Why church is so dangerous !!!

[slingblade]

Did you know that the quality of mental healthcare is directly proportionate to the amount of money/insurance you have?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Did you know that the quality of mental healthcare is directly proportionate to the amount of money/insurance you have?

Only roughly - I know that you need insurance in the US but it seems a bit complicated. Most of the counselling I have received has been on the National Health and the other was not very expensive.

Perhaps it is possible to save up for a while if there is some spare money at the end of the month but it appears that it might be of benefit. If any of this comes across as patronising then I am sorry, it is not meant that way. Perhaps you could try living in the UK - atheists are very far from being the most distrusted (or was it hated?) group here!

 

[Beerina]

allow me to possibly help in any and ALL being able to rejecvt churchianity in the hopes they can keep an OPEN MIND to integrative knowledge and DESIGN by the DESIGNER

David, please do a search for "irreducible grotesqueness", bah, I'll do it: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Organisms.cfm

The argument is doubly powerful -- it suggests a kind, loving god is actually a monster if he deliberately designed things this way (not to mention an idiot for bad design, but that's another argument.)

But if "intelligently designed" doesn't necessarily mean "optimally" nor "kindly", then whatever this god is, can't be the Judeo/Christian one.

 

[autumn1971]

Slingblade, I stand by my statement. Emotions are not a good justification for other emotions, at least on a rational level. Yes, we are all emotionaly driven beings, but should we not examine our emotions before developing responses?
If an emotional response is warranted, it should be evident to the outside observer, who does not share our emotions.

 

[Irony]

True scientists look for connections, the CAUSE of the EFFECT. They use logic and reason and hope to find a truth thru experimentation via a theory that continually works.

True scientist look for the cause of the effect. False scientists have a cause and imagine or manufacture effects.

 

[bruto]

I just hate Christians. And since most people consider themselves Christians, I hate most people.

Christians helped make me what I am today: a great big wad of NOTHING.

I hope they are all happy happy happy as can be about it. I hope Jesus is leading them to sing and dance about my destruction.

I hope I die soon.

Slingblade, I know that an internet community is pretty insubstantial, but I hope you realize that you are something to us.

 

[RandFan]

It's true that I worship skepticism and I'm a false scientist but what I'd really like to be is a cowboy, or maybe even a lumber jack.

I found my connection BTW. I think I was 14. I really like the effect but to be honest I can't help but wonder if I'm often too obsessed with the cause. Still, like all false scientists I think we are, to quote Clint Eastwood, "Cured of what we suffered from and sufferin' from the cure"

Of course, perhaps this is all just a dream, lifegazer?

 

[slingblade]

Slingblade, I stand by my statement. Emotions are not a good justification for other emotions, at least on a rational level. Yes, we are all emotionaly driven beings, but should we not examine our emotions before developing responses?
If an emotional response is warranted, it should be evident to the outside observer, who does not share our emotions.

That's gibberish to me, sorry. I also find it somewhat offensive.

I don't particularly care to have my emotions and emotional responses either validated or invalidated for me by others, by mere observers especially. These are my feelings, and I'll feel them any darned way I feel them, when I feel them. If to you my emotional response does not seem "warranted," well, I hate it for ya, but that has no bearing and makes no impact on what I'm feeling. Nor should it.

I think there is an inflexible dichotomy imposed on behavior: Logic and reason are seen as calm, controlled, and rational, while emotion is seen as the opposite. Emotions just seem to "happen" to people, out of their control, and certainly out of anyone else's. That's the part that bothers many: that whole lack of control thing.

Humans both think and feel, but feelings come first in our development. Emotions dominate a great many of our early learning processes, if not all of them, and are thus often relegated by society to the domain of immaturity: only babies cry. Real grown-ups learn to control their emotional selves. Emo kids are baaaad, mmmkay? Emo adults are insane. Period.

Yet we also recognize the No True Scotsman, and understand, at least superficially, that behavior inhabits a spectrum, not a point. We realize, or should, that emotions fuel our every choice; that they must be examined carefully, that reason should be applied to emotions, yes. But being reasonable does not and should not mean that we are best rational when we are emotionless. Justice, for one example, would suffer horribly from a lack of emotions, such as mercy.....?

You present the premise that if my emotional response is "warranted," it will be evident to you as observer, whether you actually share my emotion or not.

But this then begs the question of the "warrancy" or legitimacy of emotional responses to events, does it not?

So, what you're saying is that the observer is somehow arbiter of others' emotional responses? That you, as observer, get to somehow decide if mine are right or not, acceptable or not? And then what? Do you then get to tell me how to behave? And must I then obey?

No. You do not bring to any observation the requisite memories and history which fuel my given emotional response. You are missing great hulking gulps of information, and are thus making a faulty evaluation.

And I simply do not give you permission to have that sort of control over me. My emotions are my own. I care not whether you find them warranted.

 

[bruto]

Slingblade, I stand by my statement. Emotions are not a good justification for other emotions, at least on a rational level. Yes, we are all emotionaly driven beings, but should we not examine our emotions before developing responses?
If an emotional response is warranted, it should be evident to the outside observer, who does not share our emotions.

Sure we should examine our emotions before we respond, assuming there's time to do so. I don't see how that translates to the idea that a disinterested observer who is not omniscient can judge the appropriate response unless you really believe that everyone ought to respond to emotional stresses and situations in the same way regardless of all our accumulated histories, desires, dreams and fears.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

True scientist look for the cause of the effect. False scientists have a cause and imagine or manufacture effects.

Yes and false scientists force their facts on our poor students that have to follow their religious indocrination of luck and chance or risk getting failed for non compliance to peer pressure and social pressure.

False scientists even concocting false evidence to back their claims so as to justify further their false religion of nothingness and further financing their false evidence gathering and elevating their prominence among the false scientists.

Such a sad state of affiars among the false skeptics and false scientists, that haveto stoop to manufacturing false evidence and have to FORCE indocrination and complaince.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Evolutionisareligion.html

.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Yes, ALL, our emotions, our hearts, our orientations can greatkly influence what we perceive and what we conclude and what we miss seeing and what we miss concluding.

For some have eyes to see and see not and ears to hear and hear not as the Giood Lord said.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

It's true that I worship skepticism and I'm a false scientist but what I'd really like to be is a cowboy, or maybe even a lumber jack.

Ahh a true confession, or a false skeptic and a false scientist. Thanks RandFan.

But you could be a real cowboy or even a lumberjack, it would be a great step to getting real and into the real world. Hope you become one, and stop being a false skeptic and false scientist. All the best.

 

[Jimbo07]

Djj, I'm a little concerned.

Obviously, english is not your first language. Also, around here, people aren't typically thrown in jail for their relationship (or usually lack thereof) with the church. Knowing where you're from might help me to understand your motivations a little better. If you don't want the world to know, I'd be happy to pursue this in private messages.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Evolutionisareligion.html

...Words fail me.

It's like a giant, horrible amalgam of all the misconceptions out there about evolution.

Few have ever questioned their faith and so the majority get quite upset, if you even suggest the most basic questions to them, as it shatters their dreams and illusions. They pretend to have evidence but when asked what it is, they become very evasive and non-committal, saying it is a "given" of their religion.

Try us. Give a "most basic question," and see if it "shatters" our knowledge.

They pin all their hopes and dreams upon Evolution's mysterious unexplainable ways...

Actually, we know pretty well how evolution works, thanks to fossils, and, you know, the other incontrovertible evidence whose existence you deny.

...and yet as Christian scientists, who believe in logic and reason and facts and the real created world...

Bold: Would those be the blood-transfusion-denying variety of Christian Scientists?
Italics: Oxymoron.

ETA: I looked at the rest of your site, and it seems as though this is actually the least insane part of it. You're a little out there, you know that? For the rest of you, for your reading pleasure.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/ChristianMagick.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/GrailMysteries.html

Ohhh dear.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

...Words fail me.

It's like a giant, horrible amalgam of all the misconceptions out there about evolution.

Try us. Give a "most basic question," and see if it "shatters" our knowledge.

Actually, we know pretty well how evolution works, thanks to fossils, and, you know, the other incontrovertible evidence whose existence you deny.

Bold: Would those be the blood-transfusion-denying variety of Christian Scientists? Italics: Oxymoron.

ETA: I looked at the rest of your site, and it seems as though this is actually the least insane part of it. You're a little out there, you know that? For the rest of you, for your reading pleasure.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/ChristianMagick.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/GrailMysteries.html

Ohhh dear.

Yes, Glen you have a lot to learn and a lot of discernments to make.

But this thread is about why the church system is so dangerous.

And so if you claim I am wrong, then obviously you deem the damnable devoid atrocious deadly church system as benign .... and GOOD.

Sorry Bro, if you haven't figured out where they are coming from by now, then I nor the Holy Spirit that could speak to you 24/7 ....... can help you.

Why you people love the church system is beyond me. Any true skeptic or 12 year old knows it is phony and hypocritical. Surely you are older than 12.

Need I write what the Lord blasted them with. have you been sooo sheltered that you have never ever read it before.

Do you not know what the Lord said he would do to their faces and what he would smear on their faces ?

 

[bruto]

Yes, Glen you have a lot to learn and a lot of discernments to make.

But this thread is about why the church system is so dangerous.

And so if you claim I am wrong, then obviously you deem the damnable devoid atrocious deadly church system as benign .... and GOOD.

Sorry Bro, if you haven't figured out where they are coming from by now, then I nor the Holy Spirit that could speak to you 24/7 ....... can help you.

Why you people love the church system is beyond me. Any true skeptic or 12 year old knows it is phony and hypocritical. Surely you are older than 12.

Need I write what the Lord blasted them with. have you been sooo sheltered that you have never ever read it before.

Do you not know what the Lord said he would do to their faces and what he would smear on their faces ?

You really do have very poor reading comprehension, it seems. Most of the people around here are atheists. They do not love churches. Some of us are not atheists, and damn few of those love churches either.

It might come as a surprise to you, owing to your peculiar lack of comprehension, perspicacity, perspective and sanity, and your amazingly high opinion of yourself, that it is possible to disagree with your assessment of why churches are dangerous without embracing churches. Even the blind pig will occasionally find an acorn.

 

[strathmeyer]

Why false skeptics can't win anargument

You still haven't explained what a false skeptic is. Is it someone who expects everyone to just listen to what they have to say and refuses to answer questions. We're here to have discussions and be open minded. This is not a place for your nonsensical monologues.

 

[RandFan]

Ahh a true confession, or a false skeptic and a false scientist. Thanks RandFan.

You are welcome David. I find that for most people like yourself perception is greater than reality. If you believe in something like false skepticism and false scientists then who the hell am I to interfere with your reality. I might as well tell the guy in the asylum he isn't Napolean. You see, whatever Davidjayjordan believes is true, is true. Facts? Logic? Like that is going to convince you of anything.

BTW, did you find your connection?

 

[RandFan]

You still haven't explained what a false skeptic is.

Good luck with that.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

You really do have very poor reading comprehension, it seems. Most of the people around here are atheists. They do not love churches. Some of us are not atheists, and damn few of those love churches either.

It might come as a surprise to you, owing to your peculiar lack of comprehension, perspicacity, perspective and sanity, and your amazingly high opinion of yourself, that it is possible to disagree with your assessment of why churches are dangerous without embracing churches. Even the blind pig will occasionally find an acorn.

Then add to knowledge and state your reasons why churches are so dangerous. Don;t fight my opinion based on direct experiences with them, but state your opinions and theories about why churches are DANGEROUS.

Forget the messenger because you disagree with me in other areas, and work together in uncovering the conspiracy of the dam church system. liberate others by blasting away at why the dam church is so vile. Help people rather than fighting me. In this thread, I am not the topic, I am only one of the messengers.

So help BRUTO rather than detract from this thread. BLAST THE CHURCHES and state why they are so vile and controling and emented. State truths or experiences, and stand your ground.