Jesus, Is This News?

Hi,
here in New Zealand the leader of our country [Prime Minister] is an atheist as is the leader of the opposition.Now that is something that could never ever happen in the good old u.s of a
Kind Regards
Gordon

What we desperately need now is politician who stands up and says :
“America is not a Christian nation”.

America is not a Jewish nation.
America is not a Muslim nation.
America is not a Buddhist nation.
America is not a Christian nation.

Can you imagine a Demoplican saying that?
Certainly not a Republicrat?

Can you imagine Falwell or Robertson calling for the murder of a politician who did say that?

The Taleban is in firm control.

Christianity,Islam,what’s the difference?Do Christians strive to live by the tenets of their beliefs? Do Muslims?"True believers” pick and choose which parts of their religions to follow.According to what’s convenient for them.Or what helps to keep them in power.The inquisition,slavery,racism,bigotry against gays,the crusades,jihad,holy war,the list goes on.Jesus was crucified by the official religion of the time,and would be crucified today by the official religion of the time.Make no mistake about that.Christian fundimentalists and Muslim fundimentalists in practice are the most un spiritual people on the face of the earth.

Jesus would never be crucified today.

He would not live that long.

It appears that the Middle East did accept the rule of law at one time.

Fine enough if this is not a nation under God, it is not a nation under only you either, so show a little respect a$$hole. Don’t expect to be taken seriously when you down other’s beliefs so freely. That said, I voted for Gore, and then Kerry, I cannot stand republicans, just an FYI. Also yes, overall in a world perspective, the death of the pope IS more important than Delay’s ethics violations… sorry polito-phile.

The Pope’s death was important to CATHOLICS. But to me being a feminist Protestant, it was just another early morning to snooze through. lol

Btw--screw those corporate-driven and run networks. SUPPORT INDIE MEDIA with all the spare dollar$ you can. Keep investigative reporting by real human reporters and intelligent writing alive!

“Fine enough if this is not a nation under God, it is not a nation under only you either, so show a little respect a$$hole. Don’t expect to be taken seriously when you down other’s beliefs so freely. That said, I voted for Gore, and then Kerry, I cannot stand republicans, just an FYI. Also yes, overall in a world perspective, the death of the pope IS more important than Delay’s ethics violations… sorry polito-phile.”

Posted by Ryan Conover on May 31, 2005 at 11:57 PM

Hey Ryan, why should anyone show respect for a Christian when Christians show no respect for others.  A basic tenet of Christianity is to spread the word, meaning go around telling everyone else that their religion is wrong and that if they don’t convert and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they will spend eternity in hell - the most vulgar, despicable religious practice ever invented.

Who’s the a$$hole, Ryan?

The Pope’s death was important news, yes, but it’s something that’s so huge that it’s not going to go unnoticed, especially by those who the news hit the hardest--devout Catholics, who I’m sure heard more about it in their services than on any news channel.

PS: Ryan, here’s something I posted on another thread:

Let me provide you with some guidance from some, much wiser than you or I, who lived in a time closer to the majority of the crimes against humanity committed by Christians, in the name of Christ.

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, has been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” -John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” -John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

“Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822

“Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?” - Thomas Paine

BTW, I couldn’t find a quote concerning the sluaghter of over 1/2 Irish Catholics by the English Puritan Lord Cromwell.

I posted this on another thread but in light of every thread becomming a religious dispute I think it suits this thread as well…

What ever happened to a separation of church and state in this country?  How has every political debate become a theological debate?  Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say, “I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrates, because he knows no more the way to heaven than I do,& is less concerned to direct me right than I am to go right.”?  Our founding fathers knew the importance of the separation of church and state to the point that it had been written in the Bill of Rights. Jefferson went on to say, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.  He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own.”. 
As Americans, we should be outraged whenever religion is brought up in political context because it is a direct conflict to our system of government on a fundamental level. Instead this co-mingling of such a huge conflict of interest has become flavor-of-the-day.  This isn’t “America” anymore.  We live in a time akin to the 1500’s when the popes ran the show and sold indulgences to the peasants.  These indulgences were a ruse, fabricated by the church for the sole purpose of raising money.  If anyone on the Christian right would actually pick up a history book, instead of the Bible, you just might start to conclude that we are in at the start of reliving a very dark time in history, where logic stops and fanaticism starts.  If the End of Times is realized in our lifetime, what do you think the wealthy fundamentalist Christian politicians will have to say for themselves when Jesus returns?  Didn’t He say that a camel will have an easier time passing through the eye of a needle than a wealthy man will have passing through the pearly gates?

May I recommend as required reading for anyone of early teen intelligence level or greater, Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World”, published by Headline books in 1997. Truly an outstanding primer on developing a mentality that preserves healthy skepticism without eroding into cynical rejection of wonderment. His baloney detection kit is a delight, how to spot BS (in the speech of others as well as one’s own speech) in a few easily understood steps. Plus, an eloquent argument for the assertion of educated reason and logical discourse as the only defense against the irrationality and magical thinking (which is largely linked to an emotional reaction of fear of death) that periodically grips societies.  Divine!

Yes, I think irrationality is spreading in American society.

“Christianity,Islam,what’s the difference?”

Don’t see alot of Christian suicide bombers, for one!

And while many of all faiths do not meet the goals of their faiths, the goals are very important nonetheless (Christianity wins over Islam overwhelmingly here).

The pretext of the article is rather lame. People who want detailed information are much better off with written material. Streaming media is useful for giving overviews, or the occasional documentary, but not much else.

No god, you don’t see many Christian suicide bombers, but I have seen fanatical Christians blow up family planning clinics and murder doctors that perform abortions in this country.  And isn’t capital punishment a large part of the current administration’s agenda?  An administration who has claimed Christ as one of their own.  Please don’t condemn a religion by the actions of a small number of fanatics, it only exposes your ignorance.

Satan made himself look like a peacock, a serpent and now a president.  Maybe if Americans stopped watching the idiot box so much they’d be able to tell the difference between good and evil.

Think about the term ‘fanatical Christian’. That in itself implies that they are not the norm. For someone to be such a fanatic there is probably more wrong with them than even meets the eye. If they weren’t fanatical about Christianity, what would they be fanatical about? Something else is my guess. Would it cause them to blow up abortion clinics? Who knows…

Nope, not a lot of Christian suicide bombers.  Surely, having God on your side means not having to strap a bomb to your chest.  In fact, being able to kill with impunity from many miles away must be our reward for being faithful.  It’s amazing the connections you can make when you assume you have God’s favor in everything you do.  In this way, every action you take or every value you have carries its own endorsement from the almighty.  How incredibly tidy! =)

That’s my point, Ryan, the fanatical Islamic extremists that strap on bombs have something wrong with them, not the Islamic faith.

Before God supposedly creates a human soul, that soul did not exist in any subjective, experiential way. Then, having been created, souls (living as mortal humans) have experiences, both positive and negative. But these experiences, Christianity tells us, are just the briefest blip in our eternal soul’s existence, which we proceed to take part in after our mortal lives end. Some souls, however, will doubtlessly fail to accept God’s one entrance-condition, and so they will be excluded. Since God is supposedly all-powerful and all knowing, there is no “if” involved in this situation: The question has already been answered for Him before He even creates the soul. Certainly a soul’s path to damnation could not possibly surprise God, so why would an all-loving God allow a soul to come into being when he knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was to be damned?

Any day now I expect to hear of an initiative by the to repeal Article VI of the US Constitution - The part that states that “...no religious test shall *ever* be required as a qualification to any office or any public trust under the United States”.

Famous Native American quotes: Crazy Horse:"The only good Christian is a dead Christian”, Sitting Bull:"We crucified Custer at the Little Big Horn”, Dustin Hoffman as “Little Big Man”: “Jesus hasn’t come back yet ‘cause he’s dead!”, Cleveland Indians announcer:"Jesus Alou is now playing right field"…

Some Jesus-based news I’d love to hear would be that Christians had decided to put their efforts into compassionate action on behalf of suffering, troubled people, putting the love for one’s neighbor as oneself into practice as a gesture of their faith.

I know they’re all around, met dozens myself, in places all over the planet. Odd that they don’t get more airtime, if Christ-ifying the news is the goal.

Instead it’s always the “political” ones that get the camera, the haranguers and culture-warriors with the blarney touch, able to motivate viewers’ emotions with their words. Even an unchurched skeptic like me can see there’s selective reporting in hand. Could it be that the agenda is not a religious one, but a political one?

Nah, couldn’t be…

Yeah, is!!!

Actually this country was founded on Christian beliefs so it is a Nation under God. Saying that I do agree that most Christians in America are hypocrites and give a false view of the bible. The bible doesn’t say gays are going to hell! Being gay is just as big of a sin as lying! A sin is a sin is a sin… the only thing that can keep you from the Lord is blasphemy witch is rejecting Christ. Jesus came to befriend sinners not turn his back on them or judge them.  And no Jesus is not a democrat or a republican he is not political! Yes I am a Christian, no I’m not gay, and I am sorry for the way Christians hear in America portray Jesus.

Someone above mentioned the idiot box in their comment.  Do they refer to the president or the television.  In light of today’s politics and messia programing, I, for a majority of one, cannot tell the difference.  If the religious right, [RR vs. SS] tolerate the Prysb.,(sp), the Anglicians, and the Methodists(Pres Bush’s Church) as the anti-Christ(s), is Bush the real anti what ever???

Read your money - discard it if it offends you. I have an address you can send the stuff to, where it will be suitably “disposed” of.

“Please don’t condemn a religion by the actions of a small number of fanatics, it only exposes your ignorance.”

I would never do that. Do you consider the number of Islamic folks out there declaring jihad and strapping on suicide vests to be small? Ululating in the streets when thousands are murdered (a particularly offensive behaviour)? Rioting because a book is alleged to have been desecrated? The list goes on and on and on. . .

To understand why the current version of Islam is evil, you only have to look at what it proclaims. To see why the current version of Christianity is good, ditto. One is a religion of love, the other hate. This is not all that subtle. And will hoefully improve as time goes on (e.g., contrast modern Christiantity with its middle ages corrupt versions).

So at what point did Christianity evolve out of corruption?  The principles of Christianity are no more or less worthy than those of any other faith.  They are all in place to reinforce some stable view of society.  Depending on what you are predisposed to believe, the Bible is quite intolerant of non-believers.  This is where the likes of Eric Rudolph emerge.  He was a lone actor, but guess what.  He had many supporters.

I am amused when members of one religious faith pass judgement on members of another.  There is incredible irony in watching a person say “That which I believe on faith is undeniably true while that which you believe on faith is undeniably false...” I mean, how do you do that with a straight face, God?  It must be a gift.

GrayArea, you are correct, it is a gift.

The message of Christiantity is one of love and hope. It teaches its believers to be kind and compassionate to **all** others. It even teaches one to be non-judgemental.

But i hear those who say that Christians are not these things, and not only that, but they are mean and cruel. This is also true.

But the issue here is not that Christians are perfect and in harmony with their Creator, but rather what they are taught they *should* be (check out virtually any mainstream Christian Church in the US, for example). While all fall short of this, it is nonetheless important that they strive for worthy goals.

While it is certainly true muslims are not better or worse intrinsically than Christians, muslim goals have been horribly corrupted. They are taught to hate (even to the point of killing infidels, e.g., see Rushdie). Hatred is evil and worse, it tends to destroy both the hated and the hater. Thus these poor folks can be convinced to do any number of evil deeds, and even believe that it is in the name of God. This is very sad.

But don’t take me at my word. Look for yourself. See how many mainstream Christian Churchs advocate killing people. Find out how many celebrate the loss of life in Iraq. Research how many aid and train suicide bombers.

Then do the same for the muslim side of the equation. I am confident you will discern some very blatent differences in their messages. I am also hopeful that one day a worthy Muslim religion will come to be. But that will be in the distant future. . . (and perhaps nurtured in the US)

Jeremiah this nation was not founded on christianity.  You have been successfully brain washed.  Go do your homework.

god;

I think you should consider that the majority of mainstream devout and pious Muslims are no more genuinely represented by extremists than mainstream Christian Churches are.  Islam is the faith of over a billion living human beings, living in a day-to-day continuity of 1400yrs. of history and tradition and spiritual practice devoted to peace, justice, mercy and humble submission to the ineffable will of God, and yes, gratitude for God’s infinite love.  Islam’s worthiness as a world religion is not really a matter of your opinion.

It is always regrettable when religionists allow themselves to lend their services to the demonizing of the Other.  It is the mark of a great spiritual failure.  Verdad, Jesus advised us to love even our enemies, no?

But then in times of war, all the bugs crawl out of the baseboards.

Patrick- well i did my homework and found this:
Answer

To plainly say they were “Christians” is a bit misleading. Some of them were, but others were deitists, or believed in one spirtual being (God if you will) which had very little to do with governing their lives on earth.

However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society. Benjamin Franklin probably explains it best when he, to paraphrase, said that although he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Thus, our nation was founded on Christian principles because the Founding Generation recognized the value in them to create a moral, virtuous society.
web site: http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_founding_fathers

Hey luminous beauty, islam is a religion devoted to peace and mercy? You obviously have not read the Koran or any related muslim holy texts. I’ve never read anything that lacks compassion and prescribes war more than the Koran. Seriously, I’m not just being prejudiced, read it.

Here, this is not where I got my information from, I had to read the texts, but this site has some straight shooting commentary and to my knowledge isn’t too fanatical. The information on it is correct.

http://answering-islam.org/

I’m not trying to spread hatred or even disdain for muslims, but you might as well know a little more about the faith before you proclaim it to be peaceful and full of mercy.

Hey God!

You call it a gift. I call it a disease. You’ve read the maxim: Those who forget their own history are condemned to repeat it.

Here’s some history for you:

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, has been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” -John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” -John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

“Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822

“Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?” - Thomas Paine

Jeremiah said:

“However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society. Benjamin Franklin probably explains it best when he, to paraphrase, said that although he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Thus, our nation was founded on Christian principles because the Founding Generation recognized the value in them to create a moral, virtuous society.”

Jeremiah,

That’s B.S.  Who do you think wrote the bible?  God?  Where do you think the 10 commandments came from?  God?  Did God create man in his own image (what amazing arrogance), or did man create God in his own image?

Let me suggest something to you, Jeremiah. The image and the will, the word of God is utterly incomprehensible to man or woman, and is contained in no book written by any man or woman. 

In the mean time, you would be well advised to just be good, to the extent you are able to comprehend what that means, (the 10 commandments written by men would be a good guide) and stop trying to peddle your religion to others.  We ain’t buyin’ it.

Ryan;

If you liked answering islam, you’ll love jesusneverexisted.com.  What? No?

You might try reading what Muslims themselves say about their religion.  Islam 101.com is useful.  If that’s too much for you to bear, you could read Sir Richard Burton’s “Pilgrimage to Mecca” or D.E. Lawrence’s “Five Pillars of Wisdom”.  What proselytizing Christians say doesn’t count for much.  Do you think you could find a favorable treatment of Buddhism on a Christian site?  The Bible (which is holy text in Islam) is full of blood and war, too.  Jesus said “I bring not peace, but a sword”.  That phrase has been used throughout Christian history to justify endless atrocities for which Christians seldom, in my experience, take any responsibility.

Lefty,
Its funny that you threw the quote I found out, and then went on to use a bunch of quotes from the website I quoted to try and make your point. I simply quoted what someone else said, I’m not pushing my beliefs on anyone. You can take it or leave it, I wont lose any sleep over it…

Jeremiah;

Your ‘quote’ is a paraphrase.  A paraphrase whose sense on its face is a distortion made with the intent of supporting your belief.  If you are pushing anything, it is very weakly with a big dollop of intellectual dishonesty.  Just my observation.  You can take it or leave it.  I won’t lose any sl.....zzz.

I don’t mind if the Christian Right wants to air their programming, but then I want to see more Pagan programming.  What REALLY galls me is the bits and pieces I saw of that Armageddon series reinforcing all the misconceptions people already have of Pagans.  Just when things were starting to turn around and we were becoming a little more mainstream, Christianity ONCE AGAIN has to put its propoganda out there.  I don’t mind if they air their shows - as long as they don’t lie.  Or is that something Jesus would do?

The New Testament, which muslims will tell you is corrupted and if you ask for proof will only tell you(we know the truth, you’ve been fooled), aside from the cricifixion was nowhere near as violent at the Koran. If Jesus came to bring the sword, and yet asks us to turn the other cheek, and love those who hate you, do you think maybe you’ve missed the point there? Why would Jesus come and tell us to love our neighbor, then mohammed comes 500-someodd years later and basically says, “Cut everyones hands and head off...” Does that make any sense? And it’s historically accepted that Jesus existed, so don’t ask me to wade through that muck put out by some idiot. I’ve seen it, its stupid.

Ryan;

I haven’t missed much.  I merely said that much injustice has been done in Jesus’ name, I don’t condone it. 

Though I agree there most likely was an historical Jesus, very little is really known about him; nothing about virgin birth or resurrection or any of that miraculous stuff, really.  The most you can say is there isn’t any contravening proof.  The same can be said for the Koran’s view of Jesus.

As for the mythological Jesus and the foundational synchretism of the Christian religion, if you don’t care to read the material, I can’t force you to look.  None but yourself can free your mind.  You’ll have to decide if seeking the truth will set you free.  Calling it ‘stupid’ and ‘muck’ put out by ‘idiots’ is pretty weak.  One would think you find it threatening. 

By pointing you to that site I was hoping to show you how unfair it is to go to a Christian denunciation of Islam and call it an objective view.  Do you think maybe you’ve missed the point there?

Since we know very little about the historical Jesus why would you expect me to believe anything said about him contrary to his position as the messiah? Remember, we know little about the historical Jesus,anything aside from what we know through Christianity and the Gospels is pure speculation.

To “god”?? I do see a lot of christian pedophiles.

To Proud Athiest,thank you, I thought that I was the only one who saw that flaw in the christian belief structure.

Ryan;

We do know a lot about messianic mythology and religious thought and sentiment of the times.  Much is known about the development of Christianity, including the discoveries at Nag Hammadi and Qumran.  Modern linguistic analysis of the Gospels and Epistles and comparison of contemporary literature reveals a great deal about their editorial production and intent.  Placed in appropriate historical, archeological and literary context a picture emerges much more consistent with the ideas of Albert Schweitzer than not.  Not at all mere speculation, though much room for speculation exists.

In the end, if the story of Yeshua of Nazareth represents for you the fullfillment of messianic prophesy, then for you and those who believe likewise, it does.  This really doesn’t have much to do with historical fact, but is a particular religious view with particular mythological meaning.  The metaphysical facts of that mythology do not depend on being consistent with objective reality as much as on how they guide you to live your life consistent with the ethical sense with which they are imbued.  That’s my, admittedly only human, understanding. 

That your beliefs give your life meaning, I do not wish to in any way belittle or disregard.  I’m merely trying to discern the essential from the non-essential.  It isn’t easy.

Fair enough. =)

I read though the original article here again and I have to say it is just one long whine.  Shorter version of this article: How DARE the media cover people that I disagree with!!

Jeremiah, FYI, The quotes I posted were found on many different web sites after many hours of searching.  Not all sites have the same indicia of reliability.

I read all the posts that accrue when religion is the topic of an article, such as this one about news media and the increasing Jesus-quotient but also any other, and I see a microcosm of American religious history. Endless arguing about who Jesus was, what Jesus did, what Jesus REALLY meant when he taught, what are the appropriate beliefs about Jesus, what would Jesus do…

I wonder, is there another society on Earth that so relentlessly argues and fights about the prophet (or savior) they’re attached to, instead of treating other people as though they were as valuable as we consider ourselves to be, as per the central message.

Even an atheist could understand an idea like that, but perhaps it’s too simplistic to sustain continued interest.

Jeremiah, Your post perfectly illustrates the problem with the insistence of people in the US that your country was founded on Christian principles. Which ones exactly? And which branch of Christianity were those principles referred to for approval as to their orthodoxy as ‘Christian’?

As for ‘under God’. The problem is that just saying something is so, doesn’t thereby make it so. I know that ‘under God’ was a form of words inserted into the pledge of allegiance some time in the 1950s, presumably as a response to some aspect of the then hysteria about communism. However you see, not all citizens of the US are Christians, and indeed every Christian sect has its own view as to what ‘Christianity’ means and the problem for the US and unfortunately the rest of us on planet earth, is that faith admits of no argument based on reason, and as such, there can be no proper democratic debate where appeals to reason fall on deaf ears tout court. The problem with appeals to God as a basis for nation building or patriotism is that it leads eventually to the kind of political institutions that were common in 17th century Europe, and more recently illustrated by the taliban, and frankly, I always thought that the US was founded in part as an effort to move on from the civil strife that confessional polities create.

“I read though the original article here again and I have to say it is just one long whine.  Shorter version of this article: How DARE the media cover people that I disagree with!!”

Posted by Campesino on June 4, 2005 at 7:18 PM

No Camposino, you missed the point.  It’s more like, take your stinking religion and keep it to yourself.  Your proslytizing is vulgar, despicable and offensive.  Get it now?

shorter version of campesino’s post;

“WHINE”

Sorry to come to the discussion so late. Try this on for size:  It’s not about religion, it’s about authority. The philosophical divide I pick up is between those who respect wisdom and those whose higest loyalty is to...loyalty. A solid majority of Catholics polled said they did not agree with the choice of Pope.  And a majority of Catholics polled also agreed that they would be loyal to the Pope.  On the third hand, a solid majority didn’t think they should follow Catholic teaching on birth control and the role of women. 

So, there you have it, and I think it’s representative of a large faction of voters today--they worship authority.  Whoever is most confident, nay arrogant, gets their loyalty.  This country is well on the way to authoritarian rule and so long as people are intimidated (the post-9/11 GOP/fundie agenda) against questioning authority, we’ll continue that direction.  pLUS, more terrorism, more auithoritarianism. Our so-called leaders are in fact promoting the fondest desires of Islamic extremists when they reduce or liberties in the name of protecting our freedom.

“Obey my rules or else”: Who preaches that, the Taliban or Focus on the Family...or both?  1984 is on the way, it’s just a little behind schedule.

Lefty is a bitch. He takes it on the chin. That’s my tag

“One would think that Catholicism had become our state religion.” Indeed. After I took a two-week vacation, upon driving back home I saw a post office with its flag at half-mast. Desperate to find out which state leader had died, I quickly turned on the radio and tried to find the news. Nobody had altered their programming, it seems, to carry extra news, but after listening long enough to an all-news station I found out that the Pope had died two days before. Flying the flag at half-mast at a Post Office because the Pope had died? Not official, not sanctioned, and not legal. It was enough to put me off my supper.

Why religion at all !?
What ever name you give it, it devides people - does not unite them.
One is born without it.

If only people looked better at the origin of their believes....
All the books, stories and wars…
Why pick the one but not the others !? Especially when all of them are not complete.

And again - why pick anything at all !?
Moral values come from within. If one needs books to learn them that would suggest the parents wasted their own lives :-)

So if moral values come from within, two children raised by apes would know that violence is a bad idea and stealing is wrong? Way to spell “beliefs” Einstein. Why pick anything at all? Why do anything? Why work? Why learn? Why not just sit on the lawn staring at the sky until you fall asleep everyday for the rest of your life? Are we really even here? Did I just blow your mind? Put down the bowl for a second evZENy.

Yes, flying the flag at half mast outside a post office because the death of the Pope is odd… is it illegal? What would you charge someone with who committed this offense? Hmmmmmmmm........

“Lefty is a bitch. He takes it on the chin. That’s my tag” [sic] Posted by Ryan Conover on June 8, 2005 at 2:20 AM

First of all Ryan, who said I’m a he!  Once again, Ryan confirms that there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: idiots and crooks.

Ryan,
you can blow the mind of a person sticking to it. A mind full of doctrines and dogmas. The latter by the way have little to do with the teaching of the correspondent spiritual person - neither Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed etc. would appreciate what has been done to their teachings if they could see it.
The mind is a tool, that tends to dominate a person. The mind is not the person. If only you could blow it ! :-)

Kids raised by apes may have the moral values of an ape. First of all - what do you know about the latter ? Are they worse than yours !? And second - kids raised by humans, should have the moral values of their parents. And the latter should have theirs through their life experience and that of their parents. A little birs watches its mother to learn to fly. Doesn’t read it in a book.
The moral values are pretty much the same in all religions (few exceptions) and go around the two versions of the Gold Law, which is also universal (not Christina for sure): Do to the others, what you would have done to you (or the reversed with “don’t/don’t") => hence don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t cheat etc. You are happy. Society is happy. Sit in the lawn if you can survive. Most of us have to work.

You don’t need the dogma of Paul and the contemporary Paulinism (why they call it Christianity again?) and St. Irenaues (who himself by the way, claimed Jesus lived to an old age. Weird statement from the guy who created more or less the Dogma). You need openness to the people around you. Which starts by dropping classifications based on race, nationality, religion, sex preferences etc.
You need to be awake, EVEN if you sleep all day long. Awareness is not equal to not sleeping!

I dare only hope you’ve heard the concept of Wu Wei, though I see from your questions you have not understood it, if you’ve had.
You wouldn’t be asking then.

Then again, my daughter at 3.5 years asks lots of questions, cause she is still pure and empty page. Unfortunately, we fill in the pages pretty fast and don’t want to add anything different after that.

with my best feelings,
evgeny

Seriously, how do you presume to speak for so many spiritual leaders? The arrogance is astonishing…

Well Lefty, sorry, Lefty was my grandfather’s nickname and usually a nickname for mobsters, men… so I’m assuming you’re a woman, you still take it on the chin. Sorry about the mixup.

shorter version of campesino’s post;

“WHINE”

Posted by luminous beauty on June 6, 2005 at 7:50 AM

You’re right - Susan Douglas was definitely whining!

No Camposino, you missed the point.  It’s more like, take your stinking religion and keep it to yourself.  Your proslytizing is vulgar, despicable and offensive.  Get it now?

Posted by Lefty on June 6, 2005 at 5:43 AM

Go reread the article.  It’s not about proslytizing. Douglas’ complaint is really that coverage of religious issues by the media takes time away from coverage of what she believes is more important stuff:

“Instead, Jesus news embezzles time away from stories people really need to hear, like much more detailed coverage of the Bush/Republican energy bill, which got a total of six minutes of coverage from all three networks when it passed the house the week of April 18.”

It’s like complaining that the sports section in your paper wastes time and page space covering soccer, when they should really be providing more detailed coverage of baseball - stories people really need to hear!

Get it now?

Campesino:

It’s more like covering real news and total BS.  Like coverage of the North Podunk Weekly Tiddley-Winks Tourney pre-emting the Super Bowl. Get it?

Why shouldn’t she complain?  Why are you complaining about her complaining?  Do you think the news media are doing a good job of informing American citizens?  Really?

Campesino:

It’s more like covering real news and total BS.  Like coverage of the North Podunk Weekly Tiddley-Winks Tourney pre-emting the Super Bowl. Get it?

Why shouldn’t she complain?  Why are you complaining about her complaining?  Do you think the news media are doing a good job of informing American citizens?  Really?

Posted by luminous beauty on June 9, 2005 at 4:24

She can complain all she wants.  I guess to state my point more clearly, I think it is a waste of time to complain that the news media is wasting time covering something that you don’t think is important.  All of us could make that complaint - see my example of soccer and baseball.  You should focus on what you see that you think is important and ignore what you think isn’t.  What you and I think are real news and total BS are probably different (though I am sure there would be lots of overlap).  I wouldn’t never say that the media should stop covering things that you think are important and I don’t. 

Douglas is saying that the media should limit its scope to things that she wants to see and messages she agrees with.  She has had a previous series of articles on “media reform” that basically boil down to shutting off political and cultural messages that dissent from her agenda.  I think that is bad for the country

No I wouldn’t say the news media is doing a great job.  However, there are so many alternative sources of information available now that I feel much better informed than I did 10-15 years ago

Double negative, how embarrassing!

I wouldn never say that the media should stop covering things that you think are important and I don’t.

Campesino,thanx for pointing out that Lefty takes it on the chin,whatever that means.Try thinking about what you say before you say it.But enough of poking fun at stupid people.Most christians,like members of other organized religions,believe the parts of their ‘religion’ thats convenient for them,and ignore the rest.So Bush says that God talks to him and tells him to kill muslims,priests can rationalise sexually abusing young boys,it was okay to make ‘them niggas’ slaves cause Jesus was white,etc,etc,etc!Here’s a clue,it’s all bullshit!!!

Campesino:

I think when a news program puts out unadorned prosyletism of political or religious beliefs as ‘news’, it has abandoned journalistic principles.  I think this is a very valid critique.  Not saying they can’t express their editorial opinion, just label it as such.  This seems to be the ‘agenda’ of Douglas, also.  It is beyond my limited understanding how you come to see this as ‘shutting off...dissent’.  If her criticism of other journalists is bad, then why isn’t your criticism of her just as bad?

That Douglas is published in a web magazine where dissenting opinion such as yours is allowed in the comments section gives her and ITT much greater cachet of open dialog than most right wing sites that delete any dissent.  Especially when the dissenter has their facts and reasoning together.

Campesino,thanx for pointing out that Lefty takes it on the chin,whatever that means.Try thinking about what you say before you say it

“Takes it on the chin?” I have no idea what you are talking about

luminous beauty

I agree with you that prosyletism dressed up as straight news is not good. But I don’t think that is Douglas’ main complaint.  Read her last paragraph

“The parade of evangelicals on TV exaggerates the numbers of these folks and makes them seem much more influential than they are--or certainly should be. Rather than clones of the Christian Broadcasting Network, we need solid, investigative work about the money, organizations and, indeed, the cynicism behind all of these crusading efforts to turn our country into a giant Bible camp.”

She thinks it’s bad that the evangelicals even appear on TV because it makes them look important.  She wants them only to appear in the negative light of investigative reporting.  She’s a journalist, she can jump right in herself.  I’m sure there’s lots of dirt to be found there.

Shorter Douglas - how dare you waste valuable air time covering people I disagree with, but hey, if you do have to cover them you should only say bad things about them

And I do appreciate that ITT provides this forum.  I always try to remain courteous, open-minded, and fact based

Campesino:

I still cannot see any justification for your conclusions.  Where does she say ‘it’s bad that evangelicals even appear on TV’ or that she wants ‘only’ for them be portrayed in a ‘negative’ light rather than wanting to see more coverage in an objective, journalistically valid light? It is obvious on its face Douglas is addressing what she percieves to be an existing imbalance in coverage.  To say she has an unspoken ‘agenda’ of reversing that bias in her own favor or advocating some kind of anti-religious censorship is an unwarranted and basically salacious imputation of her professional ethics.  Surely such a charge requires more evidence than your mere opinion of what you think she ‘really’ means? 

Believe me, there is plenty of dirt to be found on the ‘Religious Wrong’.  Much, much more than you’ll ever see on the Evening News.

One might reasonably conclude you are letting your biases read into the text what isn’t there.

Where does she say ‘it’s bad that evangelicals even appear on TV’

Douglas - The parade of evangelicals on TV exaggerates the numbers of these folks and makes them seem much more influential than they are--or certainly should be

or that she wants ‘only’ for them be portrayed in a ‘negative’ light rather than wanting to see more coverage in an objective, journalistically valid light?

Douglas - Rather than clones of the Christian Broadcasting Network, we need solid, investigative work about the money, organizations and, indeed, the cynicism behind all of these crusading efforts

It is obvious on its face Douglas is addressing what she percieves to be an existing imbalance in coverage
Instead, Jesus news embezzles time away from stories people really need to hear, like much more detailed coverage of the Bush/Republican energy bill, which got a total of six minutes of coverage from all three networks when it passed the house the week of April 18.

Douglas -

Ryan, I didn’t say I was a woman either.  I don’t want my arguments to be tainted or pidgeonholed by preconcieved notions about my gender, race or religion.  So, I try not to tip my hand on those issues.

BTW, I alway thought that “Lefty” was most typically used to describe baseball pitchers.

Campesino;

How, exactly, do any of these quotes contradict anything I’ve said?  How, exactly does complaining of exaggerated influence translate into banning evangelicals from the airwaves?  Do you have some secret knowledge that ‘solid, investigative work’ is really some kind of liberal code language for ‘partisan hit piece’? 

That’s not what we do in the reality-based community.  Disguising their motives with euphemism is much more the argumentative style of the right.

Sorry Campy,that was meant for Ryan Conover.

I am not surprised. If you are in power, you do attempt to influece the media, and since when did the US media stop covering the powerful?

Well, l.b., I guess we could play the “code speak” game that’s often played on this site but we shouldn’t go there.

I have read several articles that Douglas has written on this site about “media reform” and most of them take the approach, in fact one explicitly said, that there is too much media and people are getting confused.  Her suggestion for reform is that the number of media outlets should be less and that they should focus on providing information that Douglas believes is “true”.  I think this is basically calling for stifling points of view that she disagrees with.

I read this article in the context of the earlier ones and saw it as a continuation of that point of view with respect to the coverage of religion in the media.

All her articles are in the ITT archives, I believe.  If you could find such an explicit denunciation of diversity from Ms. Douglas you would most certainly have her in a faux pas situation.  Go ahead and re-read and let me know what you find.

I read two articles that were specifically about media reform:

One where she fantasizes about return of the ‘fairness doctrine’ for news programming, arguing for more points of view, not less.  You are prominent in the comments section, though, I’m sorry to say, not particularily distinguished.

The other is advocating against Powell Jr.’s media consolidation plan; again advocating for more, and more diverse viewpoints.

Freedom of speech and equal and fair treatment for diverse views are generally held progressive beliefs.  It would be strange, indeed, if Douglas is actually advocating the diametric opposite with language only you are capable of discerning.

I do believe everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but you, sir, strain that belief to the edge of credulity.

I wouldn’t know anything about baseball pitchers Lefty. =P That sport is slower than golf these days...bores the hell out of me!

“I am not surprised. If you are in power, you do attempt to influece the media, and since when did the US media stop covering the powerful?”

Posted by Amod Prajapati on June 10, 2005 at 4:38 PM

Let’s see.  Could it be when the powerful bought the media as permitted by deregulation?

Funny, I haven’t heard any negative news about the crimes of GE on NBC lately.

Gee, luminous beauty, all the compliments you give just make a fella blush

Any human being that thinks they understand My Nature is a liar or a fool.

If they are using My Name, for any purpose, they have not received authorization to do so.

My lawyers will be in touch with them to discuss this, shortly.

Eternally yours,
God

The greatest proof of Jesus being a historical person like the one that is portrayed in the gospels is that the very person named Saul who was a staunch Pharisee, who persecuted the early Christians and was responsible for the death of the first ever Christian martyr viz. Stephen(Refer Acts of the apostles) was the very one who was so transformed by the appearance of Jesus on the way to Damuscus that he became one of the most eloquant speakers in favour of Jesus later on(yes the same Paul who wrote so many of the most beautiful letters in the New Testament of the Bible). Moreover we have St. Thomas(who questioned whether Jesus had really appeared to his apostles after his resurrection the first time when he was not there with them but later on when Jesus appeared to him and showed him his hands and feet and side and Thomas said : “My Lord and my God")who came to Kerala in India and preached Christianity here. In fact Christianity came to India from St. Thomas.
Moreover the greatest proof of his resurrection from the dead is that today when he is preached by missionaries to people who don’t know him and they accept him, there are many impossible healings which occur in his name which can be attributed only to God and not to man. Does one require any more proof? For eg imagine that you have a terminal sickess and a doctor comes and he heals that so called terminal sickness. That person does not require any more proof about the athenticity of that doctor. His healing is the proof. Tomorrow if anyone comes and says that that doctor is a quack, the person healed will not believe it because he has experienced the reality from the doctor first hand. The same is occuring all over the world today to many people. So if this much is true about Jesus as told in the gospels, then is it difficult to believe that the New Testament which portrays him as calling himself the Messiah who was to come as per Old Testament Scriptures, is telling the truth? Well wait and watch then, when he does come; all those believing and unbelieving will both know, isn’t it?

To APF the proslytiser I respond:

“Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.” - Thomas Jefferson

“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. . . .  But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823

That day has come and gone, APF.  And BTW, the fatal defect in your argument is that you are trying to prove fables with fables.  It’s time to grow up, APF.

Lefty;

I’m glad you pointed that flaw out to APF.  I betcha he doesn’t get it, though.  Things are so wonderful in Never Never Land, if you just believe.

I would like to hear what he knows about Thomas in Kerala.  As far as I’m aware, the Portuguese destroyed almost all trace of the Thomasine Church in India.  One of those unimportant little ‘wipe out heresy’ things.

It’s cute what a hard-on Lefty has for Thomas Jefferson, who was OBVIOUSLY a far better man than St. Paul, or at least was pretty decent when he wasn’t busy knocking up his slaves. You quote Jefferson like scripture, and I’m pretty sure Jefferson didn’t give you permission to use his name, like “god” a few posts back. Maybe you will hear from his lawyers.

Isn’t it cute how deep and bitter a conservative’s hatred is for anyone or anything that is irreconcilable with his belief system.  Even Thomas Jefferson, the greatest and most brilliant founding father of them all, is not safe from the visceral, caustic, hatred that boils over from the soul of a conservative dolt such as Ryan.

Isn’t it amusing how a worm like Ryan (who doesn’t amount to a pimple of one of Jefferson’s pimples) feels free to assassinate the character of one with the status of Jefferson.  I say one because there is no one else in the history of America who shares that status.  Ryan has absolutely nothing substantive to say so he resorts to that most pathetic conservative tool, hate.

Ryan, very sharp of you to figure out that Jefferson didn’t give me permission to quote him.  Although, he was a public figure, a President, who made numerous public comments about “the wall of separation between chruch and state” and the obvious fraud of the Christain religion.  Somehow, I am confident that Jefferson intended that his public statements would be remembered and quoted. Ryan hates Jefferson because Jefferson publicly stated that Ryan’s God IS A FALSE GOD, and that Ryan’s religion is hate.

Ryan, I didn’t try to compare Jefferson with Paul.  But I will make this comparison, Jefferson actually existed.  Paul didn’t.  His name was Saul, and the story of Jesus sprung from his head like Minerva.

haha, only from Saul’s head? So you’re saying that Paul didn’t exist… so then Saul and Paul are not the same man? I am no sort of conservative by the way. I find it hillarious that anyone with any faith or any conviction in this age must certainly be a “conservative”. I hate no one, and I certainly cannot remember Jesus ever preaching hate. I love how you presume to know what “boils over” from my soul. I certainly do not hate Thomas Jefferson, I actually admire a lot about him, but I will giggle a bit at the obvious hard-on you have for him. Do you ever fantasize about him Lefty? Far be it from me to ‘crucify’ Thomas Jefferson. ;) You are a slanderer Lefty. Find any post where I mention hate, express hatred, or advocate hatred and I will gladly retract that statement. The only way you can make an argument is to assassinate my character. Since we pick at each other around here trying to seem more intellectual than the last; are you suggesting that the goddess minerva was fabled to have sprung from Saul’s head? Look at how you structured that sentence.

Tschus!

Blahahahahahahahaha!!!

Ryan, reality check - YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE. Let’s look at the evidence shall we.

Exhibit A - You are unable argue without the aid of a false premise, e.g. I didn’t say “anyone” of faith was a conservative, I was only talking about you.

Exhibit B - You are a liar.  The inconsistencies in your last two posts are irrevutible proof that you (like your friend Natalie), are an inveterate, pathological liar.  Your patent hate for Jefferson for not sharing your religious views, and for any and all things inconsistent with your primative belief system, is a matter of public record for all to see.  Rather than argue the points Jefferson made about the merits of Christianity, you attacked Jefferson personally, which leads us to -

Exhibit C - You are a hypocrite.  You proudly declaim that I am a bitch (having no information about my gender) and Jefferson a slave rapist, and then protest characterizations of you as hateful, which leads us to -

Exhibit D - You hate just as you breath, eat and sleep.  It is who you are - a classic, bitter, hateful, Christian, conservative.  I don’t have to presume what boils over from your soul, Ryan, it’s plain for all to see.  It boils right out of your mouth (actually out of your keyboard).  Your pathetic proffer that you haven’t uttered the word hate as proof that you don’t have hate in your heart is plainly controverted by the overt hate that you have demostrated numerous times on this forum, and in particular, me and Jefferson.  Come to think of it, it’s an honor, and quite humbling, to have something in common with Jefferson - Ryan’s hate.

Exhibit E - You employ your religion as a sword and sheild in a political argument - in and of itself, conclusive proof that -

Ryan, you are a classic conservative.

Lefty, you are an idiot. I would never knock your lack of faith except for the fact that you need to belittle others’ beliefs.  You are also a liar and slanderer, as well as an egomaniac. Enjoy your pathetic and petty existence, I’m not wasting another word on you.

Boys!  Boys!  Come on, now.

What Would Jesus Do?

(Just kidding.)

Let’s all take a step back, and try to remember that all religious texts—ALL of them, whether we’re talking the Torah, Bible, Koran, Rig Veda, Buddhist scrolls, whatever—are in large part fantasy.  All took bits of actual history and wove them together with semihistorical myth and legend.  All were embellished and revised over the centuries to suit the political agendas of priests and kings. 

As a progressive gay man who thinks metaphysical language is meaningless, I am sick of ignorant, hate-filled bigots trying to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on the rest of us, whether through the state or the newly-ascendant Christian media.  I don’t oppose all religion, just political fundamentalism.  Take your medications, people, and leave us alone.

Ryan,
Saul (Paul) did exist.
Unfortunately for all of us.

http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm -

check the historic documents and links (incl. the Bible itself and St. Iranaeus if you don’t buy the other facts); e.g. some papers published in Science on the DNA of the Lost jewish tribes

http://www.pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/teacher/ - on Paulinism. A nice PBS documentary on Paul vs. Peter featuring leading world theologists. The conclusion was “unfortunately the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and left us with the Paul version of the new Jewish sect which doesn’t have much to do with the teaching of Jesus”

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/jesus.html - some more on the origin of “Christianity”, the Bible, etc. Note the story of Mithras. Pretty much the same. Only 200 years older.

And then we can go to the origin of Jewdeism itself. But should we? :-)

“Lefty, you are an idiot. I would never knock your lack of faith except for the fact that you need to belittle others’ beliefs.  You are also a liar and slanderer, as well as an egomaniac. Enjoy your pathetic and petty existence, I’m not wasting another word on you.” Posted by Ryan Conover on June 13, 2005 at 12:54 PM

C’mon Ryan!  I may be an asshole, but an idiot, never. LOL.

I belive religion is not a sources of evil rather is a main social factor.True believer never will hate or harm any body. true beliver is commited his or her life to serve. So, many who are selfish , will speak selfishly against religion because, religion is not wellcoming their selfish behaviour.what would happend if there were no chruch or mosque , or other temple in this country?

This thread is incredibly interesting to me.  I would like to hear what all of you think about Christian Reconstructionism...based on the Institutes of Biblical Law by Rushdoony.  If you’re not familiar with it, look up Institutes.  We have a group of relatively insane people in the U.S. who wish to form a Christian theocracy in this country, based on biblical law. This means no vote for women, execution of gays, etc.  Read up and see if you don’t recognize what is happening to us through the influence of the most radical of what is called the Religious Right...which I consider the Religious Wrong.

Hey Zen, it’s spelled ‘Judaism’… eesh… Some people will believe anything as long as it’s not the normal interpretation. They like to feel as if they are one of the few enlightened while the rest are led astray. I guess I can understand the wish to feel exclusive, but I’m pretty sure the attempt is misguided.

Let me tell you a story in the gospels of the New Testament. There was a blind man and he was blind from birth. He once heard that Jesus was passing by and so he started shouting, “ Jesus, son of David, have pity on me” The disciples rebuked him and told him not to call out to Jesus. However he went on calling on Jesus all the more. When Jesus heard him, he called him and said, “ what do you want me to do for you”. The blind man answered, “ I want to see” And Jesus cured him.

All you guys who are just poking fun at Jesus, look at your pitiable lives and ask yourselves: “ Am I not blind and need to see?” Jesus though he knew that the man was blind still asked him what he wanted. Isn’t it strange? What would a blind man need from a healer? Most certainly his eye-sight! Yet Jesus asked him, “ What do you want me to do for you?” God, represented by his Son Jesus, gives every man the opportunity to look within himself and find out what is his own need. It is upto us men and women to find out what is our deepest need and ask God for that need to be fulfilled. And the deepest need of man is nothing but to see his own sinfulness and his lost state in not being able to do anything about it. And that is where grace in Jesus abounded. If Jesus had not died and paid the price for us sinners, we would be blind and not even know that we are blind till we had to pay the price for our blindness in a total separation from God when the time of judgement comes(what many call “hell"). Do you know what the Bible says : God did not send his son into the world that the world may be condemned but that the world may be saved through him. If any one does not believe this it is not God who condemns him, but he condemns himself because he has not believed in God’s only plan for the salvation of mankind. Think of it guys! What is the state of even the most wealthy nation in the world today? Where has the so called freedom taken the people in the US and also in many other parts of the world? Has this freedom kept young boys from shooting their school mates in school when they should have been playing with them? Has it stopped mothers from killing their babies in their wombs which was created to be the safest place for a child to develop? Did it stop great scientific principals from being misused to build the first atom bomb which killed so many in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that still there are the scars of that operation even now so many years later? If God is just then man deserves to pay the price for his sin by his own eternal death in hell! But praise God, that someone paid that price and in Jesus the justice and mercy of God both are satisfied. I could go on and on because I have read not only the Christian Bible but also the Jewish Bible, the Muslim Koran , the Hindu Ramayana and Mahabharatha and did not find the true nature of God ie infinite mercy and infinite justice shown better than in the person of Jesus as portrayed in the Christian Bible.

The story of Christ is a powerful story, APF, one with a long tradition in the pagan religions of the Near East (like the myths of Osiris and Mithras).  But it’s not literally true.  Breathe deeply.

This is what I’m talking about. The egotism in believing in nothing but one’s one ego blows my mind. To believe that nothing outside the realm of one’s own personal physical and intellectual experience is possible is insanely cocky. The things we as humanity do not know or understand are infinite! So nowhere in that infinity of ignorance is a risen Messiah possible? If you don’t believe it fine, but why do you have to disrespect others’ spiritual beliefs by saying things like that? The same people who so often say “live and let live” act completely the opposite if someone’s beliefs interfere with their own. APF said his bit, why is it not enough to say, “Ok, I respect that, I may not agree, but you’re entitled to your own beliefs.” Why is it necessary to say, “Yea, nice idea, but it’s a fairy tale.” For the sake of manners, respecting others and good taste, can’t you keep that to yourself? Did your parents teach you anything?

I think it’s egotistic to call someone rude for stating the truth as he sees it.  How is it rude to disagree with someone?  If you cannot have a rational discussion about your beliefs, how do you know that they are justified?

As a philosophical skeptic, I not only acknowledge the limitations to human understanding, I firmly reject any notion of incorrigible grounds or foundations for that understanding.  It is for this very reason that I reject as, at best foolishness, at worst outright bigotry, any notion that our knowledge of the world necessarily emanates from some infallible metaphysical source, as fundamentalists claim. 

Nor does this mean that I reject all religious belief as invalid.  There are liberal interpretations of religion which are compatible with my philosophic worldview.  These interpretations see religion as what it is, a system of symbolic, not literal truths, the truths of art and human creativity, devised by men to explain the world.  My only issue with this line of thinking is, having come so far, why not simply accept that art does a better job of explaining the world than religion, as traditionally defined.  But there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.

The problem with fundamentalists is that they are not reasonable, nor are they polite.  They believe things that simply don’t make any sense, and more importantly, want to force others to believe as they do.  That, to me, seems an affront to “manners, respecting others, and good taste,” to say the very least.

Who has tried to force you to believe as they do? I wholeheartedly agree that these “born again” types love to impose, and do more to make Christianity look creepy than to evangelize. That said, what APF said in no way makes him overzealous nor does it impose on you or anyone. So they believe things that don’t make sense? NO! They believe things that don’t make sense to YOU!You are too wrapped up in yourself and your own beliefs, or “philosophic worldview”. You say you’re willing to accept certain interpretations, but only those that don’t conflict with your views. That is EXACTLY the same as saying, “I don’t care what someone believes, as long as it’s what I believe.” You automatically count anyone who professes a belief that they hold firmly as “unreasonable”. SO I say Matthew, when you find yourself in a position where you absolutely believe that you are right, and someone else is adament that you’re wrong, do you stick to your guns or do you waver? If you stick to your guns, then you could consider yourself unreasonable as you seem to view the requirements. You seem to want others to believe the way you do. Haven’t you tried to convince anyone here who has professed any religious beliefs to accept YOUR view of the world? Yes, yes you absolutely have. That would make you a hypocrite! Do you find that title suitable? If not maybe YOU have some things you need to re-think as well. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It IS rude to belittle them or to belittle their beliefs after stating your disagreement. But again, you’re just evangelizing, right?

Ryan,
I know how Judaism is spelled. As does my spell checker :-)

You missed the equilibristic play with the words: the fact that Christianity was and is a form of Judaism - the religion of the Jews. Who claim they were selected by God as the chosen people (read on the origin of Judaism to see which the local God was).

Respecting the others can not be the case of ANY religion. Since the fact that you believe to be a chosen one, by the One and Only God automatically excludes the others as inferior to you. The respect was rarely seen in the Christian history. Like the massacre of the original Christians in Goa by the Portuguese, which had a different (and possibly more accurate) version of the life of Jesus. [The facts are well documented in Vatican and the British National Museum, in case you haven’t studied them in school / church.]
Forget about Goa - look at America and the atrocities done by the Christians moving here with their big ships, crosses and hunger for riches (didn’t Jesus mention something about Heaven and the poor in it?). Killing both the locals and the slaves they brought with themselves (apparently neither created in the image of God and loved by Him). And the slavery, racism, treating of women as inferior continued till…I don’t know. Still?
Or look at the respect to people without the Christian “values” today!

An enlightened person will not describe himself as such or claim it. I try to stay an empty glass. Similar to APF I’ve read many of the books he had. Or others. But my conclusion was, that the Christianity is neither better, and usually not much worse than the others. All religions have the identical moral values keeping the society in order. And give the individual the fake hope for a brighter future. Well, actually not all of them. Some ASK you to live a better live NOW. While others are fine if in your last minute you accept that 2000 years ago someone died for your sins. So no matter what they have been, you are OK.
That is the way Paul created it and that is the reason why it is the most popular religion nowadays - the ease with each the Heaven can be reached.

Put fear and guilt and people will come to you, if you have a way to help them out from the mental Matrix you have created for them.
True for all religions.

On your other point - a child may make mistakes that don’t make sense to you, because you can see the danger. In playing with the knife, fire etc. Does that mean, that because the child doesn’t understand yet the problems s/he faces, the problems do not exist? That because they have not seen and understood the possible consequences, the latter are not real?

A famous teacher once explained, that only people who don’t KNOW would talk about KNOWING. That’s what we all are doing here. I am not ashamed to admit my ignorance. I just share, don’t attack.

Have a nice day!

Why can’t people just be nice?

Beth,

good question. It will create the Christian version of Iran and the similar countries, where the law is based on the Quran and the Islam values. You steal - they cut your arm. You are a doctor performing abortions - they shoot you. Find the difference.

The leaders are judged on the basis of their religious values and opinions. All of them proving to be people of faith, without sins and well familiar with the Holy Book and using God’s name (well, not really THE name :-) in their speeches.
I find the similarities scary.
Yes, women can drive in the US, yet they still make less money than men do. Which is one of the reasons why USA was ranked so low in the Women’s right chart of OECD (came out few weeks ago).

Or the influences felt in the educational syste (30 states have or will consider removal or modification of the evolution theory), the health syste (pharmacist gone wild. If they have problems with selling some drugs, are they in the right profession?) and many aspects of the everyday life. My guess is things will get worse.

Aelathali :-)

Because we have become too human :-)

The trees are nice. The sun is nice. The birds are nice. Because they ARE.
We live in the past (2000 and more years as you can see) and in the future, but in the Now.

What do you think?
:-)

ZEN,
I think someone read a good book and retained the knowledge.  :)
And I think the world would be a much better place if more people followed suit.  One can dream…

I certainly don’t consider anyone inferior to me for not believing. Who are you to assume that I believe that? The ideas some atheists and agnostics get in their heads, where they get them, and why they can’t stay away from biggoted broad generalizations is beyond me. You are part of the problem, congratulations.

By the way Zen, I’ll quote you: “And then we can go to the origin of Jewdeism itself. But should we?” So that one sentence is supposed to suggest that Christianity was and still is a form of Judaism? I fail to see how on earth that sentence suggests that, mostly because it doesnt. It doesn’t even hint at it.

Why would you make a play on the word Judaism by inserting ‘Jew’ into the word? It doesn’t make any sense! I believe it’s pretty well established that Judaism is the religion of the Jews. There IS no play on words there. The only playful thing about it is its redundancy. Seriously, don’t ever let anyone tell you you’re a genius Zen.

Christianity,Islam,what’s the difference?”

Don’t see alot of Christian suicide bombers, for one!

And while many of all faiths do not meet the goals of their faiths, the goals are very important nonetheless (Christianity wins over Islam overwhelmingly here).

I have the problem that 100,000 people in Iraq were killed because of this president’s religion.  Bush is against freedom and for facism. You only need to read to realize that we are living in 1933 Germany and no one is speaking up.

Ryan Said:

“This is what I’m talking about. The egotism in believing in nothing but one’s one ego blows my mind. To believe that nothing outside the realm of one’s own personal physical and intellectual experience is possible is insanely cocky. The things we as humanity do not know or understand are infinite! So nowhere in that infinity of ignorance is a risen Messiah possible? If you don’t believe it fine, but why do you have to disrespect others’ spiritual beliefs by saying things like that? The same people who so often say “live and let live” act completely the opposite if someone’s beliefs interfere with their own. APF said his bit, why is it not enough to say, “Ok, I respect that, I may not agree, but you’re entitled to your own beliefs.” Why is it necessary to say, “Yea, nice idea, but it’s a fairy tale.” For the sake of manners, respecting others and good taste, can’t you keep that to yourself? Did your parents teach you anything?”

*************************************************

Ryan, your post is the hight of arrogant, hypocritical, stupidity.

First, you open with yet another false premise. Just because someone doesn’t believe in your God doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in the existence of some force beyond their own existence. 

Second, it is your religion, Christianity, that is the prototype of proslytism.  The most fundimental aspect of Christianity is to go around telling others that their religion is wrong and that if they doen’t believe in your God they will spend eternity in hell.  What monumental, arrogant, hypocricy egotism.  And you talk of manners.  Are you a complete imbecile?

Even more arrogant (and hypocritical) is that you profess that “The things we as humanity do not know or understand are infinite! So nowhere in that infinity of ignorance is a risen Messiah possible?” Sure, Ryan.  The possibility is equally likely that “Minerva sprung from the brain of Jupiter.” - Thomas Jefferson

More outrageous, Christians think that God created man in his own image.  What supreme (idiotic) arrogance is that.  More likely, Ryan, is that man created God in his own image and that the true God’s image, will and words are utterly beyond the comprehension of any Christian.

Most hypocritical of all you utter: “The same people who so often say “live and let live” act completely the opposite if someone’s beliefs interfere with their own.” What a hypocritical ass you are, Ryan.  MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MURDERED BY CHRISTIANS IN THE NAME OF CHRIST FOR REFUSING TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY (OR TO THE MURDERERS PARTICULAR SECT OF CHRISTIANITY) THAN FOR ANY OTHER CAUSE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

And then, you stupidly act surprised that Christains are treated like the murderous animals that they are.