Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Terrorist plot foiled
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71353 is a reply to message #71343] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 06:29   |
![Deej [1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "Deej [1] is currently offline")
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie,
Can you name even one instance wherein a population becaume Muslim by any
means other than military conquest?
Deej
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
>
> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
cycle.
>
> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
> in the attack.
>
> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>
> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of what
> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> >> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
> > them?
> > Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
local
> > church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
American
> > Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether
they
> > would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
other
> > religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
the
> > Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
never
> > gave a straight answer.
> >
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
> >> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
> >> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
> >> disagreement.
> >>
> >> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
> >> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
> >>
> >> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
to
> >> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
> >> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
> >>
> >> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
> > them?
> >> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
> >> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
> >> manipulated in the process.
> >>
> >> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
> >>
> >> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
> >> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> >>>> nature of reality.
> >>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
nightly
> > news
> >>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
> >>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
> > rather
> >>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
> > rather
> >>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:44e3ae02@linux...
> >>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
> > dialog
> >>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> >>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Great post, Sarah.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sarah wrote:
> >>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
> > learned
> >>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
> > compelled
> >>> to
> >>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
> > wrong
> >>> in
> >>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
> > to
> >>> view
> >>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
> >>> "me."
> >>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
Faith
> > is
> >>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
> > rest
> >>> on
> >>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
definition
> >>> if
> >>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
> > If
> >>> you
> >>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe
in
> >>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> >>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
> > personally
> >>> do
> >>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
> > no
> >>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
> > claims.
> >>> I
> >>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
truly
> >>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
this
> >>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
superficial
> >>> and
> >>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
it's
> >>> silly
> >>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
the
> >>> sky."
> >>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
opposite,
> > my
> >>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
> > dogma
> >>> that
> >>>>> I have no reason to believe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
words:
> > I
> >>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
time
> >>> ago),
> >>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
believe
> >>> that
> >>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
> >>> smattering
> >>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
> >>> claims
> >>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
human
> >>> beings
> >>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
> > the
> >>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
being.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe
in
> > a
> >>> way
> >>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
> > you
> >>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
> >>> What I
> >>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
Because
> >>> you
> >>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
> > parents
> >>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
> >>> happened
> >>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
> > in
> >>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> >>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
> >>> make
> >>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of
a
> >>> threat
> >>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
him?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
> > with
> >>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right
or
> >>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
> >>> Heaven,
> >>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
> >>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
> > on
> >>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
is
> >>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
> > restrained
> >>> by
> >>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
Einstein
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
> >>> evil of
> >>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
> > what
> >>> has
> >>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
> > believe
> >>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
the
> >>>>> potential consequences of this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
> >>> that I
> >>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
now
> >>> that
> >>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
> > to
> >>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
> >>> beliefs
> >>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
> > not
> >>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
> > faith.
> >>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
> >>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
God
> >>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> >>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
are
> >>>>>> human at the source.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> >>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> >>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
then
> >>> left
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
> > competition.
> >>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> >>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> >>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> >>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
> >>>>>>> effective
> >>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> >>>>>> rules".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> >>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
fine
> >>> with
> >>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun
to
> >>> say
> >>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
> >>> here
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
then.
> >>> And
> >>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
> > It's
> >>> just
> >>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
> > backward
> >>>>>>> human
> >>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
> > inspired
> >>> by
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> supreme being.
> >>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> >>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> >>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> >>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> >>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> >>>>>> themselves...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> >>>>>> assumptions about existence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
Iraqis
> >>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
What
> >>> do
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
> > brown
> >>>>>>> rice?
> >>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
> > 100?
> >>>>>> 500?
> >>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
> > and
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>> families.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
> >>> maimed.
> >>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
think
> >>> of
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but
> > it's
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
> > jumpsuits
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> >>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
> >>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> >>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
> >>>>>> would have to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
themselves
> > to
> >>> do
> >>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
> >>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> >>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> >>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> >>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> >>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
> > kill
> >>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> >>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> >>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71354 is a reply to message #71353] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 07:01 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
How about Hinduism? Sikhism? Buddhism?
People have converted to Islam right here in the USA. I don't think
we've been conquered by anyone lately (aside from the neo-con takeover
still in progress, maybe neo-cons are secretly Islamic? ;^)
I will grant you that conquering and spreading religious doctrine have
gone hand in hand in the past, notably by various Islamic AND Christian
sects. You start mixing religion and government and that's what you get.
Religion becomes a tool of empire.
I'm with Jefferson on this one.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> Jamie,
>
> Can you name even one instance wherein a population becaume Muslim by any
> means other than military conquest?
>
> Deej
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
>> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
> cycle.
>> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
>> in the attack.
>>
>> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
>> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
>> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>>
>> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of what
>> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>>> them?
>>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
> local
>>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
> American
>>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether
> they
>>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
> other
>>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
> the
>>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
> never
>>> gave a straight answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
>>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
>>>> disagreement.
>>>>
>>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
>>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>>>>
>>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
> to
>>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
>>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>>>>
>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>>> them?
>>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
>>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
>>>> manipulated in the process.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>>>>
>>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
>>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
> nightly
>>> news
>>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
>>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
>>> rather
>>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
>>> rather
>>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:44e3ae02@linux...
>>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
>>> dialog
>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah wrote:
>>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
>>> learned
>>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
>>> compelled
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
>>> wrong
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
>>> to
>>>>> view
>>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
>>>>> "me."
>>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
> Faith
>>> is
>>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
>>> rest
>>>>> on
>>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
> definition
>>>>> if
>>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
>>> If
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe
> in
>>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
>>> personally
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
>>> no
>>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
>>> claims.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
> truly
>>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
> this
>>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
> superficial
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
> it's
>>>>> silly
>>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
> the
>>>>> sky."
>>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
> opposite,
>>> my
>>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
>>> dogma
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
> words:
>>> I
>>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
> time
>>>>> ago),
>>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
> believe
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
>>>>> smattering
>>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
>>>>> claims
>>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
> human
>>>>> beings
>>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
>>> the
>>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
> being.
>>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe
> in
>>> a
>>>>> way
>>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
>>> you
>>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
>>>>> What I
>>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
> Because
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
>>> parents
>>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
>>>>> happened
>>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
>>> in
>>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
>>>>> make
>>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of
> a
>>>>> threat
>>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
> him?
>>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
>>> with
>>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right
> or
>>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
>>>>> Heaven,
>>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
>>> on
>>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
> is
>>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
>>> restrained
>>>>> by
>>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
> Einstein
>>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
>>>>> evil of
>>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
>>> what
>>>>> has
>>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
>>> believe
>>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
> the
>>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
>>>>> that I
>>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
> now
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
>>> to
>>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
>>>>> beliefs
>>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
>>> not
>>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
> news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
> God
>>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
> are
>>>>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
> then
>>>>> left
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
>>> competition.
>>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>>>>> rules".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
> fine
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun
> to
>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
>>>>> here
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
> then.
>>>>> And
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
>>> It's
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
>>> backward
>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
>>> inspired
>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> supreme being.
>>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
> Iraqis
>>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
> What
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
>>> brown
>>>>>>>>> rice?
>>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
>>> 100?
>>>>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
>>>>> maimed.
>>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
> think
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but
>>> it's
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
>>> jumpsuits
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
> themselves
>>> to
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
>>> kill
>>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71355 is a reply to message #71354] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 07:49 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
But you still didn't answer my question. Can you name even one? Yes, there
are examples of Chiristianity being spread by conquest, but there are also
many examples where it wasn't. In this country, people can practice any
religion they want. Is that true in countries that are Muslim theocracies?
Can you name even one?
Deej
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e47542@linux...
>
> How about Hinduism? Sikhism? Buddhism?
>
> People have converted to Islam right here in the USA. I don't think
> we've been conquered by anyone lately (aside from the neo-con takeover
> still in progress, maybe neo-cons are secretly Islamic? ;^)
>
> I will grant you that conquering and spreading religious doctrine have
> gone hand in hand in the past, notably by various Islamic AND Christian
> sects. You start mixing religion and government and that's what you get.
> Religion becomes a tool of empire.
>
> I'm with Jefferson on this one.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > Jamie,
> >
> > Can you name even one instance wherein a population becaume Muslim by
any
> > means other than military conquest?
> >
> > Deej
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
> >> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
> > cycle.
> >> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
> >> in the attack.
> >>
> >> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
> >> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
> >> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
> >>
> >> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of
what
> >> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
about
> >>> them?
> >>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
> > local
> >>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
> > American
> >>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims
whether
> > they
> >>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
> > other
> >>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
> > the
> >>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
> > never
> >>> gave a straight answer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:44e3f062@linux...
> >>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
> >>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing
for
> >>>> disagreement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the
nightly
> >>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
> > to
> >>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors
concluded
> >>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
> >>>>
> >>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
about
> >>> them?
> >>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people
with
> >>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used
and
> >>>> manipulated in the process.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
> >>>>
> >>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
> >>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
the
> >>>>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
> > nightly
> >>> news
> >>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
> >>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
> >>> rather
> >>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife
would
> >>> rather
> >>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:44e3ae02@linux...
> >>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
> >>> dialog
> >>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
the
> >>>>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sarah wrote:
> >>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
> >>> learned
> >>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
> >>> compelled
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
> >>> wrong
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still
trying
> >>> to
> >>>>> view
> >>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to
call
> >>>>> "me."
> >>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
> > Faith
> >>> is
> >>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
> >>> rest
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
> > definition
> >>>>> if
> >>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to
me.
> >>> If
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I
believe
> > in
> >>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> >>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
> >>> personally
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I
see
> >>> no
> >>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
> >>> claims.
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
> > truly
> >>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
> > this
> >>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
> > superficial
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
> > it's
> >>>>> silly
> >>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
> > the
> >>>>> sky."
> >>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
> > opposite,
> >>> my
> >>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
> >>> dogma
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
> > words:
> >>> I
> >>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
> > time
> >>>>> ago),
> >>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
> > believe
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
> >>>>> smattering
> >>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because
it
> >>>>> claims
> >>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
> > human
> >>>>> beings
> >>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible
is
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
> > being.
> >>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you
believe
> > in
> >>> a
> >>>>> way
> >>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know
WHAT
> >>> you
> >>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some
years.
> >>>>> What I
> >>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
> > Because
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
> >>> parents
> >>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
> >>>>> happened
> >>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been
born
> >>> in
> >>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> >>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does
this
> >>>>> make
> >>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough
of
> > a
> >>>>> threat
> >>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
> > him?
> >>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to
share
> >>> with
> >>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no
right
> > or
> >>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in
God,
> >>>>> Heaven,
> >>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to
behave
> >>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually
> >>> on
> >>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
> > is
> >>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
> >>> restrained
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
> > Einstein
> >>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because
the
> >>>>> evil of
> >>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
> >>> what
> >>>>> has
> >>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
> >>> believe
> >>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
> > the
> >>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another
hour
> >>>>> that I
> >>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
> > now
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer
clings
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
> >>>>> beliefs
> >>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs
are
> >>> not
> >>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
> > news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
> >>> faith.
> >>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
> >>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
> > God
> >>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> >>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
> > are
> >>>>>>>> human at the source.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> >>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> >>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
> > then
> >>>>> left
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
> >>> competition.
> >>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> >>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> >>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> >>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical
and
> >>>>>>>>> effective
> >>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> >>>>>>>> rules".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> >>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
> > fine
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be
fun
> > to
> >>>>> say
> >>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be
honest
> >>>>> here
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
> > then.
> >>>>> And
> >>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
> >>> It's
> >>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
> >>> backward
> >>>>>>>>> human
> >>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
> >>> inspired
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> supreme being.
> >>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> >>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> >>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> >>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> >>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> >>>>>>>> themselves...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> >>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
> > Iraqis
> >>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
> > What
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
> >>> brown
> >>>>>>>>> rice?
> >>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
> >>> 100?
> >>>>>>>> 500?
> >>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were
innocent
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>> families.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded
or
> >>>>> maimed.
> >>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
> > think
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't,
but
> >>> it's
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
> >>> jumpsuits
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> >>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in
all
> >>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> >>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules,
you
> >>>>>>>> would have to.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
> > themselves
> >>> to
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
> >>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> >>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> >>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> >>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> >>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms,
to
> >>> kill
> >>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> >>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> >>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> DC
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71356 is a reply to message #71343] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 08:14 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Jamie,
Here's some food for though vis-a-vis the Islamic fundamentalist situation
(as if thgere wasn't enough already).
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum =1
The links relative to women and human rights are pretty grotesque. Yeah, I
realize that there is the Guantanamo thing to counter with (though I don't
buy it personally) and the "well, look at our inhumane laws regarding drug
offenses and racism" argument ("some" of which I definitely do buy) but man,
the Islamic Utopia is in a whole 'nuther league.
"Sure m'am, we've got chardours. What shade of black would you prefer?
Here's something nice to match the color of the revolutionary jackboot."
Regards,
Deej
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
>
> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
cycle.
>
> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
> in the attack.
>
> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>
> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of what
> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> >> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
> > them?
> > Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
local
> > church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
American
> > Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether
they
> > would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
other
> > religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
the
> > Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
never
> > gave a straight answer.
> >
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
> >> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
> >> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
> >> disagreement.
> >>
> >> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
> >> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
> >>
> >> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
to
> >> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
> >> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
> >>
> >> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
> > them?
> >> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
> >> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
> >> manipulated in the process.
> >>
> >> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
> >>
> >> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
> >> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> >>>> nature of reality.
> >>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
nightly
> > news
> >>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
> >>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
> > rather
> >>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
> > rather
> >>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:44e3ae02@linux...
> >>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
> > dialog
> >>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> >>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Great post, Sarah.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sarah wrote:
> >>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
> > learned
> >>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
> > compelled
> >>> to
> >>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
> > wrong
> >>> in
> >>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
> > to
> >>> view
> >>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
> >>> "me."
> >>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
Faith
> > is
> >>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
> > rest
> >>> on
> >>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
definition
> >>> if
> >>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
> > If
> >>> you
> >>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe
in
> >>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> >>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
> > personally
> >>> do
> >>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
> > no
> >>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
> > claims.
> >>> I
> >>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
truly
> >>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
this
> >>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
superficial
> >>> and
> >>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
it's
> >>> silly
> >>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
the
> >>> sky."
> >>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
opposite,
> > my
> >>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
> > dogma
> >>> that
> >>>>> I have no reason to believe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
words:
> > I
> >>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
time
> >>> ago),
> >>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
believe
> >>> that
> >>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
> >>> smattering
> >>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
> >>> claims
> >>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
human
> >>> beings
> >>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
> > the
> >>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
being.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe
in
> > a
> >>> way
> >>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
> > you
> >>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
> >>> What I
> >>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
Because
> >>> you
> >>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
> > parents
> >>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
> >>> happened
> >>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
> > in
> >>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> >>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
> >>> make
> >>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of
a
> >>> threat
> >>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
him?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
> > with
> >>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right
or
> >>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
> >>> Heaven,
> >>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
> >>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
> > on
> >>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
is
> >>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
> > restrained
> >>> by
> >>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
Einstein
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
> >>> evil of
> >>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
> > what
> >>> has
> >>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
> > believe
> >>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
the
> >>>>> potential consequences of this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
> >>> that I
> >>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
now
> >>> that
> >>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
> > to
> >>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
> >>> beliefs
> >>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
> > not
> >>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
> > faith.
> >>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
> >>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
God
> >>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> >>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
are
> >>>>>> human at the source.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> >>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> >>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
then
> >>> left
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
> > competition.
> >>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> >>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> >>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> >>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
> >>>>>>> effective
> >>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> >>>>>> rules".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> >>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
fine
> >>> with
> >>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun
to
> >>> say
> >>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
> >>> here
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
then.
> >>> And
> >>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
> > It's
> >>> just
> >>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
> > backward
> >>>>>>> human
> >>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
> > inspired
> >>> by
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> supreme being.
> >>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> >>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> >>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> >>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> >>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> >>>>>> themselves...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> >>>>>> assumptions about existence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
Iraqis
> >>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
What
> >>> do
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
> > brown
> >>>>>>> rice?
> >>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
> > 100?
> >>>>>> 500?
> >>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
> > and
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>> families.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
> >>> maimed.
> >>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
think
> >>> of
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but
> > it's
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
> > jumpsuits
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> >>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
> >>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> >>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
> >>>>>> would have to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
themselves
> > to
> >>> do
> >>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
> >>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> >>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> >>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> >>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> >>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
> > kill
> >>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> >>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> >>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71359 is a reply to message #71356] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 08:58 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I am not a fan of dictatorships, theocracies or royalty. So you don't
have to waste any time convincing me on that point. But I'll check out
your link.
I am also not a fan of scapegoating and generalizing to justify war.
I am a fan of freedom, including freedom of religion. Aggressive
self-righteousness by any group is problematic. Too bad it works so well
for empire building. It's certainly something to be aware of in other
countries and especially in our own.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> Here's some food for though vis-a-vis the Islamic fundamentalist situation
> (as if thgere wasn't enough already).
>
> http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum =1
>
> The links relative to women and human rights are pretty grotesque. Yeah, I
> realize that there is the Guantanamo thing to counter with (though I don't
> buy it personally) and the "well, look at our inhumane laws regarding drug
> offenses and racism" argument ("some" of which I definitely do buy) but man,
> the Islamic Utopia is in a whole 'nuther league.
>
> "Sure m'am, we've got chardours. What shade of black would you prefer?
> Here's something nice to match the color of the revolutionary jackboot."
>
> Regards,
>
> Deej
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
>> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
> cycle.
>> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
>> in the attack.
>>
>> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
>> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
>> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>>
>> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of what
>> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>>> them?
>>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
> local
>>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
> American
>>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether
> they
>>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
> other
>>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
> the
>>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
> never
>>> gave a straight answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
>>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
>>>> disagreement.
>>>>
>>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
>>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>>>>
>>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
> to
>>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
>>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>>>>
>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>>> them?
>>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
>>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
>>>> manipulated in the process.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>>>>
>>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
>>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
> nightly
>>> news
>>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
>>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
>>> rather
>>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
>>> rather
>>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:44e3ae02@linux...
>>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
>>> dialog
>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah wrote:
>>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
>>> learned
>>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
>>> compelled
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
>>> wrong
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
>>> to
>>>>> view
>>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
>>>>> "me."
>>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
> Faith
>>> is
>>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
>>> rest
>>>>> on
>>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
> definition
>>>>> if
>>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
>>> If
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe
> in
>>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
>>> personally
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
>>> no
>>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
>>> claims.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
> truly
>>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
> this
>>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
> superficial
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
> it's
>>>>> silly
>>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
> the
>>>>> sky."
>>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
> opposite,
>>> my
>>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
>>> dogma
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
> words:
>>> I
>>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
> time
>>>>> ago),
>>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
> believe
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
>>>>> smattering
>>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
>>>>> claims
>>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
> human
>>>>> beings
>>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
>>> the
>>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
> being.
>>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe
> in
>>> a
>>>>> way
>>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
>>> you
>>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
>>>>> What I
>>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
> Because
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
>>> parents
>>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
>>>>> happened
>>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
>>> in
>>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
>>>>> make
>>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of
> a
>>>>> threat
>>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
> him?
>>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
>>> with
>>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right
> or
>>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
>>>>> Heaven,
>>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
>>> on
>>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
> is
>>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
>>> restrained
>>>>> by
>>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
> Einstein
>>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
>>>>> evil of
>>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
>>> what
>>>>> has
>>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
>>> believe
>>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
> the
>>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
>>>>> that I
>>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
> now
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
>>> to
>>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
>>>>> beliefs
>>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
>>> not
>>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
> news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
> God
>>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
> are
>>>>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
> then
>>>>> left
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
>>> competition.
>>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>>>>> rules".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
> fine
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun
> to
>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
>>>>> here
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
> then.
>>>>> And
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
>>> It's
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
>>> backward
>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
>>> inspired
>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> supreme being.
>>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
> Iraqis
>>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
> What
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
>>> brown
>>>>>>>>> rice?
>>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
>>> 100?
>>>>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
>>>>> maimed.
>>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
> think
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but
>>> it's
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
>>> jumpsuits
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
> themselves
>>> to
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
>>> kill
>>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71360 is a reply to message #71355] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 08:58 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes I did answer your question. Islam CAN spread without conquest, we
see it right here in the USA.
So if your point is that it cannot spread with conquest, yes it can and
I gave an example.
On the flip side, Christianity and other religions can and have spread
via conquest. So Islam is not alone in being spread by conquest and
being spread without conquest.
You can argue degrees over history but you can't make a blanket
statement that Islam (or Christianity) is only spread through conquest.
And although it clearly has at times been spread via conquest, you can't
accurately claim that Islam is the only religion to ever be spread
through conquest. You have to look at the larger issue of conquest and
religions overall. Or conquest and enforced atheism, for that matter.
I think the important difference today is that we have a special country
that guarantees freedom of religion. So you can be an atheist and I can
be Islamic. Or I can be Baptist and you can be Unitarian. I can be
Branch Davidian Reformed and you can be Pagan. I can be MAC-IAN and you
can be MICROSOFT-IAN (oops, wrong religious debate... ;^)
One of the biggest challenges we face, back to my point again, is how to
have constructive dialog between people who operate from very different
assumptions about the nature of reality.
I think Jefferson had it right. Let people freely choose their religious
affiliations, and keep any one religion from being the official
religion. This requires a tolerance for freedom that sometimes bothers
the more aggressively self-righteous sects but it keeps them from
shooting at each other.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> But you still didn't answer my question. Can you name even one? Yes, there
> are examples of Chiristianity being spread by conquest, but there are also
> many examples where it wasn't. In this country, people can practice any
> religion they want. Is that true in countries that are Muslim theocracies?
> Can you name even one?
>
> Deej
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e47542@linux...
>> How about Hinduism? Sikhism? Buddhism?
>>
>> People have converted to Islam right here in the USA. I don't think
>> we've been conquered by anyone lately (aside from the neo-con takeover
>> still in progress, maybe neo-cons are secretly Islamic? ;^)
>>
>> I will grant you that conquering and spreading religious doctrine have
>> gone hand in hand in the past, notably by various Islamic AND Christian
>> sects. You start mixing religion and government and that's what you get.
>> Religion becomes a tool of empire.
>>
>> I'm with Jefferson on this one.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> Can you name even one instance wherein a population becaume Muslim by
> any
>>> means other than military conquest?
>>>
>>> Deej
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
>>>> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
>>> cycle.
>>>> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
>>>> in the attack.
>>>>
>>>> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
>>>> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
>>>> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>>>>
>>>> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of
> what
>>>> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
> about
>>>>> them?
>>>>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
>>> local
>>>>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
>>> American
>>>>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims
> whether
>>> they
>>>>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
>>> other
>>>>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
>>> the
>>>>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
>>> never
>>>>> gave a straight answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:44e3f062@linux...
>>>>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>>>>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing
> for
>>>>>> disagreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the
> nightly
>>>>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
>>> to
>>>>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors
> concluded
>>>>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
> about
>>>>> them?
>>>>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people
> with
>>>>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used
> and
>>>>>> manipulated in the process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
>>>>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
> the
>>>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
>>> nightly
>>>>> news
>>>>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
>>>>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife
> would
>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:44e3ae02@linux...
>>>>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
>>>>> dialog
>>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
> the
>>>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sarah wrote:
>>>>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
>>>>> learned
>>>>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
>>>>> compelled
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still
> trying
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to
> call
>>>>>>> "me."
>>>>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
>>> Faith
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
>>>>> rest
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
>>> definition
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to
> me.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I
> believe
>>> in
>>>>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
>>>>> personally
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I
> see
>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
>>>>> claims.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
>>> truly
>>>>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
>>> this
>>>>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
>>> superficial
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
>>> it's
>>>>>>> silly
>>>>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
>>> the
>>>>>>> sky."
>>>>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
>>> opposite,
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
>>>>> dogma
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
>>> words:
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
>>> time
>>>>>>> ago),
>>>>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
>>> believe
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
>>>>>>> smattering
>>>>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because
> it
>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
>>> human
>>>>>>> beings
>>>>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible
> is
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
>>> being.
>>>>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you
> believe
>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know
> WHAT
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some
> years.
>>>>>>> What I
>>>>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
>>> Because
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
>>>>> parents
>>>>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been
> born
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does
> this
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough
> of
>>> a
>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
>>> him?
>>>>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to
> share
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no
> right
>>> or
>>>>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in
> God,
>>>>>>> Heaven,
>>>>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to
> behave
>>>>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based
> effectually
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
>>>>> restrained
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
>>> Einstein
>>>>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because
> the
>>>>>>> evil of
>>>>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
>>>>> what
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another
> hour
>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
>>> now
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer
> clings
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
>>>>>>> beliefs
>>>>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs
> are
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
>>> news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
>>> God
>>>>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
>>> then
>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
>>>>> competition.
>>>>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical
> and
>>>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>>>>>>> rules".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
>>> fine
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be
> fun
>>> to
>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be
> honest
>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
>>> then.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
>>>>> It's
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
>>>>> inspired
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> supreme being.
>>>>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>>>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
>>> Iraqis
>>>>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
>>> What
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
>>>>> brown
>>>>>>>>>>> rice?
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
>>>>> 100?
>>>>>>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were
> innocent
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded
> or
>>>>>>> maimed.
>>>>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
>>> think
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't,
> but
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
>>>>> jumpsuits
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in
> all
>>>>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules,
> you
>>>>>>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
>>> themselves
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms,
> to
>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71361 is a reply to message #71360] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 09:03 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I doubt very seriously that this country is going to become an Islamic
theocracy without just a little conflits here and there.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e490b7@linux...
>
> Yes I did answer your question. Islam CAN spread without conquest, we
> see it right here in the USA.
>
> So if your point is that it cannot spread with conquest, yes it can and
> I gave an example.
>
> On the flip side, Christianity and other religions can and have spread
> via conquest. So Islam is not alone in being spread by conquest and
> being spread without conquest.
>
> You can argue degrees over history but you can't make a blanket
> statement that Islam (or Christianity) is only spread through conquest.
>
> And although it clearly has at times been spread via conquest, you can't
> accurately claim that Islam is the only religion to ever be spread
> through conquest. You have to look at the larger issue of conquest and
> religions overall. Or conquest and enforced atheism, for that matter.
>
> I think the important difference today is that we have a special country
> that guarantees freedom of religion. So you can be an atheist and I can
> be Islamic. Or I can be Baptist and you can be Unitarian. I can be
> Branch Davidian Reformed and you can be Pagan. I can be MAC-IAN and you
> can be MICROSOFT-IAN (oops, wrong religious debate... ;^)
>
> One of the biggest challenges we face, back to my point again, is how to
> have constructive dialog between people who operate from very different
> assumptions about the nature of reality.
>
> I think Jefferson had it right. Let people freely choose their religious
> affiliations, and keep any one religion from being the official
> religion. This requires a tolerance for freedom that sometimes bothers
> the more aggressively self-righteous sects but it keeps them from
> shooting at each other.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > But you still didn't answer my question. Can you name even one? Yes,
there
> > are examples of Chiristianity being spread by conquest, but there are
also
> > many examples where it wasn't. In this country, people can practice any
> > religion they want. Is that true in countries that are Muslim
theocracies?
> > Can you name even one?
> >
> > Deej
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e47542@linux...
> >> How about Hinduism? Sikhism? Buddhism?
> >>
> >> People have converted to Islam right here in the USA. I don't think
> >> we've been conquered by anyone lately (aside from the neo-con takeover
> >> still in progress, maybe neo-cons are secretly Islamic? ;^)
> >>
> >> I will grant you that conquering and spreading religious doctrine have
> >> gone hand in hand in the past, notably by various Islamic AND Christian
> >> sects. You start mixing religion and government and that's what you
get.
> >> Religion becomes a tool of empire.
> >>
> >> I'm with Jefferson on this one.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>> Jamie,
> >>>
> >>> Can you name even one instance wherein a population becaume Muslim by
> > any
> >>> means other than military conquest?
> >>>
> >>> Deej
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:44e40472@linux...
> >>>> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
> >>> cycle.
> >>>> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not
involved
> >>>> in the attack.
> >>>>
> >>>> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
> >>>> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative.
Lots
> >>>> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
> >>>>
> >>>> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of
> > what
> >>>> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
> > about
> >>>>> them?
> >>>>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at
a
> >>> local
> >>>>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
> >>> American
> >>>>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims
> > whether
> >>> they
> >>>>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
> >>> other
> >>>>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds
before
> >>> the
> >>>>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and
he
> >>> never
> >>>>> gave a straight answer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:44e3f062@linux...
> >>>>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
> >>>>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing
> > for
> >>>>>> disagreement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the
> > nightly
> >>>>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to
Durango
> >>> to
> >>>>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors
> > concluded
> >>>>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on
'em!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
> > about
> >>>>> them?
> >>>>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people
> > with
> >>>>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used
> > and
> >>>>>> manipulated in the process.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet.
They're
> >>>>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
> > the
> >>>>>>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
> >>> nightly
> >>>>> news
> >>>>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who
is
> >>>>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think
I'd
> >>>>> rather
> >>>>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife
> > would
> >>>>> rather
> >>>>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:44e3ae02@linux...
> >>>>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
> >>>>> dialog
> >>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
> > the
> >>>>>>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sarah wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
> >>>>> learned
> >>>>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
> >>>>> compelled
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much
consistently
> >>>>> wrong
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still
> > trying
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> view
> >>>>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to
> > call
> >>>>>>> "me."
> >>>>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
> >>> Faith
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does
not
> >>>>> rest
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
> >>> definition
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to
> > me.
> >>>>> If
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I
> > believe
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> >>>>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
> >>>>> personally
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I
> > see
> >>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
> >>>>> claims.
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
> >>> truly
> >>>>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to
describe
> >>> this
> >>>>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
> >>> superficial
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I
think
> >>> it's
> >>>>>>> silly
> >>>>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy
in
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> sky."
> >>>>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
> >>> opposite,
> >>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to
ancient
> >>>>> dogma
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
> >>> words:
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17
(LONG
> >>> time
> >>>>>>> ago),
> >>>>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
> >>> believe
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and
a
> >>>>>>> smattering
> >>>>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because
> > it
> >>>>>>> claims
> >>>>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
> >>> human
> >>>>>>> beings
> >>>>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the
bible
> > is
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
> >>> being.
> >>>>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you
> > believe
> >>> in
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know
> > WHAT
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some
> > years.
> >>>>>>> What I
> >>>>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
> >>> Because
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
> >>>>> parents
> >>>>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because
you
> >>>>>>> happened
> >>>>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been
> > born
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a
supposedly
> >>>>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does
> > this
> >>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough
> > of
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> threat
> >>>>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
> >>> him?
> >>>>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to
> > share
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no
> > right
> >>> or
> >>>>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in
> > God,
> >>>>>>> Heaven,
> >>>>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to
> > behave
> >>>>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based
> > effectually
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious
basis
> >>> is
> >>>>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
> >>>>> restrained
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
> >>> Einstein
> >>>>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because
> > the
> >>>>>>> evil of
> >>>>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned
about
> >>>>> what
> >>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
> >>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried
about
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another
> > hour
> >>>>>>> that I
> >>>>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned
by
> >>> now
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer
> > clings
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but
again,
> >>>>>>> beliefs
> >>>>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs
> > are
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >>>>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded
by
> >>>>> faith.
> >>>>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
> >>>>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to
call
> >>> God
> >>>>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source
is
> >>>>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all
views
> >>> are
> >>>>>>>>>> human at the source.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> >>>>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> >>>>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!"
and
> >>> then
> >>>>>>> left
> >>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
> >>>>> competition.
> >>>>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> >>>>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive,
bake
> >>>>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care
if
> >>>>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical
> > and
> >>>>>>>>>>> effective
> >>>>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >>>>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> >>>>>>>>>> rules".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as
Sarah's
> >>>>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care.
I'm
> >>> fine
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be
> > fun
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> say
> >>>>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be
> > honest
> >>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
> >>> then.
> >>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for
me.
> >>>>> It's
> >>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
> >>>>> backward
> >>>>>>>>>>> human
> >>>>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
> >>>>> inspired
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> supreme being.
> >>>>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does
not
> >>>>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded
in
> >>>>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection
are
> >>>>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> >>>>>>>>>> themselves...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> >>>>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
> >>> Iraqis
> >>>>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
> >>> What
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl
of
> >>>>> brown
> >>>>>>>>>>> rice?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were
terrorists?
> >>>>> 100?
> >>>>>>>>>> 500?
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were
> > innocent
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>> families.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded
> > or
> >>>>>>> maimed.
> >>>>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
> >>> think
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't,
> > but
> >>>>> it's
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
> >>>>> jumpsuits
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are
no
> >>>>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in
> > all
> >>>>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from
Dresden
> >>>>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules,
> > you
> >>>>>>>>>> would have to.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
> >>> themselves
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
> >>>>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> >>>>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> >>>>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for
the
> >>>>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> >>>>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms,
> > to
> >>>>> kill
> >>>>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> >>>>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> >>>>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> DC
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71362 is a reply to message #71361] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 09:19 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> I doubt very seriously that this country is going to become an Islamic
> theocracy without just a little conflits here and there.
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e490b7@linux...
>> Yes I did answer your question. Islam CAN spread without conquest, we
>> see it right here in the USA.
>>
>> So if your point is that it cannot spread with conquest, yes it can and
>> I gave an example.
>>
>> On the flip side, Christianity and other religions can and have spread
>> via conquest. So Islam is not alone in being spread by conquest and
>> being spread without conquest.
>>
>> You can argue degrees over history but you can't make a blanket
>> statement that Islam (or Christianity) is only spread through conquest.
>>
>> And although it clearly has at times been spread via conquest, you can't
>> accurately claim that Islam is the only religion to ever be spread
>> through conquest. You have to look at the larger issue of conquest and
>> religions overall. Or conquest and enforced atheism, for that matter.
>>
>> I think the important difference today is that we have a special country
>> that guarantees freedom of religion. So you can be an atheist and I can
>> be Islamic. Or I can be Baptist and you can be Unitarian. I can be
>> Branch Davidian Reformed and you can be Pagan. I can be MAC-IAN and you
>> can be MICROSOFT-IAN (oops, wrong religious debate... ;^)
>>
>> One of the biggest challenges we face, back to my point again, is how to
>> have constructive dialog between people who operate from very different
>> assumptions about the nature of reality.
>>
>> I think Jefferson had it right. Let people freely choose their religious
>> affiliations, and keep any one religion from being the official
>> religion. This requires a tolerance for freedom that sometimes bothers
>> the more aggressively self-righteous sects but it keeps them from
>> shooting at each other.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> But you still didn't answer my question. Can you name even one? Yes,
> there
>>> are examples of Chiristianity being spread by conquest, but there are
> also
>>> many examples where it wasn't. In this country, people can practice any
>>> religion they want. Is that true in countries that are Muslim
> theocracies?
>>> Can you name even one?
>>>
>>> Deej
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e47542@linux...
>>>> How about Hinduism? Sikhism? Buddhism?
>>>>
>>>> People have converted to Islam right here in the USA. I don't think
>>>> we've been conquered by anyone lately (aside from the neo-con takeover
>>>> still in progress, maybe neo-cons are secretly Islamic? ;^)
>>>>
>>>> I will grant you that conquering and spreading religious doctrine have
>>>> gone hand in hand in the past, notably by various Islamic AND Christian
>>>> sects. You start mixing religion and government and that's what you
> get.
>>>> Religion becomes a tool of empire.
>>>>
>>>> I'm with Jefferson on this one.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you name even one instance wherein a population becaume Muslim by
>>> any
>>>>> means other than military conquest?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deej
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:44e40472@linux...
>>>>>> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
>>>>> cycle.
>>>>>> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not
> involved
>>>>>> in the attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
>>>>>> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative.
> Lots
>>>>>> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of
>>> what
>>>>>> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
>>> about
>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at
> a
>>>>> local
>>>>>>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
>>>>> American
>>>>>>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims
>>> whether
>>>>> they
>>>>>>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
>>>>> other
>>>>>>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds
> before
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and
> he
>>>>> never
>>>>>>> gave a straight answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:44e3f062@linux...
>>>>>>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>>>>>>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing
>>> for
>>>>>>>> disagreement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the
>>> nightly
>>>>>>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to
> Durango
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors
>>> concluded
>>>>>>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on
> 'em!
>>>>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
>>> about
>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people
>>> with
>>>>>>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used
>>> and
>>>>>>>> manipulated in the process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet.
> They're
>>>>>>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
>>>>> nightly
>>>>>>> news
>>>>>>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who
> is
>>>>>>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think
> I'd
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife
>>> would
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:44e3ae02@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
>>>>>>> dialog
>>>>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sarah wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
>>>>>>> learned
>>>>>>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
>>>>>>> compelled
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much
> consistently
>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still
>>> trying
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to
>>> call
>>>>>>>>> "me."
>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
>>>>> Faith
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does
> not
>>>>>>> rest
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to
>
>>> me.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I
>>> believe
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
>>>>>>> personally
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I
>>> see
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
>>>>>>> claims.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
>>>>> truly
>>>>>>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to
> describe
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
>>>>> superficial
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I
> think
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> silly
>>>>>>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy
> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> sky."
>>>>>>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
>>>>> opposite,
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to
> ancient
>>>>>>> dogma
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
>>>>> words:
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17
> (LONG
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> ago),
>>>>>>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and
> a
>>>>>>>>> smattering
>>>>>>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because
>>> it
>>>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>> beings
>>>>>>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the
> bible
>>> is
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
>>>>> being.
>>>>>>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you
>>> believe
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know
>>> WHAT
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some
>>> years.
>>>>>>>>> What I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
>>>>> Because
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
>>>>>>> parents
>>>>>>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because
> you
>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been
>>> born
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a
> supposedly
>>>>>>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does
>>> this
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough
>>> of
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
>>>>> him?
>>>>>>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to
>>> share
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no
>>> right
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in
>>> God,
>>>>>>>>> Heaven,
>>>>>>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to
>>> behave
>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based
>>> effectually
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious
> basis
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
>>>>>>> restrained
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> evil of
>>>>>>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned
> about
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried
> about
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another
>>> hour
>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned
> by
>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer
>>> clings
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but
> again,
>>>>>>>>> beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs
>>> are
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded
> by
>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to
> call
>>>>> God
>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source
> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all
> views
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!"
> and
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
>>>>>>> competition.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive,
> bake
>>>>>>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care
> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rules".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as
> Sarah's
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care.
> I'm
>>>>> fine
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be
>>> fun
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be
>>> honest
>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
>>>>> then.
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for
> me.
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
>>>>>>> inspired
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supreme being.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does
> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded
> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection
> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
>>>>> Iraqis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl
> of
>>>>>>> brown
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rice?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were
> terrorists?
>>>>>>> 100?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were
>>> innocent
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded
>>> or
>>>>>>>>> maimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't,
>>> but
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
>>>>>>> jumpsuits
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are
> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from
> Dresden
>>>>>>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules,
>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>>>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>>>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for
> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>>>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms,
>>> to
>>>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71363 is a reply to message #71359] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 09:19 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Are Christians doing this to former Christians who decide to convert to
Islam?
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=82 16
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e490b1@linux...
>
> I am not a fan of dictatorships, theocracies or royalty. So you don't
> have to waste any time convincing me on that point. But I'll check out
> your link.
>
> I am also not a fan of scapegoating and generalizing to justify war.
>
> I am a fan of freedom, including freedom of religion. Aggressive
> self-righteousness by any group is problematic. Too bad it works so well
> for empire building. It's certainly something to be aware of in other
> countries and especially in our own.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> DJ wrote:
> > Hi Jamie,
> >
> > Here's some food for though vis-a-vis the Islamic fundamentalist
situation
> > (as if thgere wasn't enough already).
> >
> > http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum =1
> >
> > The links relative to women and human rights are pretty grotesque. Yeah,
I
> > realize that there is the Guantanamo thing to counter with (though I
don't
> > buy it personally) and the "well, look at our inhumane laws regarding
drug
> > offenses and racism" argument ("some" of which I definitely do buy) but
man,
> > the Islamic Utopia is in a whole 'nuther league.
> >
> > "Sure m'am, we've got chardours. What shade of black would you prefer?
> > Here's something nice to match the color of the revolutionary jackboot."
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Deej
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
> >> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
> > cycle.
> >> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
> >> in the attack.
> >>
> >> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
> >> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
> >> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
> >>
> >> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of
what
> >> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
about
> >>> them?
> >>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
> > local
> >>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
> > American
> >>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims
whether
> > they
> >>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
> > other
> >>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
> > the
> >>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
> > never
> >>> gave a straight answer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:44e3f062@linux...
> >>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
> >>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing
for
> >>>> disagreement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the
nightly
> >>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
> > to
> >>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors
concluded
> >>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
> >>>>
> >>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
about
> >>> them?
> >>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people
with
> >>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used
and
> >>>> manipulated in the process.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
> >>>>
> >>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
> >>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
the
> >>>>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
> > nightly
> >>> news
> >>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
> >>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
> >>> rather
> >>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife
would
> >>> rather
> >>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:44e3ae02@linux...
> >>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
> >>> dialog
> >>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
the
> >>>>>> nature of reality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sarah wrote:
> >>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
> >>> learned
> >>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
> >>> compelled
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
> >>> wrong
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still
trying
> >>> to
> >>>>> view
> >>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to
call
> >>>>> "me."
> >>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
> > Faith
> >>> is
> >>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
> >>> rest
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
> > definition
> >>>>> if
> >>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to
me.
> >>> If
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I
believe
> > in
> >>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> >>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
> >>> personally
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I
see
> >>> no
> >>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
> >>> claims.
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
> > truly
> >>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
> > this
> >>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
> > superficial
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
> > it's
> >>>>> silly
> >>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
> > the
> >>>>> sky."
> >>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
> > opposite,
> >>> my
> >>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
> >>> dogma
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
> > words:
> >>> I
> >>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
> > time
> >>>>> ago),
> >>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
> > believe
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
> >>>>> smattering
> >>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because
it
> >>>>> claims
> >>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
> > human
> >>>>> beings
> >>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible
is
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
> > being.
> >>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you
believe
> > in
> >>> a
> >>>>> way
> >>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know
WHAT
> >>> you
> >>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some
years.
> >>>>> What I
> >>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
> > Because
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
> >>> parents
> >>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
> >>>>> happened
> >>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been
born
> >>> in
> >>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> >>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does
this
> >>>>> make
> >>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough
of
> > a
> >>>>> threat
> >>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
> > him?
> >>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to
share
> >>> with
> >>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no
right
> > or
> >>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in
God,
> >>>>> Heaven,
> >>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to
behave
> >>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually
> >>> on
> >>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
> > is
> >>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
> >>> restrained
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
> > Einstein
> >>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because
the
> >>>>> evil of
> >>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
> >>> what
> >>>>> has
> >>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
> >>> believe
> >>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
> > the
> >>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another
hour
> >>>>> that I
> >>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
> > now
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer
clings
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
> >>>>> beliefs
> >>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs
are
> >>> not
> >>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
> > news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
> >>> faith.
> >>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
> >>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
> > God
> >>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> >>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
> > are
> >>>>>>>> human at the source.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> >>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> >>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
> > then
> >>>>> left
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
> >>> competition.
> >>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> >>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> >>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> >>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical
and
> >>>>>>>>> effective
> >>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> >>>>>>>> rules".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> >>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
> > fine
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be
fun
> > to
> >>>>> say
> >>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be
honest
> >>>>> here
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
> > then.
> >>>>> And
> >>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
> >>> It's
> >>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
> >>> backward
> >>>>>>>>> human
> >>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
> >>> inspired
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> supreme being.
> >>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> >>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> >>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> >>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> >>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> >>>>>>>> themselves...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> >>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
> > Iraqis
> >>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
> > What
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
> >>> brown
> >>>>>>>>> rice?
> >>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
> >>> 100?
> >>>>>>>> 500?
> >>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were
innocent
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>> families.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded
or
> >>>>> maimed.
> >>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
> > think
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't,
but
> >>> it's
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
> >>> jumpsuits
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sarah
> >>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> >>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in
all
> >>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> >>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules,
you
> >>>>>>>> would have to.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
> > themselves
> >>> to
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
> >>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> >>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> >>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> >>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> >>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms,
to
> >>> kill
> >>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> >>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> >>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> DC
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71365 is a reply to message #71363] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 10:13 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There are untold of examples of man's inhumanity to man via religious
persecution. The enforcement of empire and power has long been tied to
religion.
The Egyptians ruled for thousands of years based on a claim to deity,
and they were brutal to Christian slaves!
The KKK thought they were protecting Christianity by hanging black people!
China persecutes members of Falun Gong!
We could come up with examples all day.
Are you trying to say that all religious persecution should be stopped
or are you trying to say Islamic religious persecution should be stopped?
Did you somehow think I was advocating putting people to death for their
beliefs? I'm having a hard time figuring out your point, exactly. What
are you getting at?
One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive dialog
between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
nature of reality. That's my point in this thread. Are we living it
here? :^)
I don't think our assumptions about the nature of reality are that far
apart but we seem to have a difference in our view of religion and
public policy. Specifically (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be
very afraid of Muslims, any Muslims, wherever you find them. Whereas it
looks to me that yet another group is being scapegoated, all members
tarred because of the actions of a few, possibly to detract from real
failures in our own foreign policy.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> Are Christians doing this to former Christians who decide to convert to
> Islam?
>
> http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=82 16
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e490b1@linux...
>> I am not a fan of dictatorships, theocracies or royalty. So you don't
>> have to waste any time convincing me on that point. But I'll check out
>> your link.
>>
>> I am also not a fan of scapegoating and generalizing to justify war.
>>
>> I am a fan of freedom, including freedom of religion. Aggressive
>> self-righteousness by any group is problematic. Too bad it works so well
>> for empire building. It's certainly something to be aware of in other
>> countries and especially in our own.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>
>>> Here's some food for though vis-a-vis the Islamic fundamentalist
> situation
>>> (as if thgere wasn't enough already).
>>>
>>> http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum =1
>>>
>>> The links relative to women and human rights are pretty grotesque. Yeah,
> I
>>> realize that there is the Guantanamo thing to counter with (though I
> don't
>>> buy it personally) and the "well, look at our inhumane laws regarding
> drug
>>> offenses and racism" argument ("some" of which I definitely do buy) but
> man,
>>> the Islamic Utopia is in a whole 'nuther league.
>>>
>>> "Sure m'am, we've got chardours. What shade of black would you prefer?
>>> Here's something nice to match the color of the revolutionary jackboot."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Deej
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
>>>> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
>>> cycle.
>>>> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
>>>> in the attack.
>>>>
>>>> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
>>>> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
>>>> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>>>>
>>>> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of
> what
>>>> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
> about
>>>>> them?
>>>>> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a
>>> local
>>>>> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
>>> American
>>>>> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims
> whether
>>> they
>>>>> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
>>> other
>>>>> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
>>> the
>>>>> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
>>> never
>>>>> gave a straight answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:44e3f062@linux...
>>>>>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>>>>>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing
> for
>>>>>> disagreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the
> nightly
>>>>>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
>>> to
>>>>>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors
> concluded
>>>>>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do
> about
>>>>> them?
>>>>>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people
> with
>>>>>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used
> and
>>>>>> manipulated in the process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
>>>>>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
> the
>>>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
>>> nightly
>>>>> news
>>>>>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
>>>>>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife
> would
>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:44e3ae02@linux...
>>>>>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
>>>>> dialog
>>>>>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
> the
>>>>>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Great post, Sarah.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sarah wrote:
>>>>>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
>>>>> learned
>>>>>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
>>>>> compelled
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still
> trying
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to
> call
>>>>>>> "me."
>>>>>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
>>> Faith
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
>>>>> rest
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
>>> definition
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to
> me.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I
> believe
>>> in
>>>>>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
>>>>> personally
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I
> see
>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
>>>>> claims.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
>>> truly
>>>>>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
>>> this
>>>>>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
>>> superficial
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
>>> it's
>>>>>>> silly
>>>>>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
>>> the
>>>>>>> sky."
>>>>>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
>>> opposite,
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
>>>>> dogma
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
>>> words:
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
>>> time
>>>>>>> ago),
>>>>>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
>>> believe
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
>>>>>>> smattering
>>>>>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because
> it
>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
>>> human
>>>>>>> beings
>>>>>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible
> is
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
>>> being.
>>>>>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you
> believe
>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know
> WHAT
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some
> years.
>>>>>>> What I
>>>>>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
>>> Because
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
>>>>> parents
>>>>>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been
> born
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does
> this
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough
> of
>>> a
>>>>>>> threat
>>>>>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
>>> him?
>>>>>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to
> share
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no
> right
>>> or
>>>>>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in
> God,
>>>>>>> Heaven,
>>>>>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to
> behave
>>>>>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based
> effectually
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
>>>>> restrained
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
>>> Einstein
>>>>>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because
> the
>>>>>>> evil of
>>>>>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
>>>>> what
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> potential consequences of this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another
> hour
>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
>>> now
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer
> clings
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
>>>>>>> beliefs
>>>>>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs
> are
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
>>> news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
>>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
>>> God
>>>>>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
>>> then
>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
>>>>> competition.
>>>>>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical
> and
>>>>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>>>>>>> rules".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
>>> fine
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be
> fun
>>> to
>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be
> honest
>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
>>> then.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
>>>>> It's
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
>>>>> inspired
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> supreme being.
>>>>>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>>>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
>>> Iraqis
>>>>>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
>>> What
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
>>>>> brown
>>>>>>>>>>> rice?
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
>>>>> 100?
>>>>>>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were
> innocent
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded
> or
>>>>>>> maimed.
>>>>>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
>>> think
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't,
> but
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
>>>>> jumpsuits
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in
> all
>>>>>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules,
> you
>>>>>>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
>>> themselves
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms,
> to
>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71366 is a reply to message #71341] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 10:27 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think there might be some civilians in Gaza who would be interested in the
answer to the other side of that question.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>them?
>>
>Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a local
>church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and American
>Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether
they
>would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of other
>religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before the
>Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he never
>gave a straight answer.
>
>
>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
>>
>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
>> disagreement.
>>
>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>>
>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
to
>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>>
>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>them?
>>
>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
>> manipulated in the process.
>>
>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>>
>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>> >> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>> >> nature of reality.
>> >
>> > I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the nightly
>news
>> > bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
>> > justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
>rather
>> > be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
>rather
>> > die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3ae02@linux...
>> >> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
>dialog
>> >> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>> >> nature of reality.
>> >>
>> >> Great post, Sarah.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> -Jamie
>> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sarah wrote:
>> >>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
>learned
>> >>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
>compelled
>> > to
>> >>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
>wrong
>> > in
>> >>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
>to
>> > view
>> >>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
>> > "me."
>> >>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith
>is
>> >>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
>rest
>> > on
>> >>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
>> > if
>> >>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
>If
>> > you
>> >>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe
in
>> >>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>> >>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>> >>>
>> >>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
>personally
>> > do
>> >>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
>no
>> >>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
>claims.
>> > I
>> >>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>> >>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
this
>> >>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
>> > and
>> >>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
it's
>> > silly
>> >>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in
the
>> > sky."
>> >>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite,
>my
>> >>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
>dogma
>> > that
>> >>> I have no reason to believe.
>> >>>
>> >>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
>I
>> >>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
time
>> > ago),
>> >>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
>> > that
>> >>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
>> > smattering
>> >>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
>> > claims
>> >>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
>> > beings
>> >>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible
is
>the
>> >>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>> >>>
>> >>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe
in
>a
>> > way
>> >>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
>you
>> >>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
>> > What I
>> >>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
>> > you
>> >>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
>parents
>> >>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
>> > happened
>> >>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
>in
>> >>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>> >>>
>> >>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>> >>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
>> > make
>> >>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of
a
>> > threat
>> >>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>> >>>
>> >>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
>with
>> >>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right
or
>> >>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
>> > Heaven,
>> >>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>> >>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
>on
>> >>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
is
>> >>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
>restrained
>> > by
>> >>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>> >>>
>> >>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
>> > evil of
>> >>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
>what
>> > has
>> >>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
>believe
>> >>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
the
>> >>> potential consequences of this.
>> >>>
>> >>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
>> > that I
>> >>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by
now
>> > that
>> >>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
>to
>> >>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
>> > beliefs
>> >>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
>not
>> >>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>> >>>
>> >>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>> >>>
>> >>> Sarah
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>> >>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
>faith.
>> >>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>> >>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
God
>> >>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>> >>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
are
>> >>>> human at the source.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I disagree emphatically.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>> >>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>> >>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
then
>> > left
>> >>>> it
>> >>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
>competition.
>> >>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>> >>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>> >>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>> >>>> they do? All is permitted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> The
>> >>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>> >>>>> effective
>> >>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>> >>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>> >>>> rules".
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>> >>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
fine
>> > with
>> >>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun
to
>> > say
>> >>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
>> > here
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
>> > And
>> >>>> I'm
>> >>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
>It's
>> > just
>> >>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
>backward
>> >>>>> human
>> >>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
>inspired
>> > by
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>> supreme being.
>> >>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>> >>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>> >>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>> >>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>> >>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>> >>>> themselves...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>> >>>> assumptions about existence.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>> >>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
What
>> > do
>> >>>> you
>> >>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
>brown
>> >>>>> rice?
>> >>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
>100?
>> >>>> 500?
>> >>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
>and
>> >>>>> their
>> >>>>> families.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
>> > maimed.
>> >>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
>> > of
>> >>>> some
>> >>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but
>it's
>> > a
>> >>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
>jumpsuits
>> > and
>> >>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sarah
>> >>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>> >>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>> >>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>> >>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>> >>>> would have to.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
>to
>> > do
>> >>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>> >>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>> >>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>> >>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>> >>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>> >>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
>kill
>> >>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>> >>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>> >>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> DC
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71369 is a reply to message #71353] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 11:10 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
For most of its life Islam was a comparatively tolerant religion. In the
Persian muslim and Ottoman empires local populations were not forced to convert
and could practice whatever religion they wished. Often they we subject to
additional taxes or travel restrictions or restrictive property rights, but
they certainly weren't killed. Most converted.
But the comparison of Islam to Christianity on the conquest front is grossly
unfair. Had Mohammed NOT been an effective soldier and military leader we
would not no know of him. He was born at a time when no religion had a chance
if it couldn't defend and, yes, conquer. Jesus (the historical one I recognize,
not the divine one you believe in) was born into occupied Palestine and had
he had a shred of militant resistance about him his movement would have been
subjected to the violence of the sword the Romans so casually used on non-Romans.
It was precisely because early Christians had no political/military ambitions
that they were allowed to work their way into Roman society. Had they expressed
any ambitions beyond personal salvation they'd have been squashed like bugs.
All of which is to say that there are historical reasons why one religion
might tend toward militaristism than the other.
And then the question becomes, is western 'secular militarism' better than
middle eastern 'religious militarism?' Think of that from the perspective
of a) a middle class American christian, b) a Guatemalan union organizer,
c) and Egyptian medical doctor, d) a Turkish guest worker living in Frankfurt,
and e) a Thai buddhist motorcycle messenger.
TCB
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Jamie,
>
>Can you name even one instance wherein a population becaume Muslim by any
>means other than military conquest?
>
>Deej
>
>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e40472@linux...
>>
>> It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious
>cycle.
>>
>> We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
>> in the attack.
>>
>> No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
>> Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
>> of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
>>
>> I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of what
>> you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>> >> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>> > them?
>> > Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at
a
>local
>> > church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and
>American
>> > Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether
>they
>> > would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of
>other
>> > religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before
>the
>> > Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he
>never
>> > gave a straight answer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
>> >> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>> >> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing
for
>> >> disagreement.
>> >>
>> >> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
>> >> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>> >>
>> >> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango
>to
>> >> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
>> >> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>> >>
>> >> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
>> > them?
>> >> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
>> >> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used
and
>> >> manipulated in the process.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>> >>
>> >> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
>> >> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> -Jamie
>> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> DJ wrote:
>> >>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
the
>> >>>> nature of reality.
>> >>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the
>nightly
>> > news
>> >>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who
is
>> >>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
>> > rather
>> >>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
>> > rather
>> >>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>news:44e3ae02@linux...
>> >>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
>> > dialog
>> >>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about
the
>> >>>> nature of reality.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Great post, Sarah.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> -Jamie
>> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sarah wrote:
>> >>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
>> > learned
>> >>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
>> > compelled
>> >>> to
>> >>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
>> > wrong
>> >>> in
>> >>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
>> > to
>> >>> view
>> >>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
>> >>> "me."
>> >>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant.
>Faith
>> > is
>> >>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
>> > rest
>> >>> on
>> >>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own
>definition
>> >>> if
>> >>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to
me.
>> > If
>> >>> you
>> >>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe
>in
>> >>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>> >>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
>> > personally
>> >>> do
>> >>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I
see
>> > no
>> >>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
>> > claims.
>> >>> I
>> >>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel
>truly
>> >>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe
>this
>> >>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very
>superficial
>> >>> and
>> >>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think
>it's
>> >>> silly
>> >>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy
in
>the
>> >>> sky."
>> >>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the
>opposite,
>> > my
>> >>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
>> > dogma
>> >>> that
>> >>>>> I have no reason to believe.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer
>words:
>> > I
>> >>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG
>time
>> >>> ago),
>> >>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to
>believe
>> >>> that
>> >>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and
a
>> >>> smattering
>> >>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because
it
>> >>> claims
>> >>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient
>human
>> >>> beings
>> >>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible
is
>> > the
>> >>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme
>being.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe
>in
>> > a
>> >>> way
>> >>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
>> > you
>> >>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
>> >>> What I
>> >>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
>Because
>> >>> you
>> >>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
>> > parents
>> >>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
>> >>> happened
>> >>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been
born
>> > in
>> >>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>> >>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does
this
>> >>> make
>> >>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough
of
>a
>> >>> threat
>> >>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill
>him?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
>> > with
>> >>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right
>or
>> >>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in
God,
>> >>> Heaven,
>> >>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>> >>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
>> > on
>> >>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
>is
>> >>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
>> > restrained
>> >>> by
>> >>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert
>Einstein
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because
the
>> >>> evil of
>> >>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
>> > what
>> >>> has
>> >>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
>> > believe
>> >>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about
>the
>> >>>>> potential consequences of this.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another
hour
>> >>> that I
>> >>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned
by
>now
>> >>> that
>> >>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
>> > to
>> >>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
>> >>> beliefs
>> >>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs
are
>> > not
>> >>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sarah
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message
>news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>> >>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
>> > faith.
>> >>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>> >>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call
>God
>> >>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source
is
>> >>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views
>are
>> >>>>>> human at the source.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>> >>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>> >>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and
>then
>> >>> left
>> >>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
>> > competition.
>> >>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>> >>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>> >>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care
if
>> >>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The
>> >>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical
and
>> >>>>>>> effective
>> >>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>> >>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>> >>>>>> rules".
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>> >>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm
>fine
>> >>> with
>> >>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be
fun
>to
>> >>> say
>> >>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
>> >>> here
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even
>then.
>> >>> And
>> >>>>>> I'm
>> >>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
>> > It's
>> >>> just
>> >>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
>> > backward
>> >>>>>>> human
>> >>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
>> > inspired
>> >>> by
>> >>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>> supreme being.
>> >>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>> >>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>> >>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded
in
>> >>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>> >>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>> >>>>>> themselves...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>> >>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead
>Iraqis
>> >>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile.
>What
>> >>> do
>> >>>>>> you
>> >>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl
of
>> > brown
>> >>>>>>> rice?
>> >>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
>> > 100?
>> >>>>>> 500?
>> >>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
>> > and
>> >>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>> families.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded
or
>> >>> maimed.
>> >>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can
>think
>> >>> of
>> >>>>>> some
>> >>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't,
but
>> > it's
>> >>> a
>> >>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
>> > jumpsuits
>> >>> and
>> >>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Sarah
>> >>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>> >>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in
all
>> >>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>> >>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules,
you
>> >>>>>> would have to.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring
>themselves
>> > to
>> >>> do
>> >>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>> >>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>> >>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>> >>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>> >>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>> >>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms,
to
>> > kill
>> >>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>> >>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>> >>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> DC
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71370 is a reply to message #71331] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 12:03 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, thank you very much, mate. :) We do the best we can. I'm enjoying
yours, too. Tell ten friends to buy our CD, then they'll tell ten friends,
then they'll tell ten friends . . . .
Hugs,
Sarah
"macle" <Mates9999@cs.com> wrote in message news:44e3cc28$1@linux...
>
> Oh my gawd, lucifer!
> either way, it's so absurd,
> look around it's
> such a blur you see!!
>
> Why is live and let live so hard? I dunno. Seems so easy.
>
> I've taken to burying my head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss
> sort of nearly almost. It'll all work out in the end (except
> for those of us burning in hell for eternity...OUCH!)
>
> Sarah, I listened to the clips on your site...very very
> nice Paris sound. Thumbs up!
>
> Peace brothers and sisters!!
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71371 is a reply to message #71351] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 12:50 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
okay, i'll put it in the top two as i'm sure many killings go un
publicized if it doesn't involve population segments not currently
popular on the "oh that's really a shame" or "hey, dems my peeps"
index.
On 17 Aug 2006 23:05:22 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Here's the thing, you'll cause just as much trouble saying it's #5 or #10
>as #1. And I suspected you thought as much which is why I asked. Maybe not.
>Influenza takes a few hundred thousand per year in the off years, so maybe
>over the long haul it's first, just by the yearly grind. But even then I
>doubt it.
>
>But in any case, just tell the truth as you see it, regardless of the trouble
>it might cause. We need more of that.
>
>TCB
>
>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>i didn't want to cause trouble by calling it #1
>>
>>On 17 Aug 2006 06:17:12 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I'd be interested to hear the nine candidates you would propose ahead of
>it.
>>>
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>sarah
>>>>
>>>>everyone wants to be the holder of "the truth" and feel compelled to
>>>>convince others even if they have to kill them to do it. thankfully
>>>>not all go to that extreme...unfortunately many are willing to do just
>>>>that...on both sides of the argument. religion has to be in the top
>>>>ten killers of humanity throughout history.
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>>>
>>>>>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
>>>to
>>>>>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
>>>in
>>>>>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
>to
>>>view
>>>>>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith
>is
>>>
>>>>>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
>>>on
>>>>>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
>>>if
>>>>>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
>If
>>>you
>>>>>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>>>
>>>>>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>>
>>>>>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
>>>do
>>>>>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
>no
>>>
>>>>>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
>>> I
>>>>>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>
>>>>>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>>>
>>>>>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
>>>and
>>>>>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
>>>silly
>>>>>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
>>>sky."
>>>>>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite,
>my
>>>
>>>>>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
>>>that
>>>>>I have no reason to believe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
>
>>>I
>>>>>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
>>>ago),
>>>>>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
>that
>>>
>>>>>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>>>
>>>>>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>>>
>>>>>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
>beings
>>>
>>>>>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
>the
>>>
>>>>>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
>>>a way
>>>>>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>>>
>>>>>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
> What
>>>I
>>>>>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
>>>you
>>>>>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>>>
>>>>>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>>>
>>>>>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
>in
>>>
>>>>>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>>
>>>>>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
>make
>>>
>>>>>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
>threat
>>>
>>>>>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>>>>
>>>>>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>>>
>>>>>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>>>
>>>>>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
>Heaven,
>>>
>>>>>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>
>>>>>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
>on
>>>
>>>>>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>
>>>>>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
>>>by
>>>>>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
>evil
>>>of
>>>>>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
>>>has
>>>>>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>>>
>>>>>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>>>
>>>>>potential consequences of this.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
>that
>>>I
>>>>>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
>>>that
>>>>>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
>to
>>>
>>>>>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>>>
>>>>>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
>not
>>>
>>>>>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sarah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>>>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
>>>left
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>
>>>>>>>effective
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>>> rules".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
>>>with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
>>>say
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
>here
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
>
>>>And
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
>>>just
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>>
>>>>>>>human
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
>>>by
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>supreme being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
>>>do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>>
>>>>>>>rice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>>
>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>families.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
>>>of
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
>>>a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
>>>and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sarah
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
>>>to do
>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
>kill
>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71375 is a reply to message #71362] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 15:16 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of church
and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians to
just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity may
seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even on
this forum.
Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best) as
long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow is
responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider the
arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need to
ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems to the
faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances. I'm
not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far from
it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
the perspectives here.
For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build a
memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land is
private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the right
as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
"suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable for
anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone to get
drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst case,
rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of, at
least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
rates or corporate corruption.
My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by the
ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap from
there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples of
how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is, who
wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about. I
really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit it is
intended - just something to consider.
Regards,
Dedric
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71379 is a reply to message #71375] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 16:05 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric,
If I've said anything that makes you think I am advocating shipping you
and your family out of the country, call me on it and let's talk. I do
not support the making of scapegoats. And we'd miss you around here!
The Bill of Rights protects religious freedom. I am all for that.
The point I've been trying to make in this thread is that getting people
to talk to each other rather than past each other is a major challenge
when people have very different understandings of the nature of reality.
Yet we must succeed at communicating between groups as diverse as
Christians and Muslims, or for a tougher example, AELC Lutherans and
Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. I'm only half joking about that last one...
In the USA some (not all) members of the following groups feel
persecuted because of religious bias in our culture:
1) Christians (way too diverse a group to be under a single label, BTW).
2) Muslims
3) Jews
4) Sikhs
5) Atheists
6) etc.
I don't know if Buddhists bother feeling persecuted.
I do like the ACLU for the most part, because the Bill of Rights is
constantly under attack. Since it's a fundamental part of what makes the
USA a special place it needs to be looked after. So I'll add:
7) The Bill Of Rights
Even though it's not a group, it protects all of us from a variety of
bad stuff. Hey, it's my list and I'm adding it! :^)
How do we balance different outlooks and perceptions around all this? It
ain't easy. Talking is good, though.
I don't see anything that indicates we are about to outlaw Christianity.
You'll have to convince me on that one. The appropriateness of
government sanctioning of the symbol of one religion over another is an
interesting issue but I wouldn't read that as moving toward banning
Christianity. Probably makes great material for rousing sermons, though,
in some churches, while other churches can and do support the separation
of church and state for religious reasons so their sermons would go the
other way. See how hard it is to generalize about Christianity as one
entity?
Our great Bill of Rights protects Christianity and all its sects. It
seems to me that certain subsets of Christian thought are very
influential in our government right now, hence my comment. I'm not
seeing that level of influence from other religions.
We should have a conversation about this, Dedric, next time you're up
this way.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Dedric Terry wrote:
> On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
> I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
> than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of church
> and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
> Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians to
> just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
> non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity may
> seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
> deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even on
> this forum.
>
> Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
> mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
> truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best) as
> long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
> nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
> substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
> strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
> Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow is
> responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
> Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
> slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider the
> arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
> discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need to
> ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems to the
> faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances. I'm
> not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far from
> it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
> the perspectives here.
>
> For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
> probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build a
> memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land is
> private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
> issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the right
> as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
> promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
> the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
> "suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable for
> anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone to get
> drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst case,
> rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of, at
> least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
> but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
> rates or corporate corruption.
>
> My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by the
> ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
> promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap from
> there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
> become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
> action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
> into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
> involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
> the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples of
> how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>
> The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is, who
> wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
> family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about. I
> really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
> discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
> ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>
> I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit it is
> intended - just something to consider.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71380 is a reply to message #71370] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 16:16 |
macle
Messages: 47
Registered: July 2006
|
Member |
|
|
Yes, we must spread *the word*!! Our hope is to be bigger than
Jesus, Allah, John Lennon and L.Ron Hubbard put together!!
Rock on Sarah!!
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Well, thank you very much, mate. :) We do the best we can. I'm enjoying
>yours, too. Tell ten friends to buy our CD, then they'll tell ten friends,
>then they'll tell ten friends . . . .
>
>Hugs,
>
>Sarah
>
>
>"macle" <Mates9999@cs.com> wrote in message news:44e3cc28$1@linux...
>>
>> Oh my gawd, lucifer!
>> either way, it's so absurd,
>> look around it's
>> such a blur you see!!
>>
>> Why is live and let live so hard? I dunno. Seems so easy.
>>
>> I've taken to burying my head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss
>> sort of nearly almost. It'll all work out in the end (except
>> for those of us burning in hell for eternity...OUCH!)
>>
>> Sarah, I listened to the clips on your site...very very
>> nice Paris sound. Thumbs up!
>>
>> Peace brothers and sisters!!
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71381 is a reply to message #71380] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 16:31 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
it just so happpens that the two CDs on constant rotation in my car are sarah's
and yours.
Very very good stuff.
-steve
"macle" <Mates9999@cs.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, we must spread *the word*!! Our hope is to be bigger than
>Jesus, Allah, John Lennon and L.Ron Hubbard put together!!
>
>Rock on Sarah!!
>
>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>Well, thank you very much, mate. :) We do the best we can. I'm enjoying
>
>>yours, too. Tell ten friends to buy our CD, then they'll tell ten friends,
>
>>then they'll tell ten friends . . . .
>>
>>Hugs,
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>"macle" <Mates9999@cs.com> wrote in message news:44e3cc28$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Oh my gawd, lucifer!
>>> either way, it's so absurd,
>>> look around it's
>>> such a blur you see!!
>>>
>>> Why is live and let live so hard? I dunno. Seems so easy.
>>>
>>> I've taken to burying my head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss
>>> sort of nearly almost. It'll all work out in the end (except
>>> for those of us burning in hell for eternity...OUCH!)
>>>
>>> Sarah, I listened to the clips on your site...very very
>>> nice Paris sound. Thumbs up!
>>>
>>> Peace brothers and sisters!!
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71384 is a reply to message #71320] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 18:42 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
LOL! Good point, Thad!
I'll take a shot at a few. Maybe...:
Famine or malnutrition
Influenza (various endemics of such, throughout time)
Old Age (ok, it's kind of a "Duh!", but it's still a killer)
Infection of wounds
Death at the hands (paws) of wild beasts
That's all I can come up with.
Neil
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I'd be interested to hear the nine candidates you would propose ahead of
it.
>
>
>TCB
>
>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>sarah
>>
>>everyone wants to be the holder of "the truth" and feel compelled to
>>convince others even if they have to kill them to do it. thankfully
>>not all go to that extreme...unfortunately many are willing to do just
>>that...on both sides of the argument. religion has to be in the top
>>ten killers of humanity throughout history.
>>
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>
>>>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
>to
>>>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
>in
>>>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
>view
>>>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>>>
>>>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith
is
>
>>>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
>on
>>>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
>if
>>>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
>you
>>>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>
>>>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>
>>>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
>do
>>>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>
>>>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
> I
>>>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>>>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>
>>>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
>and
>>>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
>silly
>>>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
>sky."
>>>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite,
my
>
>>>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
>that
>>>I have no reason to believe.
>>>
>>>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
>I
>>>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
>ago),
>>>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
that
>
>>>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>
>>>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>
>>>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
beings
>
>>>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>
>>>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>>
>>>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
>a way
>>>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>
>>>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
What
>I
>>>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
>you
>>>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>
>>>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>
>>>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>
>>>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>
>>>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>
>>>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
threat
>
>>>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>>
>>>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>
>>>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>
>>>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>
>>>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>
>>>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>>>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
>by
>>>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
>of
>>>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
>has
>>>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>
>>>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>
>>>potential consequences of this.
>>>
>>>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
>I
>>>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
>that
>>>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>
>>>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>
>>>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>
>>>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>
>>>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>
>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>>> human at the source.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>
>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
>left
>>>> it
>>>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>
>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The
>>>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>>effective
>>>>
>>>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>
>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>> rules".
>>>>
>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
>with
>>>>
>>>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
>say
>>>>
>>>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>>>> --
>>>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
>And
>>>> I'm
>>>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
>just
>>>>
>>>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>
>>>>>human
>>>>
>>>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
>by
>>>> a
>>>>>supreme being.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>> themselves...
>>>>
>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
>do
>>>> you
>>>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>
>>>>>rice?
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>>>> 500?
>>>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>
>>>>>their
>>>>
>>>>>families.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>>>
>>>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
>of
>>>> some
>>>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
>a
>>>>
>>>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
>and
>>>>
>>>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>> would have to.
>>>>
>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
>to do
>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>
>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71391 is a reply to message #71379] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 20:06 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Jamie,
I probably should have replied originally in a generic post so you didn't
think all of that was referring to you (I wasn't referring to anyone in
particular - in general this is a great group of people - diverse opinions,
but usually even tempered discussion which I greatly appreciate).
The possibility of our country outlawing Christianity isn't a given, but a
trend I see - I really don't want to be right, and don't assume I am either.
We may never reach that point, but there are many other reasons why I see
that as a distinct possibility (for one, in Revelation when God talks about
the last days, there is not correlation to any entity resembling the United
States in its' current form - not that tying Revelation to any country
outside of Israel is obvious - it isn't. But there are parallels for other
countries, in some form).
I just sense that our country won't exist in this form eventually - either
through hostile, economic or religious takeover (not Christianity btw), or
gradual descent into another social and governmental form that
self-destructs. Another possibility is that we team up with Canada and
Mexico and form the North American Trade Union to compete with the EU (we
would have more letters in our acronym, which is always good, or not), but
that's completely unrelated, and far more likely to occur in our
lifetimes...
Specifically related to your post, I was mainly addressing your assertion
that our country is becoming a theocracy. Since the beginning of our
country we have actually taken more associations with and public acceptances
of God and Christianity out of our society and out of public view, not the
other way around. Some of that is just part of our ever changing
interpretation of the separation of church and state, but the problem is, we
don't seem to be abiding by a solid basis for many constitutional decisions
as we might like to believe. As the separation of church and state concept
isn't actually in the Constitution in that form (we've all discussed that
before here), we are interpreting what is there in various forms - the
original statement just says that the state/government shall not advocate a
given religion, which it doesn't, and never has. There are of course state
laws and tax laws that further define what that means (e.g. a minister can
not endorse any political candidate from the pulpit and retain
non-profit/religious institution status - that's a grey area between the
restriction of the government not endorsing a religion and freedom of speech
- e.g. the bill of rights applies as long as it doesn't interfere with our
interpretation of the Constitution, and hence its' malleability gradually
increases when it applies to religion).
Bill of Rights - there is a reason for it no doubt, and it works, or should,
for everyone's benefit. That doesn't make governments, laws or bills more
morally perfect than God's laws, but I think most of the ones we have work
pretty well usually. But we have to remember that in a situation such as
faith, a lack of faith can't be considered a neutral point of view in terms
of rights. Where faith must be bound, so must irreligious beliefs - both
are faith decisions - one deciding to believe in God, the other deciding not
to. The reason is that to provide equal rights without conflict or
contradiction between two contradictory belief systems (Christianity vs.
Atheism/Agnosticism for example), one belief would have to be false to the
point of being considered non-existent.
Sidebar - Blaise Pascal had an interesting comment on the idea of
conflicting beliefs:
"Pascal's wager":
"Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and
you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God,
heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've
had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything
makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false,
you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be
true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell."
On 8/17/06 5:05 PM, in article 44e4f4b2@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> Yet we must succeed at communicating between groups as diverse as
> Christians and Muslims, or for a tougher example, AELC Lutherans and
> Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. I'm only half joking about that last one...
Agreed. The church we attend here isn't one of the largest (about 1000),
but has held two community discussion forums (both got local press) - the
first was to discuss homosexuality, and the second religious diversity
(including a Jew, Muslim, Catholic, etc). I wasn't able to attend either
one, but heard both were very successful at opening up dialogue and giving
people a chance to ask questions of panel members on all sides of both
issues. The reason our church hosted this was simply to open up dialogue.
I believe it both were moderated by 3rd parties so there wouldn't be a
question of objectivity.
>
> In the USA some (not all) members of the following groups feel
> persecuted because of religious bias in our culture:
>
> 1) Christians (way too diverse a group to be under a single label, BTW).
To a degree that is true, but a Christian is simply someone who believes
that Jesus is the son of one true God, and that he died to overcome our
sins, giving us a direct path to God and the promise of eternal life.
> 2) Muslims
> 3) Jews
> 4) Sikhs
> 5) Atheists
> 6) etc.
>
> I don't know if Buddhists bother feeling persecuted.
>
> I do like the ACLU for the most part, because the Bill of Rights is
> constantly under attack. Since it's a fundamental part of what makes the
> USA a special place it needs to be looked after. So I'll add:
>
> 7) The Bill Of Rights
>
> Even though it's not a group, it protects all of us from a variety of
> bad stuff. Hey, it's my list and I'm adding it! :^)
7 is a good number. I do also see the Bill of Rights under attack, but
perhaps from a different perspective.
>
> How do we balance different outlooks and perceptions around all this? It
> ain't easy. Talking is good, though.
It isn't easy, from any perspective. But I also agree, talking is the only
way to understand, if not resolve differences.
>
> I don't see anything that indicates we are about to outlaw Christianity.
> You'll have to convince me on that one. The appropriateness of
> government sanctioning of the symbol of one religion over another is an
> interesting issue but I wouldn't read that as moving toward banning
> Christianity. Probably makes great material for rousing sermons, though,
> in some churches, while other churches can and do support the separation
> of church and state for religious reasons so their sermons would go the
> other way. See how hard it is to generalize about Christianity as one
> entity?
Actually I've never heard a sermon about a specific move to outlaw
Christianity. Some ministers do refer to specific events where a Christian
organization or event was sanctioned because it was perceived as being too
public (a deviation of the separation of church and state). Why would the
ACLU want to prevent someone from putting a cross on their own land? Are we
going to extend eminent domain to enforce the separation of church and
state, as a local judicial court chooses to interpret it?
In general most Christians don't worry about the future, and I don't either.
I only proposed this perspective, hypothetically for the sake of this
discussion, to open up thinking about where we could end up if the trend
many of us see continues to build. Most of the events indicating such a
trend never make the news. If you are interested, I'll relate more the next
time we have a chance to get together.
>
> Our great Bill of Rights protects Christianity and all its sects. It
> seems to me that certain subsets of Christian thought are very
> influential in our government right now, hence my comment. I'm not
> seeing that level of influence from other religions.
And I see the opposite also being true - Ted Kennedy for one. There is some
public profile and influence from prominent Christians, but I don't think it
is nearly as strong as the news would have you believe. I've either
attended churches headed by some of these leaders, or know other ministers
that have relationships with them.
>
> We should have a conversation about this, Dedric, next time you're up
> this way.
That would be great. I'll drop you a line the next time I'm in your neck of
the hills - probably should make a business trip up that way soon.
Regards,
Dedric
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>> Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
>> I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
>> than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of church
>> and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>> Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians to
>> just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
>> non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity may
>> seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>> deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even on
>> this forum.
>>
>> Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
>> mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>> truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best) as
>> long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>> nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>> substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>> strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>> Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow is
>> responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
>> Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>> slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider the
>> arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>> discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need to
>> ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems to the
>> faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances. I'm
>> not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far from
>> it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
>> the perspectives here.
>>
>> For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>> probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build a
>> memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land is
>> private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
>> issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the right
>> as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>> promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
>> the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>> "suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable for
>> anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone to get
>> drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst case,
>> rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of, at
>> least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
>> but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>> rates or corporate corruption.
>>
>> My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by the
>> ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>> promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap from
>> there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
>> become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
>> action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
>> into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
>> involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
>> the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples of
>> how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>>
>> The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is, who
>> wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
>> family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about. I
>> really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
>> discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
>> ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>>
>> I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit it is
>> intended - just something to consider.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71403 is a reply to message #71384] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 03:02 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
boring lectures
brittany spears interviews
stuff like that
On 18 Aug 2006 11:42:17 +1000, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>LOL! Good point, Thad!
>
>I'll take a shot at a few. Maybe...:
>
>Famine or malnutrition
>Influenza (various endemics of such, throughout time)
>Old Age (ok, it's kind of a "Duh!", but it's still a killer)
>Infection of wounds
>Death at the hands (paws) of wild beasts
>
>That's all I can come up with.
>
>Neil
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'd be interested to hear the nine candidates you would propose ahead of
>it.
>>
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>sarah
>>>
>>>everyone wants to be the holder of "the truth" and feel compelled to
>>>convince others even if they have to kill them to do it. thankfully
>>>not all go to that extreme...unfortunately many are willing to do just
>>>that...on both sides of the argument. religion has to be in the top
>>>ten killers of humanity throughout history.
>>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>>
>>>>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
>>to
>>>>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
>>in
>>>>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
>>view
>>>>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>>>>
>>>>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith
>is
>>
>>>>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
>>on
>>>>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
>>if
>>>>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
>>you
>>>>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>>
>>>>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>
>>>>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
>>do
>>>>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>>
>>>>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
>> I
>>>>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>
>>>>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>>
>>>>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
>>and
>>>>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
>>silly
>>>>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
>>sky."
>>>>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite,
>my
>>
>>>>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
>>that
>>>>I have no reason to believe.
>>>>
>>>>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
>
>>I
>>>>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
>>ago),
>>>>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
>that
>>
>>>>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>>
>>>>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>>
>>>>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
>beings
>>
>>>>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>>
>>>>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>>>
>>>>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
>>a way
>>>>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>>
>>>>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
>What
>>I
>>>>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
>>you
>>>>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>>
>>>>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>>
>>>>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>>
>>>>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>
>>>>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>>
>>>>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
>threat
>>
>>>>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>>>
>>>>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>>
>>>>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>>
>>>>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>>
>>>>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>>>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>>
>>>>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>
>>>>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
>>by
>>>>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
>>of
>>>>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
>>has
>>>>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>>
>>>>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>>
>>>>potential consequences of this.
>>>>
>>>>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
>>I
>>>>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
>>that
>>>>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>>
>>>>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>>
>>>>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>>
>>>>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>
>>>>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>
>>>>Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>
>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
>>left
>>>>> it
>>>>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>>>effective
>>>>>
>>>>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>> rules".
>>>>>
>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
>>with
>>>>>
>>>>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
>>say
>>>>>
>>>>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>>>>> --
>>>>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
>
>>And
>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
>>just
>>>>>
>>>>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>
>>>>>>human
>>>>>
>>>>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
>>by
>>>>> a
>>>>>>supreme being.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
>>do
>>>>> you
>>>>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>
>>>>>>rice?
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>
>>>>>>their
>>>>>
>>>>>>families.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
>>of
>>>>> some
>>>>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sarah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>
>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
>>to do
>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>
>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> DC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71407 is a reply to message #71375] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 08:09 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I know I'm going to sound like a pedant but I'm going to say it anyway. The
founders were keenly aware of the importance of keeping religion out of the
public sphere precisely because the recent history of Europe had shown how
dangerous it is when it gets there. About a hundred years earlier (and the
American aristocracy that made the country were keen historians almost to
a one) a religious war had sent England very close to complete anarchy. The
entire idea of the country was to avoid entanglement in the issues that had
plagued Europe for centuries, sectarian violence surrounding religion and
monarchy. It bothers me immensely when somehow Franklin and Jefferson are
retrofitted with vestments.
As I've said here, I respect anyone's beliefs unless and until they interfere
with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you don't like 'suggestive'
billboards or strip clubs you'll have to pass laws against them that meet
the standards of the constitution. As Jefferson said, whether my neighbor
wishes to worship a different god than I do, or no god at all, neither picks
my pockets nor breaks my bones. But considering the damage that religious
strife has caused in history I think any error should be made on the side
of caution.
TCB
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
><Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
>I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
>than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of church
>and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians
to
>just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
>non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity
may
>seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even
on
>this forum.
>
>Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
>mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best) as
>long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow is
>responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
>Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider the
>arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need to
>ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems to
the
>faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances. I'm
>not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far from
>it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
>the perspectives here.
>
>For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build
a
>memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land is
>private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
>issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the right
>as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
>the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>"suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable for
>anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone to
get
>drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst case,
>rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of,
at
>least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
>but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>rates or corporate corruption.
>
>My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by the
>ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap
from
>there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
>become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
>action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
>into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
>involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
>the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples
of
>how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>
>The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is, who
>wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
>family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about. I
>really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
>discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
>ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>
>I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit it
is
>intended - just something to consider.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: church and state [message #71408 is a reply to message #71407] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 08:35 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Actually, you have called belief in God "morally suspect", and
have expressed a fair amount of disrespect for faith on several
occasions. Just for the record. Your use of the word "respect"
here is window dressing for your real agenda and opinions it seems.
As for religion in the public sphere, the first amendment says
less about it than some think.
It clearly bans a state religion and the
prohibition of religious practice, and I think it is reasonable to
extrapolate that it protects the beliefs of atheists. However,
the idea that it can be used to ban crosses on veterans cemetaries, the pledge,
and "In God We Trust" on currency, is legally and
historically suspect. There are several cases in the works to test
this theory, so we shall see.
DC
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>As I've said here, I respect anyone's beliefs unless and until they interfere
>with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you don't like 'suggestive'
>billboards or strip clubs you'll have to pass laws against them that meet
>the standards of the constitution. As Jefferson said, whether my neighbor
>wishes to worship a different god than I do, or no god at all, neither picks
>my pockets nor breaks my bones. But considering the damage that religious
>strife has caused in history I think any error should be made on the side
>of caution.
>
>TCB
>
>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
>><Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
>>I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
>>than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of church
>>and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>>Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians
>to
>>just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
>>non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity
>may
>>seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>>deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even
>on
>>this forum.
>>
>>Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
>>mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>>truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best)
as
>>long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>>nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>>substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>>strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>>Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow is
>>responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
>>Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>>slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider
the
>>arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>>discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need to
>>ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems to
>the
>>faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances. I'm
>>not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far from
>>it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
>>the perspectives here.
>>
>>For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>>probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build
>a
>>memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land is
>>private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
>>issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the
right
>>as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>>promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
>>the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>>"suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable for
>>anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone to
>get
>>drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst case,
>>rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of,
>at
>>least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
>>but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>>rates or corporate corruption.
>>
>>My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by the
>>ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>>promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap
>from
>>there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
>>become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
>>action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
>>into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
>>involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
>>the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples
>of
>>how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>>
>>The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is, who
>>wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
>>family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about.
I
>>really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
>>discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
>>ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>>
>>I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit
it
>is
>>intended - just something to consider.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dedric
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: church and state [message #71410 is a reply to message #71408] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 08:54 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Actually, I said that _I consider_ the three religions based on the vengeful
Levantine sky god 'morally suspect' which I still believe. Unsurprisingly,
you equate a general 'belief in God' with 'DC's christian beliefs' which
might bring quizzical looks from 850 million Hindus.
And of course our currency always had 'in god we trust' on it, except that
it didn't.
http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-go d-we-trust.shtml
We atheists don't really have an agenda. How could we? There's not much prosteltizing
to be done for non-belief. I guess we do have one agenda, to be left alone
on that pursuit that happiness Jefferson promised us.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, you have called belief in God "morally suspect", and
>have expressed a fair amount of disrespect for faith on several
>occasions. Just for the record. Your use of the word "respect"
>here is window dressing for your real agenda and opinions it seems.
>
>As for religion in the public sphere, the first amendment says
>less about it than some think.
>
>It clearly bans a state religion and the
>prohibition of religious practice, and I think it is reasonable to
>extrapolate that it protects the beliefs of atheists. However,
>the idea that it can be used to ban crosses on veterans cemetaries, the
pledge,
>and "In God We Trust" on currency, is legally and
>historically suspect. There are several cases in the works to test
>this theory, so we shall see.
>
>DC
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>>As I've said here, I respect anyone's beliefs unless and until they interfere
>>with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you don't like 'suggestive'
>>billboards or strip clubs you'll have to pass laws against them that meet
>>the standards of the constitution. As Jefferson said, whether my neighbor
>>wishes to worship a different god than I do, or no god at all, neither
picks
>>my pockets nor breaks my bones. But considering the damage that religious
>>strife has caused in history I think any error should be made on the side
>>of caution.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
>>><Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
>>>I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
>>>than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of church
>>>and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>>>Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians
>>to
>>>just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
>>>non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity
>>may
>>>seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>>>deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even
>>on
>>>this forum.
>>>
>>>Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
>>>mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>>>truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best)
>as
>>>long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>>>nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>>>substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>>>strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>>>Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow
is
>>>responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
>>>Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>>>slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider
>the
>>>arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>>>discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need
to
>>>ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems
to
>>the
>>>faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances.
I'm
>>>not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far
from
>>>it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
>>>the perspectives here.
>>>
>>>For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>>>probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build
>>a
>>>memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land
is
>>>private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
>>>issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the
>right
>>>as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>>>promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
>>>the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>>>"suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable for
>>>anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone
to
>>get
>>>drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst
case,
>>>rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of,
>>at
>>>least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
>>>but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>>>rates or corporate corruption.
>>>
>>>My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by
the
>>>ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>>>promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap
>>from
>>>there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
>>>become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
>>>action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
>>>into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
>>>involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
>>>the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples
>>of
>>>how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>>>
>>>The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is,
who
>>>wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
>>>family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about.
>I
>>>really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
>>>discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
>>>ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>>>
>>>I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit
>it
>>is
>>>intended - just something to consider.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: church and state [message #71412 is a reply to message #71410] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 09:08 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
But you said *right below* that you respect "anyone's" beliefs,
and indeed you do not. Glad to hear you say you respect Hindus,
but I doubt many of them would find your respect something they
could be certain of.
As far as proselytizing. Here you go:
Atheist evangelists on parade:
http://www.the-brights.net/
http://www.atheists.org/
http://www.atheists.com/
and there's lots more. My uncles were good friends with Madalyn
Murray O'Hare, and I can tell you that while atheist proselytizing
may take the form of ridicule, hostility, and hatred more than
exhortation and encouragement, it does, most certainly, exist.
As far as the currency goes, I care much less that the statement
is on there, than I am alarmed at the push to take it off, all the
while denying an agenda...
amazing really.
DC
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, I said that _I consider_ the three religions based on the vengeful
>Levantine sky god 'morally suspect' which I still believe. Unsurprisingly,
>you equate a general 'belief in God' with 'DC's christian beliefs' which
>might bring quizzical looks from 850 million Hindus.
>
>And of course our currency always had 'in god we trust' on it, except that
>it didn't.
>
> http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-go d-we-trust.shtml
>
>We atheists don't really have an agenda. How could we? There's not much
prosteltizing
>to be done for non-belief. I guess we do have one agenda, to be left alone
>on that pursuit that happiness Jefferson promised us.
>
>TCB
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, you have called belief in God "morally suspect", and
>>have expressed a fair amount of disrespect for faith on several
>>occasions. Just for the record. Your use of the word "respect"
>>here is window dressing for your real agenda and opinions it seems.
>>
>>As for religion in the public sphere, the first amendment says
>>less about it than some think.
>>
>>It clearly bans a state religion and the
>>prohibition of religious practice, and I think it is reasonable to
>>extrapolate that it protects the beliefs of atheists. However,
>>the idea that it can be used to ban crosses on veterans cemetaries, the
>pledge,
>>and "In God We Trust" on currency, is legally and
>>historically suspect. There are several cases in the works to test
>>this theory, so we shall see.
>>
>>DC
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As I've said here, I respect anyone's beliefs unless and until they interfere
>>>with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you don't like 'suggestive'
>>>billboards or strip clubs you'll have to pass laws against them that meet
>>>the standards of the constitution. As Jefferson said, whether my neighbor
>>>wishes to worship a different god than I do, or no god at all, neither
>picks
>>>my pockets nor breaks my bones. But considering the damage that religious
>>>strife has caused in history I think any error should be made on the side
>>>of caution.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>><Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
>>>>I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
>>>>than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of
church
>>>>and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>>>>Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians
>>>to
>>>>just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
>>>>non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity
>>>may
>>>>seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>>>>deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even
>>>on
>>>>this forum.
>>>>
>>>>Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
>>>>mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>>>>truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best)
>>as
>>>>long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>>>>nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>>>>substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>>>>strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>>>>Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow
>is
>>>>responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
>>>>Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>>>>slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider
>>the
>>>>arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>>>>discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need
>to
>>>>ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems
>to
>>>the
>>>>faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances.
>I'm
>>>>not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far
>from
>>>>it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
>>>>the perspectives here.
>>>>
>>>>For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>>>>probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build
>>>a
>>>>memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land
>is
>>>>private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
>>>>issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the
>>right
>>>>as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>>>>promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
>>>>the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>>>>"suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable
for
>>>>anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone
>to
>>>get
>>>>drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst
>case,
>>>>rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of,
>>>at
>>>>least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
>>>>but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>>>>rates or corporate corruption.
>>>>
>>>>My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by
>the
>>>>ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>>>>promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap
>>>from
>>>>there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
>>>>become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
>>>>action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
>>>>into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
>>>>involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
>>>>the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples
>>>of
>>>>how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is,
>who
>>>>wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
>>>>family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about.
>>I
>>>>really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
>>>>discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
>>>>ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>>>>
>>>>I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit
>>it
>>>is
>>>>intended - just something to consider.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: church and state [message #71413 is a reply to message #71412] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 09:19 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think you're confusing 'respect' with 'adhere to.' I can respect someone's
beliefs and still disagree with them. I respect the beliefs of those who
believe an alien abduction but I don't think that happens.
As an atheist, when I get tax exempt buildings and special parking spaces
I'll start believing we have an agenda.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote:
>
>But you said *right below* that you respect "anyone's" beliefs,
>and indeed you do not. Glad to hear you say you respect Hindus,
>but I doubt many of them would find your respect something they
>could be certain of.
>
>As far as proselytizing. Here you go:
>
>Atheist evangelists on parade:
>
>http://www.the-brights.net/
>http://www.atheists.org/
>http://www.atheists.com/
>
>and there's lots more. My uncles were good friends with Madalyn
>Murray O'Hare, and I can tell you that while atheist proselytizing
>may take the form of ridicule, hostility, and hatred more than
>exhortation and encouragement, it does, most certainly, exist.
>
>As far as the currency goes, I care much less that the statement
>is on there, than I am alarmed at the push to take it off, all the
>while denying an agenda...
>
>amazing really.
>
>DC
>
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, I said that _I consider_ the three religions based on the vengeful
>>Levantine sky god 'morally suspect' which I still believe. Unsurprisingly,
>>you equate a general 'belief in God' with 'DC's christian beliefs' which
>>might bring quizzical looks from 850 million Hindus.
>>
>>And of course our currency always had 'in god we trust' on it, except that
>>it didn't.
>>
>> http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-go d-we-trust.shtml
>>
>>We atheists don't really have an agenda. How could we? There's not much
>prosteltizing
>>to be done for non-belief. I guess we do have one agenda, to be left alone
>>on that pursuit that happiness Jefferson promised us.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Actually, you have called belief in God "morally suspect", and
>>>have expressed a fair amount of disrespect for faith on several
>>>occasions. Just for the record. Your use of the word "respect"
>>>here is window dressing for your real agenda and opinions it seems.
>>>
>>>As for religion in the public sphere, the first amendment says
>>>less about it than some think.
>>>
>>>It clearly bans a state religion and the
>>>prohibition of religious practice, and I think it is reasonable to
>>>extrapolate that it protects the beliefs of atheists. However,
>>>the idea that it can be used to ban crosses on veterans cemetaries, the
>>pledge,
>>>and "In God We Trust" on currency, is legally and
>>>historically suspect. There are several cases in the works to test
>>>this theory, so we shall see.
>>>
>>>DC
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>As I've said here, I respect anyone's beliefs unless and until they interfere
>>>>with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you don't like 'suggestive'
>>>>billboards or strip clubs you'll have to pass laws against them that
meet
>>>>the standards of the constitution. As Jefferson said, whether my neighbor
>>>>wishes to worship a different god than I do, or no god at all, neither
>>picks
>>>>my pockets nor breaks my bones. But considering the damage that religious
>>>>strife has caused in history I think any error should be made on the
side
>>>>of caution.
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>><Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
>>>>>I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
>>>>>than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of
>church
>>>>>and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>>>>>Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians
>>>>to
>>>>>just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of
the
>>>>>non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity
>>>>may
>>>>>seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>>>>>deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even
>>>>on
>>>>>this forum.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really
don't
>>>>>mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>>>>>truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best)
>>>as
>>>>>long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>>>>>nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>>>>>substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>>>>>strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>>>>>Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow
>>is
>>>>>responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
>>>>>Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>>>>>slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider
>>>the
>>>>>arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>>>>>discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need
>>to
>>>>>ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems
>>to
>>>>the
>>>>>faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances.
>
>>I'm
>>>>>not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far
>>from
>>>>>it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
>>>>>the perspectives here.
>>>>>
>>>>>For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>>>>>probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to
build
>>>>a
>>>>>memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land
>>is
>>>>>private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is
taking
>>>>>issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the
>>>right
>>>>>as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>>>>>promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
>>>>>the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>>>>>"suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable
>for
>>>>>anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone
>>to
>>>>get
>>>>>drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst
>>case,
>>>>>rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know
of,
>>>>at
>>>>>least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
>>>>>but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>>>>>rates or corporate corruption.
>>>>>
>>>>>My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by
>>the
>>>>>ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>>>>>promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap
>>>>from
>>>>>there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
>>>>>become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
>>>>>action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of
insight
>>>>>into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
>>>>>involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
>>>>>the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples
>>>>of
>>>>>how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is,
>>who
>>>>>wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and
my
>>>>>family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about.
>>>I
>>>>>really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
>>>>>discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of
being
>>>>>ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit
>>>it
>>>>is
>>>>>intended - just something to consider.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: church and state [message #71415 is a reply to message #71413] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 09:56 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I think you're confusing 'respect' with 'adhere to.' I can respect someone's
>beliefs and still disagree with them. I respect the beliefs of those who
>believe an alien abduction but I don't think that happens.
No you don't. You have zero respect for those beliefs and
anyone who knows you can confirm this.
We say we respect beliefs, but we often do not. Madalyn Murray
O'Hare was a nasty old bat, full of hate and bitterness, who in the
end was killed by someone who subscribed to the same almighty
self as the final authority, that she did. Her beliefs lead straight to
hell IM-ever-so-HO.
Now, as an american, and certainly as a christian, I hope I would
change her tire in the rain, and I hope I would jump in and save
your butt from a beating if you got too friendly with one of your
brazilian stripper chicks and some guy decided to teach you a
lesson.
This practice of respect is what is lacking, not the profession of
respect, which is just words... I wish atheists practiced respect
more towards Christians. But hey, we understand your need to
dump on us. After all, we know about your doubt that we are
wrong, and your fear that we may be right...
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: church and state [message #71417 is a reply to message #71415] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 10:54 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
First, I had to google Madelyn O'Hare to find out who she was, so at the very
least I'm not part of the grand atheist conspiracy. I'm just a plain old
atheist. And, just so you know, I spend LOTS of time with people who don't
agree with what I think, and have no problem at all with them. Anyone who
actually does know me would happily confirm this. Enjoying their company
and conversation to me is the greatest proof of my 'respect' for their beliefs,
even if I don't always agree with them.
You, of course, in a daunting display of respect, tell me my beliefs consign
me to hell, which is already crowded with all those Hindus we were talking
about before.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think you're confusing 'respect' with 'adhere to.' I can respect someone's
>>beliefs and still disagree with them. I respect the beliefs of those who
>>believe an alien abduction but I don't think that happens.
>
>
>No you don't. You have zero respect for those beliefs and
>anyone who knows you can confirm this.
>
>We say we respect beliefs, but we often do not. Madalyn Murray
>O'Hare was a nasty old bat, full of hate and bitterness, who in the
>end was killed by someone who subscribed to the same almighty
>self as the final authority, that she did. Her beliefs lead straight to
>
>hell IM-ever-so-HO.
>
>Now, as an american, and certainly as a christian, I hope I would
>change her tire in the rain, and I hope I would jump in and save
>your butt from a beating if you got too friendly with one of your
>brazilian stripper chicks and some guy decided to teach you a
>lesson.
>
>This practice of respect is what is lacking, not the profession of
>respect, which is just words... I wish atheists practiced respect
>more towards Christians. But hey, we understand your need to
>dump on us. After all, we know about your doubt that we are
>wrong, and your fear that we may be right...
>
>
>DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: church and state [message #71420 is a reply to message #71417] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 11:20 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>First, I had to google Madelyn O'Hare to find out who she was, so at the
very
>least I'm not part of the grand atheist conspiracy.
Wow, she was behind the landmark 1964 School Prayer decision
that formed the basis for much of our current case law on church-
state issues. Oh, well, like a said, a nasty old bat, so you did not
miss much.
I'm just a plain old
>atheist. And, just so you know, I spend LOTS of time with people who don't
>agree with what I think, and have no problem at all with them.
I never doubted it. You do also ridicule Christians on occasion, and
spare me the blather about your respect for UFO cultists. You
practice respect towards them, but you still think they are fools.
Which makes you like everyone else.
>You, of course, in a daunting display of respect, tell me my beliefs consign
>me to hell, which is already crowded with all those Hindus we were talking
>about before.
Why should you care? There IS no hell right? And you got my
position wrong anyway.
You must have missed some of what I said to Sarah. I strongly
believe that Hindus, Muslims etc can go to heaven. It is not
about adherence to Christian orthodoxy, it is about our response to
the Spirit of God. Everyone deals with that issue, regardless of
their faith or lack of it. No one goes to hell because some
missionary did not get to them in time. No little kid who dies of
cancer at the age of 5 goes to hell because they have not heard
the name of Jesus. That would be pure barbarity, and I think it is
unscriptural as well.
I do believe that a sincere search for God will lead them (and us)
to Jesus Christ at some point, but if they die before they get
there, do they go to hell? That's not what I see in the Bible.
BTW, I can envision an atheist in heaven. (In an anechoic chamber
testing mics... forever and ever, and never opening the doooorrr...)
Seriously though, imagine someone who saw "religious" people
of whatever stripe, slaughter their family? Wouldn't their atheism
make sense? Wouldn't it be a further injustice for them to go to hell
because of what they had no power over?
I differ strongly with the Bible Belt folks who think anyone that
doesn't say the name of Jesus is conigned to eternal fire which
I don't believe in either. What the hell (pardon the pun) is the
point of burning someone for ever and ever? Is it not simple
cruelty? Is it not simple perversity at some point? After 20 years
or so of burning, is it not just silly?
Oy, coffee break's over, back on yer 'eads!
(remember that joke?)
So, no, I don't *know* you are going to hell, and it's not my place
to make that call. I really hope you do not.
We need mic testers!
heh heh
DC
>
>TCB
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I think you're confusing 'respect' with 'adhere to.' I can respect someone's
>>>beliefs and still disagree with them. I respect the beliefs of those who
>>>believe an alien abduction but I don't think that happens.
>>
>>
>>No you don't. You have zero respect for those beliefs and
>>anyone who knows you can confirm this.
>>
>>We say we respect beliefs, but we often do not. Madalyn Murray
>>O'Hare was a nasty old bat, full of hate and bitterness, who in the
>>end was killed by someone who subscribed to the same almighty
>>self as the final authority, that she did. Her beliefs lead straight to
>>
>>hell IM-ever-so-HO.
>>
>>Now, as an american, and certainly as a christian, I hope I would
>>change her tire in the rain, and I hope I would jump in and save
>>your butt from a beating if you got too friendly with one of your
>>brazilian stripper chicks and some guy decided to teach you a
>>lesson.
>>
>>This practice of respect is what is lacking, not the profession of
>>respect, which is just words... I wish atheists practiced respect
>>more towards Christians. But hey, we understand your need to
>>dump on us. After all, we know about your doubt that we are
>>wrong, and your fear that we may be right...
>>
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71597 is a reply to message #71391] |
Mon, 21 August 2006 20:41 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric,
Dedric Terry wrote:
> That would be great. I'll drop you a line the next time I'm in your
neck of
> the hills - probably should make a business trip up that way soon.
Cool!
Just to be clear, we aren't a theocracy. Good thing, too. The point I
was trying to make is our government is more influenced by Christians
than any other religion on policy matters simply because almost all
elected officials are Christians. Ted Kennedy is Catholic BTW. So it
seems alarmist to paint Christianity as being in anything like dire
straights in the USA.
OTH, GWB once said his favorite political philosopher is Jesus (during a
primary presidential debate), and if he truly believes Jesus is a
political philosopher then theocracy would not be out of the question
for him.
Perhaps others have helped him sort it out by now:
http://clarionherald.org/20000106/maestri.htm
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> Hey Jamie,
>
> I probably should have replied originally in a generic post so you didn't
> think all of that was referring to you (I wasn't referring to anyone in
> particular - in general this is a great group of people - diverse opinions,
> but usually even tempered discussion which I greatly appreciate).
>
> The possibility of our country outlawing Christianity isn't a given, but a
> trend I see - I really don't want to be right, and don't assume I am either.
> We may never reach that point, but there are many other reasons why I see
> that as a distinct possibility (for one, in Revelation when God talks about
> the last days, there is not correlation to any entity resembling the United
> States in its' current form - not that tying Revelation to any country
> outside of Israel is obvious - it isn't. But there are parallels for other
> countries, in some form).
>
> I just sense that our country won't exist in this form eventually - either
> through hostile, economic or religious takeover (not Christianity btw), or
> gradual descent into another social and governmental form that
> self-destructs. Another possibility is that we team up with Canada and
> Mexico and form the North American Trade Union to compete with the EU (we
> would have more letters in our acronym, which is always good, or not), but
> that's completely unrelated, and far more likely to occur in our
> lifetimes...
>
> Specifically related to your post, I was mainly addressing your assertion
> that our country is becoming a theocracy. Since the beginning of our
> country we have actually taken more associations with and public acceptances
> of God and Christianity out of our society and out of public view, not the
> other way around. Some of that is just part of our ever changing
> interpretation of the separation of church and state, but the problem is, we
> don't seem to be abiding by a solid basis for many constitutional decisions
> as we might like to believe. As the separation of church and state concept
> isn't actually in the Constitution in that form (we've all discussed that
> before here), we are interpreting what is there in various forms - the
> original statement just says that the state/government shall not advocate a
> given religion, which it doesn't, and never has. There are of course state
> laws and tax laws that further define what that means (e.g. a minister can
> not endorse any political candidate from the pulpit and retain
> non-profit/religious institution status - that's a grey area between the
> restriction of the government not endorsing a religion and freedom of speech
> - e.g. the bill of rights applies as long as it doesn't interfere with our
> interpretation of the Constitution, and hence its' malleability gradually
> increases when it applies to religion).
>
> Bill of Rights - there is a reason for it no doubt, and it works, or should,
> for everyone's benefit. That doesn't make governments, laws or bills more
> morally perfect than God's laws, but I think most of the ones we have work
> pretty well usually. But we have to remember that in a situation such as
> faith, a lack of faith can't be considered a neutral point of view in terms
> of rights. Where faith must be bound, so must irreligious beliefs - both
> are faith decisions - one deciding to believe in God, the other deciding not
> to. The reason is that to provide equal rights without conflict or
> contradiction between two contradictory belief systems (Christianity vs.
> Atheism/Agnosticism for example), one belief would have to be false to the
> point of being considered non-existent.
>
> Sidebar - Blaise Pascal had an interesting comment on the idea of
> conflicting beliefs:
> "Pascal's wager":
>
> "Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and
> you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God,
> heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've
> had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything
> makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false,
> you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be
> true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell."
>
> On 8/17/06 5:05 PM, in article 44e4f4b2@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Yet we must succeed at communicating between groups as diverse as
>> Christians and Muslims, or for a tougher example, AELC Lutherans and
>> Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. I'm only half joking about that last one...
>
> Agreed. The church we attend here isn't one of the largest (about 1000),
> but has held two community discussion forums (both got local press) - the
> first was to discuss homosexuality, and the second religious diversity
> (including a Jew, Muslim, Catholic, etc). I wasn't able to attend either
> one, but heard both were very successful at opening up dialogue and giving
> people a chance to ask questions of panel members on all sides of both
> issues. The reason our church hosted this was simply to open up dialogue.
> I believe it both were moderated by 3rd parties so there wouldn't be a
> question of objectivity.
>> In the USA some (not all) members of the following groups feel
>> persecuted because of religious bias in our culture:
>>
>> 1) Christians (way too diverse a group to be under a single label, BTW).
> To a degree that is true, but a Christian is simply someone who believes
> that Jesus is the son of one true God, and that he died to overcome our
> sins, giving us a direct path to God and the promise of eternal life.
>
>> 2) Muslims
>> 3) Jews
>> 4) Sikhs
>> 5) Atheists
>> 6) etc.
>>
>> I don't know if Buddhists bother feeling persecuted.
>>
>> I do like the ACLU for the most part, because the Bill of Rights is
>> constantly under attack. Since it's a fundamental part of what makes the
>> USA a special place it needs to be looked after. So I'll add:
>>
>> 7) The Bill Of Rights
>>
>> Even though it's not a group, it protects all of us from a variety of
>> bad stuff. Hey, it's my list and I'm adding it! :^)
>
> 7 is a good number. I do also see the Bill of Rights under attack, but
> perhaps from a different perspective.
>> How do we balance different outlooks and perceptions around all this? It
>> ain't easy. Talking is good, though.
>
> It isn't easy, from any perspective. But I also agree, talking is the only
> way to understand, if not resolve differences.
>> I don't see anything that indicates we are about to outlaw Christianity.
>> You'll have to convince me on that one. The appropriateness of
>> government sanctioning of the symbol of one religion over another is an
>> interesting issue but I wouldn't read that as moving toward banning
>> Christianity. Probably makes great material for rousing sermons, though,
>> in some churches, while other churches can and do support the separation
>> of church and state for religious reasons so their sermons would go the
>> other way. See how hard it is to generalize about Christianity as one
>> entity?
>
> Actually I've never heard a sermon about a specific move to outlaw
> Christianity. Some ministers do refer to specific events where a Christian
> organization or event was sanctioned because it was perceived as being too
> public (a deviation of the separation of church and state). Why would the
> ACLU want to prevent someone from putting a cross on their own land? Are we
> going to extend eminent domain to enforce the separation of church and
> state, as a local judicial court chooses to interpret it?
>
> In general most Christians don't worry about the future, and I don't either.
> I only proposed this perspective, hypothetically for the sake of this
> discussion, to open up thinking about where we could end up if the trend
> many of us see continues to build. Most of the events indicating such a
> trend never make the news. If you are interested, I'll relate more the next
> time we have a chance to get together.
>
>> Our great Bill of Rights protects Christianity and all its sects. It
>> seems to me that certain subsets of Christian thought are very
>> influential in our government right now, hence my comment. I'm not
>> seeing that level of influence from other religions.
>
> And I see the opposite also being true - Ted Kennedy for one. There is some
> public profile and influence from prominent Christians, but I don't think it
> is nearly as strong as the news would have you believe. I've either
> attended churches headed by some of these leaders, or know other ministers
> that have relationships with them.
>> We should have a conversation about this, Dedric, next time you're up
>> this way.
>
> That would be great. I'll drop you a line the next time I'm in your neck of
> the hills - probably should make a business trip up that way soon.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>> Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and ministers
>>> I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing Christianity
>>> than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of church
>>> and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>>> Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect Christians to
>>> just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
>>> non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity may
>>> seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>>> deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even on
>>> this forum.
>>>
>>> Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really don't
>>> mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>>> truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best) as
>>> long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>>> nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>>> substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>>> strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>>> Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow is
>>> responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the truth).
>>> Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>>> slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider the
>>> arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>>> discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need to
>>> ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems to the
>>> faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances. I'm
>>> not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far from
>>> it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and broadening
>>> the perspectives here.
>>>
>>> For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>>> probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to build a
>>> memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land is
>>> private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is taking
>>> issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the right
>>> as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>>> promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would violate
>>> the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>>> "suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable for
>>> anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone to get
>>> drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst case,
>>> rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of, at
>>> least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact opposite,
>>> but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>>> rates or corporate corruption.
>>>
>>> My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by the
>>> ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>>> promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap from
>>> there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in public
>>> become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or criminal
>>> action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of insight
>>> into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get Christians
>>> involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to protect
>>> the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other examples of
>>> how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>>>
>>> The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is, who
>>> wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
>>> family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about. I
>>> really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy well-tempered
>>> discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of being
>>> ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>>>
>>> I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit it is
>>> intended - just something to consider.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71600 is a reply to message #71597] |
Mon, 21 August 2006 22:23 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Jamie,
I do understand your perspective. We can pick up the discussion over lunch
one day, as well as music too of course. :-) Probably early to mid-September
before my next trip up that way, as it's looking right now.
Regards,
Dedric
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44ea7b53@linux...
>
>
> Hey Dedric,
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
> > That would be great. I'll drop you a line the next time I'm in your
> neck of
> > the hills - probably should make a business trip up that way soon.
>
> Cool!
>
> Just to be clear, we aren't a theocracy. Good thing, too. The point I was
> trying to make is our government is more influenced by Christians than any
> other religion on policy matters simply because almost all elected
> officials are Christians. Ted Kennedy is Catholic BTW. So it seems
> alarmist to paint Christianity as being in anything like dire straights in
> the USA.
>
> OTH, GWB once said his favorite political philosopher is Jesus (during a
> primary presidential debate), and if he truly believes Jesus is a
> political philosopher then theocracy would not be out of the question for
> him.
>
> Perhaps others have helped him sort it out by now:
>
> http://clarionherald.org/20000106/maestri.htm
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> Hey Jamie,
>>
>> I probably should have replied originally in a generic post so you didn't
>> think all of that was referring to you (I wasn't referring to anyone in
>> particular - in general this is a great group of people - diverse
>> opinions,
>> but usually even tempered discussion which I greatly appreciate).
>>
>> The possibility of our country outlawing Christianity isn't a given, but
>> a
>> trend I see - I really don't want to be right, and don't assume I am
>> either.
>> We may never reach that point, but there are many other reasons why I see
>> that as a distinct possibility (for one, in Revelation when God talks
>> about
>> the last days, there is not correlation to any entity resembling the
>> United
>> States in its' current form - not that tying Revelation to any country
>> outside of Israel is obvious - it isn't. But there are parallels for
>> other
>> countries, in some form).
>>
>> I just sense that our country won't exist in this form eventually -
>> either
>> through hostile, economic or religious takeover (not Christianity btw),
>> or
>> gradual descent into another social and governmental form that
>> self-destructs. Another possibility is that we team up with Canada and
>> Mexico and form the North American Trade Union to compete with the EU (we
>> would have more letters in our acronym, which is always good, or not),
>> but
>> that's completely unrelated, and far more likely to occur in our
>> lifetimes...
>>
>> Specifically related to your post, I was mainly addressing your assertion
>> that our country is becoming a theocracy. Since the beginning of our
>> country we have actually taken more associations with and public
>> acceptances
>> of God and Christianity out of our society and out of public view, not
>> the
>> other way around. Some of that is just part of our ever changing
>> interpretation of the separation of church and state, but the problem is,
>> we
>> don't seem to be abiding by a solid basis for many constitutional
>> decisions
>> as we might like to believe. As the separation of church and state
>> concept
>> isn't actually in the Constitution in that form (we've all discussed that
>> before here), we are interpreting what is there in various forms - the
>> original statement just says that the state/government shall not advocate
>> a
>> given religion, which it doesn't, and never has. There are of course
>> state
>> laws and tax laws that further define what that means (e.g. a minister
>> can
>> not endorse any political candidate from the pulpit and retain
>> non-profit/religious institution status - that's a grey area between the
>> restriction of the government not endorsing a religion and freedom of
>> speech
>> - e.g. the bill of rights applies as long as it doesn't interfere with
>> our
>> interpretation of the Constitution, and hence its' malleability gradually
>> increases when it applies to religion).
>>
>> Bill of Rights - there is a reason for it no doubt, and it works, or
>> should,
>> for everyone's benefit. That doesn't make governments, laws or bills
>> more
>> morally perfect than God's laws, but I think most of the ones we have
>> work
>> pretty well usually. But we have to remember that in a situation such as
>> faith, a lack of faith can't be considered a neutral point of view in
>> terms
>> of rights. Where faith must be bound, so must irreligious beliefs - both
>> are faith decisions - one deciding to believe in God, the other deciding
>> not
>> to. The reason is that to provide equal rights without conflict or
>> contradiction between two contradictory belief systems (Christianity vs.
>> Atheism/Agnosticism for example), one belief would have to be false to
>> the
>> point of being considered non-existent.
>>
>> Sidebar - Blaise Pascal had an interesting comment on the idea of
>> conflicting beliefs:
>> "Pascal's wager":
>>
>> "Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true,
>> and
>> you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained
>> God,
>> heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but
>> you've
>> had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately,
>> everything
>> makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false,
>> you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to
>> be
>> true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell."
>>
>> On 8/17/06 5:05 PM, in article 44e4f4b2@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yet we must succeed at communicating between groups as diverse as
>>> Christians and Muslims, or for a tougher example, AELC Lutherans and
>>> Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. I'm only half joking about that last one...
>>
>> Agreed. The church we attend here isn't one of the largest (about 1000),
>> but has held two community discussion forums (both got local press) - the
>> first was to discuss homosexuality, and the second religious diversity
>> (including a Jew, Muslim, Catholic, etc). I wasn't able to attend either
>> one, but heard both were very successful at opening up dialogue and
>> giving
>> people a chance to ask questions of panel members on all sides of both
>> issues. The reason our church hosted this was simply to open up
>> dialogue.
>> I believe it both were moderated by 3rd parties so there wouldn't be a
>> question of objectivity.
>>> In the USA some (not all) members of the following groups feel
>>> persecuted because of religious bias in our culture:
>>>
>>> 1) Christians (way too diverse a group to be under a single label, BTW).
>> To a degree that is true, but a Christian is simply someone who believes
>> that Jesus is the son of one true God, and that he died to overcome our
>> sins, giving us a direct path to God and the promise of eternal life.
>>
>>> 2) Muslims
>>> 3) Jews
>>> 4) Sikhs
>>> 5) Atheists
>>> 6) etc.
>>>
>>> I don't know if Buddhists bother feeling persecuted.
>>>
>>> I do like the ACLU for the most part, because the Bill of Rights is
>>> constantly under attack. Since it's a fundamental part of what makes the
>>> USA a special place it needs to be looked after. So I'll add:
>>>
>>> 7) The Bill Of Rights
>>>
>>> Even though it's not a group, it protects all of us from a variety of
>>> bad stuff. Hey, it's my list and I'm adding it! :^)
>>
>> 7 is a good number. I do also see the Bill of Rights under attack, but
>> perhaps from a different perspective.
>>> How do we balance different outlooks and perceptions around all this? It
>>> ain't easy. Talking is good, though.
>>
>> It isn't easy, from any perspective. But I also agree, talking is the
>> only
>> way to understand, if not resolve differences.
>>> I don't see anything that indicates we are about to outlaw Christianity.
>>> You'll have to convince me on that one. The appropriateness of
>>> government sanctioning of the symbol of one religion over another is an
>>> interesting issue but I wouldn't read that as moving toward banning
>>> Christianity. Probably makes great material for rousing sermons, though,
>>> in some churches, while other churches can and do support the separation
>>> of church and state for religious reasons so their sermons would go the
>>> other way. See how hard it is to generalize about Christianity as one
>>> entity?
>>
>> Actually I've never heard a sermon about a specific move to outlaw
>> Christianity. Some ministers do refer to specific events where a
>> Christian
>> organization or event was sanctioned because it was perceived as being
>> too
>> public (a deviation of the separation of church and state). Why would
>> the
>> ACLU want to prevent someone from putting a cross on their own land? Are
>> we
>> going to extend eminent domain to enforce the separation of church and
>> state, as a local judicial court chooses to interpret it?
>>
>> In general most Christians don't worry about the future, and I don't
>> either.
>> I only proposed this perspective, hypothetically for the sake of this
>> discussion, to open up thinking about where we could end up if the trend
>> many of us see continues to build. Most of the events indicating such a
>> trend never make the news. If you are interested, I'll relate more the
>> next
>> time we have a chance to get together.
>>
>>> Our great Bill of Rights protects Christianity and all its sects. It
>>> seems to me that certain subsets of Christian thought are very
>>> influential in our government right now, hence my comment. I'm not
>>> seeing that level of influence from other religions.
>>
>> And I see the opposite also being true - Ted Kennedy for one. There is
>> some
>> public profile and influence from prominent Christians, but I don't think
>> it
>> is nearly as strong as the news would have you believe. I've either
>> attended churches headed by some of these leaders, or know other
>> ministers
>> that have relationships with them.
>>> We should have a conversation about this, Dedric, next time you're up
>>> this way.
>>
>> That would be great. I'll drop you a line the next time I'm in your neck
>> of
>> the hills - probably should make a business trip up that way soon.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/06 10:19 AM, in article 44e495a1@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We're a lot closer to becoming a Christian theocracy at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>> Actually most Christians, including many Christian leaders and
>>>> ministers
>>>> I've talked to agree with me that we are closer to outlawing
>>>> Christianity
>>>> than accepting it as a nation, much less adopting it. Separation of
>>>> church
>>>> and state is actually quite a well-respected concept for most of the
>>>> Christian community. However, it isn't really fair to expect
>>>> Christians to
>>>> just sit out of politics and voting completely to ease the fears of the
>>>> non-Christian community. For a non-Christian, any hint of Christianity
>>>> may
>>>> seem like too much, or even a threat, but to a longtime Christian, the
>>>> deterioration of acceptance for our faith is sadly quite apparent, even
>>>> on
>>>> this forum.
>>>> Let's be brutally honest here, how many people on this forum really
>>>> don't
>>>> mind a Christian sharing their views with conviction, and how many
>>>> truthfully have a problem with it? I'm sure it is tolerable (at best)
>>>> as
>>>> long as it doesn't challenge or confront others' views (which by very
>>>> nature, it will, otherwise it wouldn't be faith with any life-impacting
>>>> substance). On the other hand, most religious threads here have rather
>>>> strong opinions on the non-Christian side - often even claiming that
>>>> Christianity is more violent than Islam, or that Christianity somehow
>>>> is
>>>> responsible for our country going to Iraq (incredibly far from the
>>>> truth).
>>>> Isn't that just one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken debacle of
>>>> slandering Jews? I'm sure that may not be the intention, but consider
>>>> the
>>>> arguments here for equal rights and peace vs. the way Christianity is
>>>> discussed. If we are truly tolerant of one another, we wouldn't need
>>>> to
>>>> ascribe violence and/or all of our country's, or the world's problems
>>>> to the
>>>> faith of someone we might chat with casually in other circumstances.
>>>> I'm
>>>> not asking this from a "victim" mentality in any form or fashion (far
>>>> from
>>>> it). I'm just raising the question out of genuine curiosity and
>>>> broadening
>>>> the perspectives here.
>>>>
>>>> For one societal example, in New Orleans the ACLU is protesting (and
>>>> probably filed suit) against people in one community for wanting to
>>>> build a
>>>> memorial to victims of Katrina - one that includes a cross. The land
>>>> is
>>>> private as is the funding, but as it is in public view, the ACLU is
>>>> taking
>>>> issue. If we exercise equality of "rights" would that not give me the
>>>> right
>>>> as a Christian to file suit against an adult nightclub for a billboard
>>>> promoting topless dancing, with suggestive photos? No, that would
>>>> violate
>>>> the owner's right to free speech, and others' opinion of what is
>>>> "suggestive" and whether that could "suggest" anything objectionable
>>>> for
>>>> anyone. What is the difference? A cross isn't going to tempt anyone
>>>> to get
>>>> drunk, spend money that should be going to support a family, or worst
>>>> case,
>>>> rape a woman (really worst case, not a statistical norm that I know of,
>>>> at
>>>> least hope not) - it is actually more likely to cause the exact
>>>> opposite,
>>>> but yet it is becoming a more common source of public outcry than crime
>>>> rates or corporate corruption.
>>>>
>>>> My prediction is that Christian churches will start being targeted by
>>>> the
>>>> ACLU and other "rights" groups not wanting structures of any kind that
>>>> promote Christianity in public view. And it wouldn't be much of a leap
>>>> from
>>>> there to having something as simple as praying over one's meal in
>>>> public
>>>> become grounds for dismissal from a restaurant, if not legal or
>>>> criminal
>>>> action. Sure, that's extrapolation, but that may give you a bit of
>>>> insight
>>>> into why there seems to be more of a push by Christians to get
>>>> Christians
>>>> involved in political issues - not to take over or dictate, but to
>>>> protect
>>>> the freedom we are also supposed to be allowed. There are other
>>>> examples of
>>>> how this trend is progressing, but I have to get back to work. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> The thing is, most Christians believe it is coming. The question is,
>>>> who
>>>> wants to be on the side that one day tells me personally that I and my
>>>> family will no longer be welcome here? Just something to think about.
>>>> I
>>>> really don't mind opposing opinions in the least and enjoy
>>>> well-tempered
>>>> discussions. My faith is far greater than any government, threat of
>>>> being
>>>> ostracized, or even death, so a little discussion is hardly a .
>>>>
>>>> I hope anyone reading this (however few ;-) will take it in the spirit
>>>> it is
>>>> intended - just something to consider.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 02 00:34:09 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.13704 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
