Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[maul]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

[lau]

I thought we all had enough religious talk here, and your stated this like facts, i'd say it's your own opinion. By the way, I COMPLETEY disagree with you

[le_poete_mourant]

Hope. 







By the way, I'm not Christian.  I do not subscribe to any religious denomination, do not attend church or temple, and I've never read the Bible.  But I think there's some innate religious sentiment in us all.  And I know many people who are comforted and helped by their religion when times get tough, including Christianity. 

Some may say the Church is corrupt.  I'm sure it is.  It is impossible to have such a complex group without corruption.  But for all the bad you can pick out, there is probably just as much good. 

[ada]

I think you start treading on dangerous ground when you begin to denigrate other people's religious beliefs.

I have my own views about christianity (especially far-right fundamentalism and creationist garbage, which isn't a religion but a cancer) but I think it's just as offensive to start gratuitously bagging out a particular religion as to have someone's religious beliefs foisted onto you.

You could say that if people are going to crap on ad nauseum about their particular faith without invitation this gives others the right to denigrate the religion that faith is based on.

Arguably, it does.

But lets maintain the high moral ground here 
 

[jre58591]

"religion is an opiate of the massees." - karl marx

"organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers." - jesse ventura

the second is a bit extreme, maybe, but these are true to some extent. religion is just something that people need for reassurance and to make them feel better, i believe. also, organized rituals and beliefs, in my opinion, are not necessary for living a good, moral, and honest life. also, what tangible, non-specualtive proof do we have that god exists or that jesus really handed down these beliefs. however, i am not an atheist. one small part of me believes that there is a god and that there is something after death. also, there is that part of me that tells that part that i just *want* to believe that. life ios a great mystery, indeed.

how do you all respond to these quotes?

[ada]

I think you start treading on dangerous ground when you begin to denigrate other people's religious beliefs.

I have my own views about christianity (especially far-right fundamentalism and creationist garbage, which isn't a religion but a cancer) but I think it's just as offensive to start gratuitously bagging out a particular religion as to have someone's religious beliefs foisted onto you.

You could say that if people are going to crap on ad nauseum about their particular faith without invitation this gives others the right to denigrate the religion that faith is based on.

Arguably, it does.

But lets maintain the high moral ground here 
 

Bloody hell. I've just read some of the posts in other threads. I take it all back.

Go ahead and denigrate. 

[gorbee natcase]

The Bible is a mass of twaddle

[mephisto]

"religion is an opiate of the massees." - karl marx

"organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers." - jesse ventura


how do you all respond to these quotes?

I agree.

Most people belive because they "want" to belive.

It is important on the other hand to say that not all belivers are stupid.

[prometheus]

Religion isn't a cancer. The content isn't damaging in itself, it can be but it doesn't have to. But religion is a virus of the mind, this is an accurate description. Now a virus of the mind doesn't need to be a religion. Virusses of the mind do exist. You can also brain wash your children with sociological or political doctrine. But these are inherently weaker for several different reasons.


The bad thing about religion is not the contect but the fact that it is a virus. That it deludes people and that it encorages non-thinking. Actually, the more irrational you are, the more you believe in spite all of the facts that oppose your belief, the stronger your belief is and the more virtuous you are considered to be. The worshipping or irrationality and following old dogma's without question is bad.

Now worse is that this dogma is made by a stone age society worse than the Taliban. Of course, again the content itself is of second importance but in the case of Christianity the content is barbaric and absolutely absurd.

Traditions are also part of this strange thing. If a tradition is old enough it has to be maintained eventhough it is very strange or offending or damaging or just wrong. If it is old enough people want to keep it just because it is old. Very strange.

[ada]

Religion isn't a cancer. The content isn't damaging in itself, it can be but it doesn't have to. But religion is a virus of the mind, this is an accurate description.

I don't suggest religion is a cancer. I suggest creationism is a cancer. Because it proliferates out of control and it's death to reason, logic and progress.

Hence my earlier defence of religion per say.

Creationism is an aberration. It is a cognitive virus.

[pianowolfi]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

To me all that sounds aggressive and discriminatory. Everyone should believe or not believe whatever he wants. I try never to impose my belief upon somebody who has another belief. So I would never use words like these to critisize somebody's atheism or disbelief. Everyone has his own reasons for believing or not and for everybody there is enough place on this earth.

The Bible is a mass of twaddle

Sure, it is actually, because it's written in an old language that we don't understand anymore and because it has been passed down over many generations, wrong translated, faked and so on. Thousands of scientists try hardly to find out the truth about it. It's a naive error if somebody thinks that the bible could be read (in its current state) like any random contemporary book.

Now worse is that this dogma is made by a stone age society worse than the Taliban. Of course, again the content itself is of second importance but in the case of Christianity the content is barbaric and absolutely absurd.

maybe you're talking more about church history than about the religion itself. For me the essence of christian religion (also of any other important religion) is peace, love and tolerance. Everything that causes mass murder, inquisition, dogmatism doesn't deserve to be called religion.

[prometheus]

I don't suggest religion is a cancer. I suggest creationism is a cancer. Because it proliferates out of control and it's death to reason, logic and progress.

Hence my earlier defence of religion per say.

Creationism is an aberration. It is a cognitive virus.

Creationism is an aberration. But it is not part of the religion. It is only something that follows. So I guess it is the appendex or something.

Creationism is merely a fairy tale. It it totally innocent in itself. No one would believe in creationism without religion. Actually, no one does.

[lau]

I really don't think it's just a matter of believing, more of a matter of feeling and knowing.

[prometheus]

To me all that sounds aggressive and discriminatory.

I don't really understand. Do you mean that religion is aggressive and discriminatory? Or do you mean his description of it is? Well, maybe the description is negative and that may be unwanted by some. But that doesn't mean it is false. Fact is that Judaism is a set of morals, values, ideas, stories and myths of a stone age society that we today would rate worse than the Taliban. The fact is that Christianity and Islam are merely sects based on this religion. Maybe you meant to say that he is only pointing out the negative aspects of monotheism. But they are true nonetheless. It may be up to you to explain to us why such a flawed idea rooted in a babaric stone age society has some worth to us today.

I will make the claim that all virtue seen in christian, or other monotheist people, is there not because of but in spite of their religion.

Everyone should believe or not believe whatever he wants.

Are you sure you mean this? Because I doubt it? Because if this is true then you reject all ideas of morality. Any idea is as good as any other. I may not believe in divine morality, and I suspect you might meaning that you do not understand the implications of your worlds, but I do believe that there are some basic forms of morals and values all humans can agree upon. Therefore I believe that I have a responsibility to argue with people that have views I think are wrong or dangerous. But I also know I need to be careful about this.

You say that it is fine when one is a nazi or a racist. You claim it is fine for someone to believe in fairies and gnomes. If I had a child that believed or even saw fairies I would get het psychological help. I don't think that people should believe whatever they want. And I doubt you actually do also. This means you did not apply universality. You meant to limit your comment to religious ideas. Now because I don't know why you did this I will not disgress on the possible reasons.

I try never to impose my belief upon somebody who has another belief. So I would never use words like these to critisize somebody's atheism or disbelief.

Is that even possible? Atheism isn't something. It is the lack of something. Every monotheist is an atheist when it comes to all gods, except one. So every critisism that can be applied to an atheist can also be applied to a monotheist because by definition a monotheist is an atheist minus one.

So why don't you try?

Everyone has his own reasons for believing or not and for everybody there is enough place on this earth.

I don't see what demographic developments have to do with it. Also, you claim you don't try to impose your faith on others. BUt the fact is that many religious people do. You seem to claim that because you don't do this it is not a problem. Obviously religion is a problem when it comes to both discussion and conflict. You may see a potential for it so that we can all get along with different faiths, this is just not reality.
 

Sure, it is actually, because it's written in an old language that we don't understand anymore and because it has been passed down over many generations, wrong translated, faked and so on. Thousands of scientists try hardly to find out the truth about it. It's a naive error if somebody thinks that the bible could be read (in its current state) like any random contemporary book.
maybe you're talking more about church history than about the religion itself. For me the essence of christian religion (also of any other important religion) is peace, love and tolerance. Everything that causes mass murder, inquisition, dogmatism doesn't deserve to be called religion.

Well, then surely the three monotheistic religions don't deserve to be called religiou by you.

This is kind of strange. You claim your religion, whatever it is, is about peace, love and tolerance. But then you also claim all religion has to be about peace, love and tolerance. But frankly monotheism is by definition intolerant because at the core is the concept of one god, one truth. Then, the holy books of all three of them are filled with war. As for love, it is harder to talk about so I won't. And dogma, isn't that exactly what religion is about? Traditions, rituals and dogma?

Actually, you contradict yourself here. Before you claimed that everyone should believe what they want. But here you claim that one shouldn't believe in a religion of intolerance and war. Just as I suspected. Like every other person you do think people should believe certain things. Now I won't invoke Jesus and the hypocrit, that would be too cheap



I seem to see this very often. People that call themselves christian but disregard all elements of the barbarism that should follow it. Instead they use faith in god as a catalyst for their inherent ability to be a 'good' person. They just use god to strenghten the same processes that work inside of me, and every other human.

[maul]

Logic is the enemy.

[pianowolfi]

Are you sure you mean this? Because I doubt it? Because if this is true then you reject all ideas of morality. Any idea is as good as any other. I may not believe in divine morality, and I suspect you might meaning that you do not understand the implications of your worlds, but I do believe that there are some basic forms of morals and values all humans can agree upon. Therefore I believe that I have a responsibility to argue with people that have views I think are wrong or dangerous. But I also know I need to be careful about this.

You say that it is fine when one is a nazi or a racist. You claim it is fine for someone to believe in fairies and gnomes. If I had a child that believed or even saw fairies I would get het psychological help. I don't think that people should believe whatever they want. And I doubt you actually do also. This means you did not apply universality. You meant to limit your comment to religious ideas. Now because I don't know why you did this I will not disgress on the possible reasons.

Is that even possible? Atheism isn't something. It is the lack of something. Every monotheist is an atheist when it comes to all gods, except one. So every critisism that can be applied to an atheist can also be applied to a monotheist because by definition a monotheist is an atheist minus one.

So why don't you try?

I don't see what demographic developments have to do with it. Also, you claim you don't try to impose your faith on others. BUt the fact is that many religious people do. You seem to claim that because you don't do this it is not a problem. Obviously religion is a problem when it comes to both discussion and conflict. You may see a potential for it so that we can all get along with different faiths, this is just not reality.
 
Well, then surely the three monotheistic religions don't deserve to be called religiou by you.

This is kind of strange. You claim your religion, whatever it is, is about peace, love and tolerance. But then you also claim all religion has to be about peace, love and tolerance. But frankly monotheism is by definition intolerant because at the core is the concept of one god, one truth. Then, the holy books of all three of them are filled with war. As for love, it is harder to talk about so I won't. And dogma, isn't that exactly what religion is about? Traditions, rituals and dogma?

Actually, you contradict yourself here. Before you claimed that everyone should believe what they want. But here you claim that one shouldn't believe in a religion of intolerance and war. Just as I suspected. Like every other person you do think people should believe certain things. Now I won't invoke Jesus and the hypocrit, that would be too cheap



I seem to see this very often. People that call themselves christian but disregard all elements of the barbarism that should follow it. Instead they use faith in god as a catalyst for their inherent ability to be a 'good' person. They just use god to strenghten the same processes that work inside of me, and every other human.

Ok, just a short reply. I meant, I feel, as someone who has religious belief, discriminated and offended by memminger's words.  I believe in God though I am not in any church or religious group or st. I just feel like being made responsible for all that stupid mistakes and fanatic abuse that has taken place (and that I have nothing to do with) in the name of christianity. It's like someone would call me Nazi just because I am a german speaking person. So i have the reflex to defend myself.

And nazis or racists are just criminals and of course I don't support them. I meant "belief" in religious things like god or allah or krishna or whatever.

[maul]

I believe in

[pianowolfi]

I believe in

what?

[maul]

Precisely.

[berceuse]

I found this quote to be appropriate for this topic.
 "In following the Enlightenment to its logical end, deconstruction reaches nihilism. The meaning of human life is reduced to whatever happens to interest us at the moment, but from the truth values inherent in one event, nothing can be inferred about any other. It is this position which has attained intellectual dominance in the most prestigious academies and whose spillover effect has penetrated the entire culture. Thus, history is simply stories we tell each other about the past; literature is just our own interpretation of the texts; theology and religion are stories we tell each other about the gods; and philosophers should go off somewhere and quietly expire. Even science does not escape; it is merely stories we tell each other about nature."

[johnny-boy]

“Atheism isn't something. It is the lack of something” – Prometheus

Webster: a: disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

It certainly is something. It’s a belief that there are no gods. Come down off your high horse Promey. Your belief in no god can’t be substantiated any better than someone’s belief in God. Actually even less. Where do you think you came from?

Best, John

[prometheus]

No. I don't belief in no god. I don't give the whole issue any thought because it is impossible. There is no theory of god. There if nothing to believe or disbelief.

The disbelief of god and the belief that god does not exist are clearly different positions.

As for the second part. Of course that was meant as a provocation so I won't respond to that.

[prometheus]

Ok, just a short reply. I meant, I feel, as someone who has religious belief, discriminated and offended by memminger's words.  I believe in God though I am not in any church or religious group or st. I just feel like being made responsible for all that stupid mistakes and fanatic abuse that has taken place (and that I have nothing to do with) in the name of christianity. It's like someone would call me Nazi just because I am a german speaking person. So i have the reflex to defend myself.

And nazis or racists are just criminals and of course I don't support them. I meant "belief" in religious things like god or allah or krishna or whatever.

If you aren't a christian then you shouldn't choose to be offended. Sounds to me you aren't one. Because to reject the stone age thing you have to reject the bible. When you do that you reject Christ because the bible is the only source, well plus the Apocrypha. Which means you can't believe in Christ.

Why should you feel offended, one is always offened by own choice, when someone claims the stories of the bible describe acts of barbarism and crimes against humanity? Or why do you choose to be offended when someone claims that the Church blocked enlightenement and science? Both are true and both have nothing to do with you. Apparently you identify yourself as one of them. This is by choice. To descriminate people on the basis of the choices they make is very normal and acceptable.

As for liberal christians vs fundamentalist ones. The latter betray reason. Liberal christians betray faith and reason. I really don't think liberal christians are 'real' christians. If you think the bible is true you have to be a creationist, which is clearly a fairytale. If you selectively interpret parts of the bible as either symbolic myth or historic truth then this selection will always be arbitrary. You are constructing new religious dogma and idiology based on the way you determine what is symbolic and what is literal.
Being unreasonable for the sake of a little more reason is just as silly as being totally unreasonable in the first place.

I think the only reasonable thing to say is that the bible is undependable as a source of knowledge.

As for interpreting symbolic stories. This is either very hard or totally impossible. You need the contect of the society that wrote them. You will see pianistimo give her interpretation of the bible. But she knows nothing about the people that wrote those stories. Therefore she does not understand that Revelation is about the roman empire. And that 'the beast' is Emperor Nero.
Same for the old testament. You need to be an antrolopogist to understand the moral lessions that were implies, if any actually are, when it comes to the symbolic stories. For example, christianity is obsessed by sex. So they wrongfully interpret many things in the bible as being about sex. This while the stories may actually be about how to treat your slaves, how to treat visitors or how to get the most gain out of your daughter by getting her to marry someone rich.

This is why the bible tells a father to sell her daughter to the man that raped her. If he accepts to pay the father and marry her nothing went wrong. There was just a 'false start'. Now, when the girl gets raped and she does not marry him the family loses their daughter. In that society no one wanted to marry a non-virign girl. Thus the family could not get her married to someone right. This is the damage that is prevented if we follow the advice of the bible. Really, is this divine morality that we need today?

[thalbergmad]

No. I don't belief in no god.

That means you do then

[prometheus]

As long as I don't know what god is I can't take any position on it.

No one knows what god is since no one can postulate a falsifiable definition of god. Therefore I don't need to take any position. It will throw itself into the trash bin.

No need for me to argue that god is unlikely. I don't know how unlikely god is since I don't know what god is. Let alone that I belief he does not exist. It would be very silly to believe god does not exist.

[pianowolfi]

If you aren't a christian then you shouldn't choose to be offended. Sounds to me you aren't one. Because to reject the stone age thing you have to reject the bible. When you do that you reject Christ because the bible is the only source, well plus the Apocrypha. Which means you can't believe in Christ.

Well, perhaps i misunderstood memminger. Perhaps I shouldn't have come into this discussion.
What I believe: I am christian. What I'm definitely not: a creationist. You always tend to say either-or. But things aren't that black and white. One can be christian and contemporary and up to date, it is not necessarily a contradiction.

Why should you feel offended, one is always offened by own choice, when someone claims the stories of the bible describe acts of barbarism and crimes against humanity?

It's a big difference between old and new testament

Or why do you choose to be offended when someone claims that the Church blocked enlightenement and science? Both are true and both have nothing to do with you.

I agree so far but memminger didn't make a difference between church and christian people. I am currently in no church at all.

  Apparently you identify yourself as one of them.

No I don't.

This is by choice. To descriminate people on the basis of the choices they make is very normal and acceptable.

i can't find dicrimination something normal. Critique of course yes. But perhaps there are some misunderstandings? For us in middle Europe discrimination is not politically correct. And not human.

As for liberal christians vs fundamentalist ones. The latter betray reason. Liberal christians betray faith and reason. I really don't think liberal christians are 'real' christians. If you think the bible is true you have to be a creationist

I definitely don't agree. and I definitely am not a creationist, if I try to understand what the bible is and what it says. I'm just on a way and reason is my first instance to decide between true or false.   

which is clearly a fairytale. If you selectively interpret parts of the bible as either symbolic myth or historic truth then this selection will always be arbitrary. You are constructing new religious dogma and idiology based on the way you determine what is symbolic and what is literal.
Being unreasonable for the sake of a little more reason is just as silly as being totally unreasonable in the first place.

I think the only reasonable thing to say is that the bible is undependable as a source of knowledge.

As for interpreting symbolic stories. This is either very hard or totally impossible. You need the contect of the society that wrote them. You will see pianistimo give her interpretation of the bible. But she knows nothing about the people that wrote those stories. Therefore she does not understand that Revelation is about the roman empire. And that 'the beast' is Emperor Nero.

That's only one of many interpretations

Same for the old testament. You need to be an antrolopogist to understand the moral lessions that were implies, if any actually are, when it comes to the symbolic stories. For example, christianity is obsessed by sex.

Ok, then I definitely am Christian

So they wrongfully interpret many things in the bible as being about sex. This while the stories may actually be about how to treat your slaves

I always treat my slaves very decently ,

how to treat visitors or how to get the most gain out of your daughter by getting her to marry someone rich.

This is why the bible tells a father to sell her daughter to the man that raped her. If he accepts to pay the father and marry her nothing went wrong. There was just a 'false start'. Now, when the girl gets raped and she does not marry him the family loses their daughter. In that society no one wanted to marry a non-virign girl. Thus the family could not get her married to someone right. This is the damage that is prevented if we follow the advice of the bible. Really, is this divine morality that we need today?

I can't comment on this story because I never read that. I haven't read the whole bible yet.   

[prometheus]

One can be christian and contemporary and up to date, it is not necessarily a contradiction.

The question is what justifies this. If the bible is the word of god then it clearly describes creationism and then creationism must be true, which is obviously not the case, which means the bible cannot be the word of god.
If you think the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic and never actually happened then Christ didn't die for your sins. Then christianity cannot exist.

There are all kinds of problems with this. If you are a christian and a more sensible person then those that lived during the NT then you betray both faith and reason.

  It's a big difference between old and new testament

Yes, it's quite a difference. But both of them make up the bible.

No I don't.

Then what exactly is so offending to you about that what Memminger said?

I can't find dicrimination something normal. Critique of course yes. But perhaps there are some misunderstandings? For us in middle Europe discrimination is not politically correct. And not human.

Everyone is supposed to learn discrimination in math class. You don't seem to understand what is meant with discrimination. You seem to think that discrimination is that what we more often understand as 'negative' discrimination, or to discriminate against someone. Discrimination means 'to discriminate', obviously. It means to observe a difference between things, distinguish one from the other. It does not mean not granting equal rights when you observe a difference between people. Since Memminger did not call for a different treatment of religious people or less rights for religious people I couldn't see how you could mean 'illegal discrimination'.

Not human? What's that? 

I definitely don't agree. and I definitely am not a creationist, if I try to understand what the bible is and what it says.

But then you do let yourself be influenced by a stone age society even more barbaric than the Taliban. So you are 'one of them'. So again, what is so unfair about this criticism that causes you to make accusations of negative discrimination?

Or do you try to read the bible in the same way I do? Because the way you put it here it seems it has something to do with the way you practice your religion. That way it does seem that you look for religious guidance and inspiration in this book. And that is presicely the behaviour that is critisized. Memmniger wasn't just talking about creationism and the church. I think he also meant to say that it is very very very silly to look for moral guidance in a book written by totally backwater people we would view as total barbarians today. And this fact does should because the old testament is terrible as a moral guide. The OT god must be one of the least pleasant characters in all literature. And surely literature excells in mean and unpleasant characters of all kinds.

But the NT is very different and a big improvement. The problem is that he needs to be cruxified. This whole point of christianity is so absurd. And what morals does it teach? To me it is incomprehencible. It makes the rest of the NT worthless. I think they should just delete that part of the story and try to rewrite it in a way that is both sensible, literaturely responsible and does touch upon actual ethics.

You really start to learn how poor the bible is when you read the epic poem of Gilgamesh. Some parts of the bible plagerise this work. Gilgamesh is really really excellent. It touches on important points concerning life, ethics and morality, it lets the main characters make mistakes. It shows a form of enlightenment you would think would not exist pre-renaissance. Well, maybe that goes a bit too far. But that is the impression you get.

[pianistimo]

Haydn's 'the heavens are telling (the glory of God)' is one of my premises.  i mean - what kind of big bang could bring such ordered chaos out there.  the planets have moons and certain attributes that could only have been created different from each other.  otherwise, everything would be an asteroid.  but, it's not.  in fact, the stars have certain planned constellations.  from earliest man - they seem to tell a story in the sky.  it's almost like God wants us to 'read' from them and learn.  if you do - you see a much different sky than just the 'gods' of the romans or greeks.  you see a sky with a story that God himself told.  not sure the whole story - but when i look at the stars i think of God.

also, for many of you who speak out of both sides of your mouth in terms of what you believe biblically vs. maritally.  i mean, if you want to find a wife (whom you don't have to 'keep' in the kitchen - but wants to be in it) you'll probably have to find a christian that is not ashamed of the roles that God created in the first place.  in fact, the idea of marriage was God's.  of course, st. paul says that not everyone HAS to be married.  that there are friendships and some people do not want to be married.  that's ok.  but, sexually, he says if one is tempted to go beyond that - they should be married. 

so, the bible, in effect, dissolves many problems of sexual diseases, the roles of men/women, what we are here for (to serve God and others), and even dietary things that keep us healthy.  did you know that many of the dietary restrictions helped people avoid cancer.  you might say that religion IS a cancer - but what if it is the opposite?  a sort of antidote.  several magazine and newspaper articles have stated that eating shellfish or scavenger type fish with high amounts of toxins and mercury -  have been the possible cause of many health problems.  people don't want to believe it because it would make God's word have a real reason for being.  he specifically states, 'do not eat anything that dies by itself (also).'  maybe because it died from a disease.

also, many places in the ot were helping ancient people with cleanliness.  there is never  a place which admonishes people to be dirty or unclean.  all possible conditions were talked about openly so that people would understand HOW to stay as clean as possible.  I'd  say God is pretty smart.  after all, if He made us the way we are - then He probably knows how to keep us clean and healthy - which is the role that most responsible parents take on immediately.

on top of that, he tells us what will bless or curse our lives.  no science textbook gets into that detail.  they don't talk about much beyond what is literally a science.  what if there are things that are not science per se - but are very important to our daily lives.  is one unimportant because it impacts our neighbor, land, or water.  God always seems to be involved with the environment.  He actively promoted burying waste, keeping land rests (which involves letting the land lie fallow every three years) to regenerate itself and not become depleted, not allowing daughters or sons to become harlots or pimps, not allowing witchcraft, having right judgement and weights, not breeding two kinds of cattle together, not weaving different kinds of fabrics together, not cursing or placing stumbling blocks in front of deaf or blind people, not slandering people, not making tatoo marks on one's body, not turning to mediums or spiritists, rising up before the aged, not oppressing the alien, not cursing your mother or father, not committing adultery, not laying with an animal as with a person, no sexual relationships within a family as with brother/sister or uncle or aunt, etc. ...'moreover...you shal not follow the customs of the nation which i shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore i have abhorred them.'

God tells us plainly what He likes and doesn't like.  if there is any other god - he/she has not spoken of what they expect or like or don't like.  they are the unknown gods and not the other way around.  God is known.  it's just that people don't read the bible.

[bella musica]

 

[berceuse]

Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Chopin, Dvorak, Elgar, Franck, Gounod, Handel, Haydn, Ives, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Messiaen, Mozart, Schubert, Stravinsky, Wagner (I probably missed a lot more) were all Christian.

Interesting....

[bella musica]

 

[brewtality]

Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Chopin, Dvorak, Elgar, Franck, Gounod, Handel, Haydn, Ives, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Messiaen, Mozart, Schubert, Stravinsky, Wagner (I probably missed a lot more) were all Christian.

Interesting....

What's your point? I could just as easily say Liszt, Stravinsky and Wagner (I probably missed a lot more) were all womanisers. Interesting...

Yeah, and how about people like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, or Johannes Kepler?  What about people like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?  Charles Dickens and Noah Webster?  Or think of people like Mother Teresa, Florence Nightingale?

No, obviously these people's minds were so brainwashed that they were not able to contribute anything at all to the world.   People like Karl Marx,  Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin did much more for society than any of those other people. 

Hitler was a christian.

[berceuse]

What's your point? I could just as easily say Liszt, Stravinsky and Wagner (I probably missed a lot more) were all womanisers. Interesting...

I was not suggesting Christians don't commit sins or are free from fault. Nobody is perfect. It was more of a response to memminger who claims all Christians are brainwashed and unintelligent. So you're going to tell me people so open-minded, perspicacious, and creative as Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, etc. were incapable of thinking for themselves and just displayed blind obedience towards the Church? I find that laughable.

 Some people think Christians walk around all day quoting Scripture and trying to subjugate others with their beliefs. Many Christians, myself included, keep their beliefs and practices to themselves. Chopin is a great example of this. One of his servants is quoted as saying " He was religious but, as I could observe, he didn't like to let it be known to anybody........ I watched by night, through the keyhole in order to see my master. And I saw him on his knees, leaning on his bed. He remained a long time in this position and prayed eagerly."

Also, I realize that Liszt was a womanizer in his earlier life. As he grew older he had several bouts of depression over it. Again, nobody is perfect. He later repented and became a devout Catholic.

"Through Christ alone, through resigned suffering in God, salvation and rescue come to us" Franz Liszt

I have plenty more quotes, but I think you get the idea.

As I stated before, I rarely disuss my religious beliefs with anybody (today being an exception), I just felt memminger's remarks were completley farcical and without warrant. So sorry if I offended anyone with any of my comments.

[bearzinthehood]

Subjective opinion.  Stereotyping.  Lack of knowledge.  Brainwashed from birth.  Boundaries, not infinity.  Blind belief in 'the system'.  Nothing used as tactic to develop morality.  Mockery of other human beings.  Uninformed bias.  Generalizing.  Lack of ability to see the big picture.  Cold.  Parasitical.  Sheltered from reality.  Criticism of all people within a certain category.  Hypocritical.  To be pitied, rather than scorned.

Perhaps such mockery is deserved if one is foolish to type asinine posts like this in defense of something as idiotic as religion.  "Sheltered from reality?"  Hardly.  Try "based in reality."  Waste your pity on someone else, or save it for yourself once you realize how foolish you've been your whole life.

[maul]

I'm getting a wiff of that really potent soap used to scrub the brain away of its potential and logic. Smells kind of nasty.

[alejo_90]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

You should add:

- Horrendous killing of millions of people in the name of Jesus and God. (The Holy Inquisition for example).

- The prostituting of Jesus' message for political power and money making.

- Pathological disgust for sexuality. (The "Immaculate Virgin" Mary - Immaculate from the latin " Macula" wich means "Stain". So in other words, Mary never got "stained" with sex and got pregnant by the Holy Spirit / Jesus supposedly never got laid in his life. / Catholic or Christian Priests make a chastity vote [so they end up raping kids]).

- Subjective hate to the female gender (Eve was born from one of Adam's ribs / Eve was the one who tempted Adam into taking the apple).

- And some more

That's the harsh reality.

Best Wishes
Alex

[berceuse]

You should add:

- Horrendous killing of millions of people in the name of Jesus and God. (The Holy Inquisition for example).

- The prostituting of Jesus' message for political power and money making.

- Pathological disgust for sexuality. (The "Immaculate Virgin" Mary - Immaculate from the latin " Macula" wich means "Stain". So in other words, Mary never got "stained" with sex and got pregnant by the Holy Spirit / Jesus supposedly never got laid in his life. / Catholic or Christian Priests make a chastity vote [so they end up raping kids]).

- Subjective hate to the female gender (Eve was born from one of Adam's ribs / Eve was the one who tempted Adam into taking the apple).

- And some more

That's the harsh reality.

Best Wishes
Alex

Why stop with the 2.1 billion Christians. Why not attack Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Bahá'í, Buddhism, Juche, Spiritism, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, etc.

[alejo_90]

Why stop with the 2.1 billion Christians. Why not attack Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Bahá'í, Buddhism, Juche, Spiritism, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, etc.

Because the thread is about christianity. Other religions certainly have thier own loads of crappy dogmas, but right now that's not the point.

Best
Alex

[mephisto]

Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Chopin, Dvorak, Elgar, Franck, Gounod, Handel, Haydn, Ives, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Messiaen, Mozart, Schubert, Stravinsky, Wagner (I probably missed a lot more) were all Christian.

Interesting....

Most of these composers lived a long time ago. Not being christian would be considered insane.

Messiaen did probably have very religious parents, and let us just face it, he lived in France, and France is a very catholic country.

[prometheus]

The above post:  Another plague of the MIND

The number of antitheists in the world is very very extremely small. So it cannot be a virus because it does not seem to spread.

Subjective opinion.

What was subjective?

Stereotyping.

He did not talk about actual people. He talked about the effect in general and the influence it has no some people.

Lack of knowledge.

What is he ignorant from?

Brainwashed from birth.

People just don't get brainwashed to be antitheists. And surely not on the level as people get brainwashed to become christians. The basic way one becomes a christian is when one was told to be on as a child. This is a simple basic obvervation. It would also be easy to see that this isn't true for antitheists.

Boundaries, not infinity.

He was talking about the church limiting technological development. So in which way does antitheism do the same?

Blind belief in 'the system'.

What system?

Nothing used as tactic to develop morality.

What? You mean that antitheists have no morality? Or do you mean they use 'nothing as a tactic'? This comment isn't just non-sensical. The bit of sense you can try to extract from it is also false. People don't commit murder and rape on a daily basis is it wasn't for their fear of god.

Mockery of other human beings.

He didn't talk about humab beings. He talked about the idiology. It would be like saying that you are mocking people when you critisize facism or neo-nazism. And that this critizism is thus wrong.

Uninformed bias.

This is funny because these two words contradict each other.

Generalizing.

He never said he spoke about all christian. He isn't even talking about people. He is talking about the ideas behind christianity.

Lack of ability to see the big picture.

So how does the big picture justify stone age morality? With this you imply that what he says is correct but just lacks the right perspective causing him to draw the wrong conclusion.

Cold.

Everyone sounds cold over the internet. There is no non-verbal language. Also, this is ad hominem. If a person is cold or not has nothing to do with whatever he says is true or not.

Parasitical.

Are you sure you know what this word means?

Sheltered from reality.

What property of reality, you assume memmger is sceltered from, gives us new perspective on the things he described.

Criticism of all people within a certain category.

Yes. So? It I critisize fascism I also critisize people within a certain category. If I compliment generosity I do the same. So?

Hypocritical.

How so? And how so aren't you one now? If he is one then you must be one also since you are parodying everything he said? Surely you know Jesuses lesson on this topic, right?

To be pitied, rather than scorned.

Are you giving advice to god?

[prometheus]

Yeah, and how about people like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, or Johannes Kepler?  What about people like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?  Charles Dickens and Noah Webster?  Or think of people like Mother Teresa, Florence Nightingale?

George Washington was a terrorist. Let's get that clear first.

As for the others. If Isaac Newton was a true christian then he didn't need to question her about gravity. He may have been a christian. But if it had one influence on his life it would have been a negative one. Newton claimed his biggest life accomplishment wa being celibate, as I am as well. So if you think the world should thank Christian dogma for the granting us 'the celebate Newton', then yes you have a point. But Netwon may have cared about it, today no one does. He is famous for being scientist. Now, if Netwon was a better christian he wouldn't have been a scientist. One doesn't question the the ways of god. One does not try to predict the ways of god. God is and you accept it.

So in the case of Newton we can probably assume he was religious in some form. But when it comes to the other scientists. They may have lied about their religion because religion opposes science. If they claimed they weren't christian this may have damaged their lives.

No, obviously these people's minds were so brainwashed that they were not able to contribute anything at all to the world.

No one ever claimed religious people don't contribute to the world. This a straw man fallacy. It was claimed that religion limits scientific development. And this is true because these scientists weren't brainwashed enough to not contribute.

People like Karl Marx,  Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin did much more for society than any of those other people. 

Putting Karl Marx together with Hitler and Stalin just shows your ignorance. Marx was a political economist. He never helt any power and he never killed anyone. He was a collegue and contemporary of Adam Smith. So putting Marx with those two is the same as putting Smith with those two. Marx died long before the rise of fascism.

Also, Hitler was clearly christian. Roosevelt, who really liked Stalin and befriended him, and described him as "a Christian gentleman". The nature of the faith of Stalin isn't clear. He was on the side of christianity in USSR. The Bolshevists were viewed as Jewish. The CIA researched this and that may have  inspired Roosefelts comment. So we have two fascists who weren't atheists and an atheist who weren't a fascist. Really, if you try to use shallow rhetoric. Do it correctly. Hint: Mao, Pol Pot.

I'm not trying to say that all Christians are perfect and everyone who isn't a Christian is a maniacal serial killer.  I am just sick to death of people instantly assuming that all Christians are psychos who live in caves and beat people over the heads with a Bible.

Staw man. Maybe you should have read better and have given it more thought before you typed this reply to it. The point is that christians believe in a book written by 'those than lived in caves(of course they didn't but they were stone age people)', not that they themselves are stone age people. If christians were then the argument wouldn't hold because there is nothing wrong from stone age people taking advice from other stone age people. But they aren't stone age people, obviously.

[prometheus]

I was not suggesting Christians don't commit sins or are free from fault. Nobody is perfect.

Christianity claims we are all sinful and that nothing, but Jesus, can prevent sin. So christians claim the opposite of what you claim they don't claim. Christians claim they are sinners.

It was more of a response to memminger who claims all Christians are brainwashed and unintelligent.

The point of brainwashing is that intelligence plays no role. If christians are unintelligent then no brainwashing is needed. So you just sneaked in an insult there. Being brainwashed isn't generally an insult. You turned his point into a straw man and then try to defeat it because it is an insult. Yes, you refuted the insult. But you also created it.

So you're going to tell me people so open-minded, perspicacious, and creative as Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, etc. were incapable of thinking for themselves and just displayed blind obedience towards the Church? I find that laughable.

If you think they didn't then they weren't proper christians. Again, it is obviously that part of the dogma is to follow it. One just accepts religion dogma. One does not question it. If the church claims something then it is true because the church claims it. Just look at the pope. Have you ever seen him make an argument? No. Because to do so would be blasphomy. God does not need arguments. His words are law. Just read Pianistimo.

Some people think Christians walk around all day quoting Scripture and trying to subjugate others with their beliefs.

No one really talking about this. So maybe some people do think this. And maybe even someone here does think this. You have not been able to identify those people and thus you assume they are here.

Many Christians, myself included, keep their beliefs and practices to themselves.

Well, here you failed at keeping it for yourself. It really is a hard thing to do. Religion isn't just a personal matter. Obviously religion is practiced in groups by almost everyone.

As I stated before, I rarely disuss my religious beliefs with anybody (today being an exception), I just felt memminger's remarks were completley farcical and without warrant. So sorry if I offended anyone with any of my comments.

Of course no one chooses to be offened, at least I hope. I don't think you really touched on that what Memminger said. You just made some assumptions based on the things he said and then you countered those. But no one here expressed the views you assumed naturally follow from the things Memminger made.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, about your first point, two threads up - celibacy neither proves or disproves the bible.  Christ was celibate.

then i skipped to the part that jumped out at me.  george washington a terrorist?  he was a conscripted soldier that became a general in a short time.  do you know why.  he could move around like a terrorist (that's for sure).  often going long distances with little food/water - and knowing the territory he did.  BUT, he was fighting opression of a fledgling country that was to become the greatest country to fight for human rights.  is there any other country that has fought for them (and also caused many problems as well - but not purposely from the root of it's governmental foundation).  people say 'well, what about slavery.'  if you are talking about the 'times' that they lived - almost every country had 'slaves.'  no, it was not right - but the freedoms we enjoy now were because abraham lincoln recognized that God was sovereign over all and the presidents had limited power for a limited amount of time.  he was considering himself a steward and not a powerhouse.  therefore, he let the slaves go.  what other country has had rulers that suddenly changed their mind and let 'the people go?'  this seems all the more similar to the exodus of egypt - where a whole group of people are suddenly let free - in a free country - and allowed to start a life according to the principles of 'life, liberty, and happiness.'  what other country includes happiness.

of course, with the price of gas and food going up - and probably this winter many other things (interest rates on credit cards - chase is at 32% but we nixed that card a while back) there's not so much happiness anymore.  but, you get the point.  this is a free country.  a place where people often 'start again' after immigrating from other countries on their own.  they decide this is where they want to live.  why?  because it has many riches and blessings.  but they are being taken away - our weather has surely changed and our crops are not the 'waving wheat fields' they used to be.  even our flag is battered and torn.  our system is falling apart.  we know it.  but, the whole world is falling apart.  we are witnessing the 'end of an age.'  we think it will result in a 'one world system' but only for a short time according to the bible.

[pianowolfi]

Ok, prometheus, I don't have the time to go in details about all your claims.  I Just pick out one error i can't leave without correction: Hitler was definitely not christian. He used to talk about god as "The allmighty" but he never specified that. For me and many other people here in Europe this term "allmighty" in hitlers mouth means not "God" but "Satan" And it is obvious. I know that, because my father lived in these times and told me many many facts and experiences about WW2 and "third Reich". Just among others: whenever somebody said to him "heil Hitler" he responded with "Grüss Gott" and that was very brave I think. somebody could have arrested him and brought him to a concentration camp. Hitler didn't want to have a person higher than himself. To claim that Hitler was christian is absolute nonsense imo. you should really do more research about the things you say.

[pianistimo]

the only thing i have in common with the pope is that occasionally i wave my hand.  why did you put us together?  i often quote scripture as well - but i usually don't cross myself afterwards. 

one thing i am learning on this forum - is that there are so many different beliefs and that we can be tolerant and not bigoted by poking fun at other religions.  occasionally, i get 'lutherized' and start poking here and there - but it is mostly in jest because i realize that usually the church that a person is brought up in is the one they are most comfortable with.

i am no different - and yet - i started thinking about all this (religion) when i was 16 or 17.  i lost faith - so to speak - in blindly following my parents and simply quit doing 'religious things.'  they couldn't force me to think or feel or do anything they wanted me to think, feel, or do.  then, slowly, after hearing God's word over and over at church - one day i thought 'ok.  i might read the bible a bit.'  so i'd read here and there - but wouldn't really be able to put it all together.   but, i kept listening to sermons and things.  and finally around age 21 came to the realization that i needed God more than i thought.  despite the lapses in faith - He always protected and guided me whenever i prayed.  even if it was a 'desperate' prayer.  many times when younger i'd pray - 'ok. God if you'll do this for me - i'll be good.'  then, after He'd perform the help - i'd forget what i said.  not that i was so bad - but i'd just sort of forget God and not pray to Him. 

then, i started realizing how much i loved God for helping me - whether i was a good child or bad.  i realized that his love was far more than a parental love.  He cares about all his children and carefully guides them to a point where they can mature and become helpful to others and their own family.  when i had my family - i used God's influence to express love to my children.  i realized that God has his reasons for setting upt he world the way he did  - and i didn't try to fight the natural flow of life.  i didn't try to avoid having children, or being a mom, or anything - and despite the difficulties along the way - there have been so many blessings.  i know some women try to delay motherhood and  all for a career - but unless you are strapped for cash - it's better, imo - to go with God's plan for your life and have children when you are younger (and more energetic).  it keeps women out of trouble.  others here may think that i am strangled by the bible - but the blessings that i see are that you have posterity (children), an opportunity to learn to teach (since we are told not to teach those in authority above us), and a huge lesson in giving up what we want for someone else (our husband and children).  it's a letting go of the systems of our world - greed - and turning to a way of giving without expecting a lot in return. 

what do we learn in school.  that women can be anything = but they don't have to focus on learning about motherhood, breastfeeding, caring for children, planning meals, learning to budget.  those things are not taught as much to younger women.  it's expected that their parents will teach them.  but, much knowledge is being lost.  technology doesn't solve basic human knowledge lapses.  our grandparents probably knew a lot more about raising children.  nowdays, we are starting from square one - it seems - to understand how to teach children to have discipline and work ethic.  some are successful - but it's harder in this day and age.  for one thing - we don't have support of extended family nearby.  people live long distances from each other.  i look at some cultures that stay together more and think that is really ideal because the older women can teach the younger (and similarly the older men with younger men).

families are breaking apart at an alarming rate.  people don't even understand how to be married - let alone raise a family.  this is knowledge that is just as important as science progressing.  otherwise, the foundation of our society will be lonely children who grow up with a lot of pent up agression.  the bible, to me, is right about everything from roles of women and men - to whatever you can think that might not be covered by the bible - but actually is.

[thalbergmad]

Christ was celibate.

No he wasn't. He had it off with that Mary Magdelene bird.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

No he wasn't. He had it off with that Mary Magdelene bird.

Thal

 Hahahaha that's just a rumour caused by that movie "da Vinci Code" and by a couple of conspiracy theories floating around. But if true, why not?

[pianistimo]

you aren't reading the bible.  that was the 'da vinci code.' 

if Christ had a living relative today -proven genetically - i'd kinda wonder.  but there is no proof.  mary (his mother) had given Christ brothers and sisters? from joseph - but Christ had no relationship with the other mary (mary magdalene).  that would be the only way to prove that mary magdalene had a relationship with Him.

mary magdalene was quite grateful to Christ and followed him around so much because she had been freed from demon posession - i believe.  have to look it up again.  anyway, she was probably a very grateful woman.  i think there are reasons to believe that Christ had a lot of sympathy - but in terms of attraction to any woman - He kept himself free.  i don't know how He had the strength except that God gave it to him.  the 'woman' idea - in the bible - seems to always refer to a complete CHURCH.  we will be married to Christ as a complete union of spirit to spirit. 

[thalbergmad]

you aren't reading the bible.  that was the 'da vinci code.' 
 

I have read neither in their entirety.

The theory that Christ had children with Mary Magdelene has been around for years.

You are correct that there is no proof and in the same fashion, there is also no proof that he was crucified and no proof that he rose again. It is all in that strange book of fables that you love so much.

Thal

[pianistimo]

luke 8:2 - Jesus Christ met mary magdalene shortly into his three year discipleship and spreading of the gospel.  (after baptism at age 30).  he didn't have a long relationship with this woman.  he met her when he sent seven demons out from her in verse 2. 

people think that only she and Jesus mother were standing near the cruxifiction site after His death, but matt. 27:55 says that 'many women' were standing there (among whom closest to him were his mother and mary magdalene).  the fact that so many others were there indicates to me that he wasn't particularly singling out mary magdalene for favor.