THAT, then how do you explain the assimilation of virtually the entire western hemisphere into Catholicism, or the current war between western secular values and Islamic ones? How else do you explain the church's opposition to every major advancement in human history that didn't further the 'glory of god?' How else do you explain the untold suffering that has happened on this planet as a result of people trying to reconcile human nature with religious doctrine?

There are a lot of questionable assumptions involved here. What major advancements in human history are you talking about? And though I'm not quite sure which untold suffering you have in mind, I expect we are all cognizant of the untold suffering that's been abated or mitigated as a result of people trying to temper human nature with religious doctrine. (Naturally, I think we have to consider different religions individually.)

 

[drkitten]

Yet the designer and the robot, or the parent and child belong to the same order of created being. They are all creatures. The uncreated God, if he existed, would belong to a different ontological order entirely. I just don't see how it is possible for any non-supreme being to occupy a position other than a subordinate one vis-à-vis a supreme being. That seems to be a condition logically attendant upon the definition of supremacy. According to OED, supreme means "Highest in authority or rank; holding the highest place in authority or power." Subordinate, on the other hand, means "Belonging to an inferior rank, grade, class, or order, and hence dependent upon the authority or power of another." Accordingly, if the God posited by the major monotheistic religions existed, our subordinate status would not be a matter of preference but of nature.

Wow. You're conflating a lot of different issues here.

Basically, you suggest that a "supreme" being must be highest in authority and rank, by definition. However, neither authority nor rank are ontological criteria.

In fact, many of the polythesistic (pagan) religions are very clear that the highest rank does not belong to the ontologically prior. Just as an example, the "supreme" god of the Greeks (Zeus) is himself a created being (the son of the Titan Chronos), who is himself the son of the uncreated and ontologically prior Uranus (Ouranos). Something similar occurs in the Norse religion; the giant Ymir is ontologically prior to his children and his grand-children including Odin.

 

[ceo_esq]

Wow. You're conflating a lot of different issues here.

Basically, you suggest that a "supreme" being must be highest in authority and rank, by definition. However, neither authority nor rank are ontological criteria.

In fact, many of the polythesistic (pagan) religions are very clear that the highest rank does not belong to the ontologically prior. Just as an example, the "supreme" god of the Greeks (Zeus) is himself a created being (the son of the Titan Chronos), who is himself the son of the uncreated and ontologically prior Uranus (Ouranos). Something similar occurs in the Norse religion; the giant Ymir is ontologically prior to his children and his grand-children including Odin.

Fair enough; I thought I might be combining too much at once there. Your point is understood. But we are discussing the qualities attributed by the monotheistic religions (or Christianity, at any rate) to God, and I hope we agree that, according to that theology, God's position with regard to the created order and everything in it does not correspond to the circumstances or relationships you cited from those polytheistic religions. The "supremacy" of the Christian God (as specifically conceived by Christians, naturally) seems to dictate that any created thing is naturally and intrinsically subordinate to God, and this is really all I meant to point out.

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, that's a very personal interpretation of the story, for which we thank you.

What other interpretation is there?

 

[rocketdodger]

And though I'm not quite sure which untold suffering you have in mind, I expect we are all cognizant of the untold suffering that's been abated or mitigated as a result of people trying to temper human nature with religious doctrine. (Naturally, I think we have to consider different religions individually.)

No, we are not, because none of us know what "human nature" is. We are social animals and have been taught accordingly. If our society was different, we would be different.

The vast majority of suffering has been caused by the dominance hierarchies of society. As the most prevalent one in human history, organized religion must bear the brunt of criticism directed at such entities.

You might be able to argue that religion is the least damaging of the dominance hierarchies, but you cannot offer any evidence that religion abates or mitigates the consequences of "human nature," because "human nature" has for thousands of years been the learned behavior of setting up and operating within dominance hierarchies like organized religion.

 

[drkitten]

Fair enough; I thought I might be combining too much at once there. Your point is understood. But we are discussing the qualities attributed by the monotheistic religions (or Christianity, at any rate) to God, and I hope we agree that, according to that theology, God's position with regard to the created order and everything in it does not correspond to the circumstances or relationships you cited from those polytheistic religions.

But I think that gets back to rocketdodger's point w.r.t. Christianity and the relation between God and humanity.

To re-quote him:

No, "these people" mean anyone that believes that the relationship between their god(s) and humans inherently involves subordination. This includes Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and most of the other stuff.

A creator-creature relationship does not imply subordination. A child can easily surpass its parents in ability, and a robot its designer (in theory). The subordinate relationship in organized religion is chosen, not implicit in the idea of a creator.

My own theory is that such a relationship is chosen because it makes the believers much easier to control. If they think god owns them, then anyone proclaiming to be acting of god's will can that much easier control them. On the other hand, members of a religion that believed the individual was subordinate to nobody would be hard to control indeed.

We can thus identify two "defining" aspects of Christian theology -- first, that God is the ultimate creator of all things, including mankind (both individually and collectively), and second, that God is the "supreme" being in the sense of being highest in rank and authority.

As you admit, those two aspects are logically and theologically separable; a creator need not be of the highest rank and vice versa.

Rocketdodger's point appears to be that the second aspect may have been (he uses 'is,' but I assume he would not claim demonstrable knowledge) chosen precisely because that provides a route of political power and control for the priestly caste.

The "supremacy" of the Christian God (as specifically conceived by Christians, naturally) seems to dictate that any created thing is naturally and intrinsically subordinate to God, and this is really all I meant to point out.

Yes, but which came first -- did the ultimate supremacy of the Christian God arise from the political demands of His priests, or vice versa. It's fairly clear from some of the Old Testament stories that at the beginning, God was viewed, not as the Ultimate Creator, but as merely one God among many. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" hardly suggest that there are no other Gods, just that Yahoo-wahoo gets to be first in line.

 

[rocketdodger]

The "supremacy" of the Christian God (as specifically conceived by Christians, naturally) seems to dictate that any created thing is naturally and intrinsically subordinate to God, and this is really all I meant to point out.

But the fact of being subordinate in the sense of existence and being subordinate in the sense of will are two totally different concepts.

I am subordinate to the natural laws that govern molecules on earth. This does NOT mean that I should agree with whatever they do and that it is morally wrong for me to act against them or even consider acting against them.

 

[Huntster]

The KKK is a religious group. They burn crosses as part of their religious ritual.

If I burned wooden cresents, would I be considered Islamic?

If I burned wooden Star of Davids, would I be considered Jewish?