It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine
page: 14share:
reply to post by bogomil
do you really feel you have to insult me repeatedly? is there no way to carry on this conversation without resorting to whipping out the manual on how to humiliate and disenfranchise a person in 10 easy steps? i've seen this before, and much worse than you're dishing out now. the stereotypes and assumptions are thick as molasses. i can take it, but i don't think it's necessary. do you? do you wish for this conversation to degrade into tit for tat grudge match or actual conversation?
i understand why people are sensitive about this issue. i lived in a state that was all one religion and it wasn't my religion. it was hard living there. people treated me horribly. they treated my kids horribly. i hated it with a passion, and i learned a great deal about oppression and prejudice, and especially MOB MENTALITY. i don't ever want to go thru that again. you understand now? if not, i can always make it crystal clear!
do you really feel you have to insult me repeatedly? is there no way to carry on this conversation without resorting to whipping out the manual on how to humiliate and disenfranchise a person in 10 easy steps? i've seen this before, and much worse than you're dishing out now. the stereotypes and assumptions are thick as molasses. i can take it, but i don't think it's necessary. do you? do you wish for this conversation to degrade into tit for tat grudge match or actual conversation?
i understand why people are sensitive about this issue. i lived in a state that was all one religion and it wasn't my religion. it was hard living there. people treated me horribly. they treated my kids horribly. i hated it with a passion, and i learned a great deal about oppression and prejudice, and especially MOB MENTALITY. i don't ever want to go thru that again. you understand now? if not, i can always make it crystal clear!
reply to post by The Djin
Yea you are pretty good at corrupting what it actually means.
1st quote:
Hate them for being who they are. In as much as hating evil people. Do tell me, if you were in a human sacrificing Mayan civilization and began changing people to respect life, wouldn't you the your family if they didn't change? I would.
2
The sword is the same sword in the garden of Eden. The sword that divides the saved and unsaved. It is not a sword of killing. It is a sword of cutting and dividing, much like a butter knife. Ina s much as Adam and Eve were not killed by this sword, but that the sword cut paradise out of the world, Jesus has come to cut people out of this world's hell.
3
Obey them because they have authority. You will be set free for that. It's right in there. Obedience gets you freedom. Revolting gets you longer work. This strategy was also used by American slaves. And many were set free by obedience and gaining money to buy their freedom in patients. After that, nobody could stop their freedom.
4
Same.
5
That order was given by a man. Not God. Not to mention you have no way of knowing who the people were. I would say the bombing of German civilians who pretended the holocaust wasn't ending was perfectly justifiable.
6
This was what Gandhi used. He never picked a fight. He was always subsurviant in all he did. Ghandi used this part of Christianity to win the people their independence. Rather than rebel in fighting, like what their masters were doing, they rebelled in obedience and civil disobedience. They obeyed the laws however, and never picked a fight. Always respectful. It's actually quite a good way to go about it. Martin Luther King also did this, leading to laws being changed and blacks being truly free. See obedience is doing work. But you can still protest and peacefully march. After all. You're still going to go back to your master to work. Both MLK and Gandhi utilized this to achieve their goals.
7
Because this Earth doesn't matter. Where you are is where you are for a purpose. God will move those who need to be moved. Otherwise, where you are is where your community is and where you can convert the people around you.
The full section reads as follows.
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
What this mean is quite simple. Your priority is to God, not to your own advancement. Cultural differences, class differences, etc etc. They don't matter. The community of Christ is very communistic in that all are equals. Take the skills you have and work. Serve your God and those around you. Kings should not only rule, they should come down to their people and help them. it's a very beautiful system.
The Roman stoics had a similar belief. Slaves were not slaves. They were people who worked and were to be given food water and respect. They are who they are and they must not be punished for it.
Do I really have to go on?
You should really remember the logo. Deny ignorance. Because you, sir, are eating ignorance pie. Oh well. They say that's the most tasty pie. but I hear it's also the least healthiest. Enjoy!
Yea you are pretty good at corrupting what it actually means.
1st quote:
Hate them for being who they are. In as much as hating evil people. Do tell me, if you were in a human sacrificing Mayan civilization and began changing people to respect life, wouldn't you the your family if they didn't change? I would.
2
The sword is the same sword in the garden of Eden. The sword that divides the saved and unsaved. It is not a sword of killing. It is a sword of cutting and dividing, much like a butter knife. Ina s much as Adam and Eve were not killed by this sword, but that the sword cut paradise out of the world, Jesus has come to cut people out of this world's hell.
3
Obey them because they have authority. You will be set free for that. It's right in there. Obedience gets you freedom. Revolting gets you longer work. This strategy was also used by American slaves. And many were set free by obedience and gaining money to buy their freedom in patients. After that, nobody could stop their freedom.
4
Same.
5
That order was given by a man. Not God. Not to mention you have no way of knowing who the people were. I would say the bombing of German civilians who pretended the holocaust wasn't ending was perfectly justifiable.
6
This was what Gandhi used. He never picked a fight. He was always subsurviant in all he did. Ghandi used this part of Christianity to win the people their independence. Rather than rebel in fighting, like what their masters were doing, they rebelled in obedience and civil disobedience. They obeyed the laws however, and never picked a fight. Always respectful. It's actually quite a good way to go about it. Martin Luther King also did this, leading to laws being changed and blacks being truly free. See obedience is doing work. But you can still protest and peacefully march. After all. You're still going to go back to your master to work. Both MLK and Gandhi utilized this to achieve their goals.
7
Because this Earth doesn't matter. Where you are is where you are for a purpose. God will move those who need to be moved. Otherwise, where you are is where your community is and where you can convert the people around you.
The full section reads as follows.
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
What this mean is quite simple. Your priority is to God, not to your own advancement. Cultural differences, class differences, etc etc. They don't matter. The community of Christ is very communistic in that all are equals. Take the skills you have and work. Serve your God and those around you. Kings should not only rule, they should come down to their people and help them. it's a very beautiful system.
The Roman stoics had a similar belief. Slaves were not slaves. They were people who worked and were to be given food water and respect. They are who they are and they must not be punished for it.
Do I really have to go on?
You should really remember the logo. Deny ignorance. Because you, sir, are eating ignorance pie. Oh well. They say that's the most tasty pie. but I hear it's also the least healthiest. Enjoy!
reply to post by blupblup
I like to be told what is right and wrong. What defines right and wrong? Who invented it? And not to mention a secular society is only a good thing for a few generations. Once the people lose a grasp on things, people decay. It's already happening in lots of places in America. Europe's just now entering serious secularization. The American government has been in the depth of it since the 60s. And it's not exactly leading to good things.
In addition to that, you don't have a right to not be preached to. People have their right to speak. If you don't like it, walk the other way. You have a right to privacy in your place of dwelling. But the public forum is just that. The public forum. Once you are out, your rights end where your skin does. You don't like it? Move on.
I like to be told what is right and wrong. What defines right and wrong? Who invented it? And not to mention a secular society is only a good thing for a few generations. Once the people lose a grasp on things, people decay. It's already happening in lots of places in America. Europe's just now entering serious secularization. The American government has been in the depth of it since the 60s. And it's not exactly leading to good things.
In addition to that, you don't have a right to not be preached to. People have their right to speak. If you don't like it, walk the other way. You have a right to privacy in your place of dwelling. But the public forum is just that. The public forum. Once you are out, your rights end where your skin does. You don't like it? Move on.
reply to post by undo
When I spoke of siblings I was referring to the 34000 or so different types of christians claiming that their group is right. clearly I didn't convey that very well sorry, needless to say this is why my chidlren read Aesop and not dad .
I watched the vid but we don't seem to share the same sense of humor unfortunately but to be perfectly honest I've never taken to women doing stand up that's just me, there are very few that I find naturally funny mostly droll.
What was interesting about the video is that we are not informed whether the cancer went away and the woman survived, would you know ?
What trouble me about all this sort of thing is this, the lady (really your sis ?) got a friend who is dying of cancer so she turns to her book (written and edited by men for men incidentally) and seeks out a passage that is in someway relevant to her situation.
She happens upon genesis and is drawn to let there be light, finds no relevance but yet reasons that the message was for the patient. As it happens light is involved in the treatment of cancer so the deduction is that is supernatural entity is trying to convey something IE the natural order of things are temporarily suspended in your friends favor and the outcome is the patient is comforted by this.
I could briefly discuss how we as humans have been shown to have evolved to naturally seek patterns, but you appear to be smart enough to already know this so we can skip to what troubles me about the rational behind this tale.
If we were to look at the statistical odds of the situation in relation to coming across the passage a let there be light and its' relationship with the condition and the outcome a statistician would give us a value of probability.
The actual value of the figure is very relevant to the bigger debate but not what I would like to focus on here so will give it an arbitrary value of 10 as what I would like to consider for you to apply reason and critical thinking to is how we arrive at the figure.
Let us say the lady has a friend in hospital a victim of aids and she follows the same process, she turns to her bible for solace seeking something from her friend in exactly the same way. What happens should she have turned a couple of pages over from Genesis to read that homosexuality is a sin and the perpetrator should be stoned to death ?
She obviously has to use the same reasoning in that she may not understand the message but is obliged to give it to her friend nevertheless, needless to say having been given this message the friend would have to use the same reasoning as before and somehow find a connection between the message and her condition.
On the strength of the first situation we must conclude that using the same reasoning the friend would have to conclude that as he has aids and is also a homosexual, that he should be stoned to death and the natural order has been suspended in his favor in order to get this message.
Given that the friend is a believer then the friend can feel comforted by receiving the message in exactly the same way, so as we can see Undo the outcome is exactly the same 10.
What I also take issue with this sorry way of reasoning and applying meaning to chance of probability is that that the minds of some tend to perform cranial gymnastics when faced with obvious problems with their logic.
At the end of the day the patient was comforted because he/she believed he/she had received a message a rather cryptic one at that from the alleged creator of the universe.
So the upshot of it all is instead of her being miserable with cancer she is now happy with cancer, this begs another question, would reason not now dictate that we walk into every hospital and say to the cancer patients "let there be light" and they can now become happy patients with cancer ?
also incorrect my sibling (singular) is awesome. wanna see her? she's a comedian.
When I spoke of siblings I was referring to the 34000 or so different types of christians claiming that their group is right. clearly I didn't convey that very well sorry, needless to say this is why my chidlren read Aesop and not dad .
I watched the vid but we don't seem to share the same sense of humor unfortunately but to be perfectly honest I've never taken to women doing stand up that's just me, there are very few that I find naturally funny mostly droll.
What was interesting about the video is that we are not informed whether the cancer went away and the woman survived, would you know ?
What trouble me about all this sort of thing is this, the lady (really your sis ?) got a friend who is dying of cancer so she turns to her book (written and edited by men for men incidentally) and seeks out a passage that is in someway relevant to her situation.
She happens upon genesis and is drawn to let there be light, finds no relevance but yet reasons that the message was for the patient. As it happens light is involved in the treatment of cancer so the deduction is that is supernatural entity is trying to convey something IE the natural order of things are temporarily suspended in your friends favor and the outcome is the patient is comforted by this.
I could briefly discuss how we as humans have been shown to have evolved to naturally seek patterns, but you appear to be smart enough to already know this so we can skip to what troubles me about the rational behind this tale.
If we were to look at the statistical odds of the situation in relation to coming across the passage a let there be light and its' relationship with the condition and the outcome a statistician would give us a value of probability.
The actual value of the figure is very relevant to the bigger debate but not what I would like to focus on here so will give it an arbitrary value of 10 as what I would like to consider for you to apply reason and critical thinking to is how we arrive at the figure.
Let us say the lady has a friend in hospital a victim of aids and she follows the same process, she turns to her bible for solace seeking something from her friend in exactly the same way. What happens should she have turned a couple of pages over from Genesis to read that homosexuality is a sin and the perpetrator should be stoned to death ?
She obviously has to use the same reasoning in that she may not understand the message but is obliged to give it to her friend nevertheless, needless to say having been given this message the friend would have to use the same reasoning as before and somehow find a connection between the message and her condition.
On the strength of the first situation we must conclude that using the same reasoning the friend would have to conclude that as he has aids and is also a homosexual, that he should be stoned to death and the natural order has been suspended in his favor in order to get this message.
Given that the friend is a believer then the friend can feel comforted by receiving the message in exactly the same way, so as we can see Undo the outcome is exactly the same 10.
What I also take issue with this sorry way of reasoning and applying meaning to chance of probability is that that the minds of some tend to perform cranial gymnastics when faced with obvious problems with their logic.
At the end of the day the patient was comforted because he/she believed he/she had received a message a rather cryptic one at that from the alleged creator of the universe.
So the upshot of it all is instead of her being miserable with cancer she is now happy with cancer, this begs another question, would reason not now dictate that we walk into every hospital and say to the cancer patients "let there be light" and they can now become happy patients with cancer ?
Re Kidohno
You may have a point, but I just can't find it without more information.
First of all the news-paper article is a lousy piece of journalism. One part is repetitively sending out the same message slightly rephrased, whereas the other part is represented by some vague generalizations of (rather undefined) principles.
This doesn't indicate anything either way.
Secondly the article states:
Quote: [ "The community group is staffed by church volunteers and also receives money from the Co-operative community development fund and the Open Door Church in St Neots"].
So obviously policy is decided by church-associated groups, even if funding is public. Is that an important aspect of the situation?
Thirdly
Without having any real information on the situation, I can nonetheless think of some perfectly reasonable hypothetical explanations: Only room for so many kids (and immigrants are maybe considered in a vulnurable position), so there are practical priority considerations. 'Special needs' considerations. That the church groups involved have some ideological principles of their own.
All of which still doesn't bring us closer to anything except one question: What is the purpose of bringing this indecessive situation up on this thread?
IF, repeat IF, the purpose is to present another bad guys-good guys dichotomy, stressing black/white situations to the absurd, where an 'enemy' is presented (bad guys) and our 'saviours' (christians, christian doctrines and christian values= the good guys) it's pathetic. Such a confrontational polarization will only add to the problems.
Because of a former too generous immigration policy, my present country also have some inverted 'racism' (and maybe to the surprise of some, I consequently vote slightly rightist nationalistic), so I'm no overly 'relativistic' wishy-washy liberal without directions. Ofcourse all inverted 'racism' should be stopped immediately, as this ALSO is an expression of 'special privileges', which isn't helped by reinstating christian privileges.
However fumbling and bureaucratic liberal society is about returning to egalitarian priciples (and it IS), the alternative answer can never be self-appointed knights on white horses with 'Mein kampf' or OT in the pocket.
'Sons of light'.......'Sons of darkness'? And ever demagogic propaganda, seldom true colours or reasonable evidence.
You may have a point, but I just can't find it without more information.
First of all the news-paper article is a lousy piece of journalism. One part is repetitively sending out the same message slightly rephrased, whereas the other part is represented by some vague generalizations of (rather undefined) principles.
This doesn't indicate anything either way.
Secondly the article states:
Quote: [ "The community group is staffed by church volunteers and also receives money from the Co-operative community development fund and the Open Door Church in St Neots"].
So obviously policy is decided by church-associated groups, even if funding is public. Is that an important aspect of the situation?
Thirdly
Without having any real information on the situation, I can nonetheless think of some perfectly reasonable hypothetical explanations: Only room for so many kids (and immigrants are maybe considered in a vulnurable position), so there are practical priority considerations. 'Special needs' considerations. That the church groups involved have some ideological principles of their own.
All of which still doesn't bring us closer to anything except one question: What is the purpose of bringing this indecessive situation up on this thread?
IF, repeat IF, the purpose is to present another bad guys-good guys dichotomy, stressing black/white situations to the absurd, where an 'enemy' is presented (bad guys) and our 'saviours' (christians, christian doctrines and christian values= the good guys) it's pathetic. Such a confrontational polarization will only add to the problems.
Because of a former too generous immigration policy, my present country also have some inverted 'racism' (and maybe to the surprise of some, I consequently vote slightly rightist nationalistic), so I'm no overly 'relativistic' wishy-washy liberal without directions. Ofcourse all inverted 'racism' should be stopped immediately, as this ALSO is an expression of 'special privileges', which isn't helped by reinstating christian privileges.
However fumbling and bureaucratic liberal society is about returning to egalitarian priciples (and it IS), the alternative answer can never be self-appointed knights on white horses with 'Mein kampf' or OT in the pocket.
'Sons of light'.......'Sons of darkness'? And ever demagogic propaganda, seldom true colours or reasonable evidence.
reply to post by The Djin
i don't view the laws regarding homosexuality in the same way as some others do, although i will say that i believe the homosexual laws, and the laws regarding children and adultery and bestality and etc, were initially meant to keep the peace, safety and health of the people, since they had no lawyers or courts of law or medical clinics or medicine or police at the time. the closest thing they had to law enforcement were the laws they made up on the fly, and they seem to be centered around survival, perpetuation of the race, and the least amount of fighting as humanly possible. also you should recall that i originally stated that i don't think some of the laws viewed as being laws of god, were from any divine beings, other than moses. who knows, maybe they thought he was semi-divine since he was raised as the son of the pharaoh (who was considered a living god) and seemed to have the ear of the almighty? still, he was just a human being of his time. i dunno. now to address your reference regarding being lead to the passage against homosexuality:
as far as i can tell, yeshua was not a huge supporter of mosaic law for humans. in fact, he frequently referred to it as inhumane and gave examples of why that was. he mentioned what there was about sex that made it a problem for believers: et al, the war was between the flesh of the believer and the spirit of the believer and that these two things were entirely at odds with one another. since sex fits into that category (being a flesh based function), he taught that it's best to avoid it so your energy could be channeled into something more spiritual. i think this was the focal point not whether the person was hetero- or homo- or bi-sexual. the homosexual problem was a societal issue. this is the only spot where it becomes a real problem.
so i'm going to assume that had she found the passage on homosexuality, she would've avoided it because it doesn't address the issue of "healing," which she was praying for, but rather of judging and tearing down. i'm guessing though. i have no real way of knowing how she would handle it, but that's my best guess.
i was in the hospital on full llfe support, in a coma, for 5 days. the insurance company sent a man to convince my husband to have the machines turned off that were keeping my comatose body from being declared legally dead. the doctors told him if i survived at all, i would be a vegetable and paralyzed on my left side. he prayed about it and felt sure he was told by god, to call my sister on the phone, who lived in a different state, and have her come out and talk to my comatose body. she resisted the idea, as she felt it would be giving him false hope, as the doctors had basically made it sound so grim. she got off the phone with him and told her hubby her misgivings about it and he said that god does sometimes use people's voices to heal (something she had been doing for years -- talking to large groups of women on women related subjects from a christian viewpoint).
so she called her prayer chain ladies (moms, grandmas, wives, aunts, nieces, sisters, etc) and asked them to pray for me and for her, as she was ill at the time, herself. then got on the plane and flew to my hospital, 2000 miles away. as the plane crossed the country, she felt better and better and by the time it arrived, she was feeling great, full of energy. she talked to my comatose body for awhile and when the nurse came in the room, asked me to open my eyes if i could hear her. and my eyes popped open. she told the nurse, "she just opened her eyes on command." the nurse said, "as far as i'm concerned, that did not happen. i've seen her charts. there's no brain wave activity. i know families want so much to see their loved ones heal, but i'm afraid that was just a normal nerve response." so my sister asked me to open my eyes again, but this time the nurse looked over and sure enough, my eyes opened.
the nurse ran down the corridor (i was in neuro critical care) to get the doctor, who proceeded to reprimand her for giving the family false hope. but she insisted and my sis, backed her up on it. so back down the hall they came, with the doc. my sis asked me to open my eyes, and they popped open. after that, i got progressively better, and within a few hours, i was trying to sit up in bed, wiith hoses coming out of every orifice.
miracle? i think so. you might not, and you're welcome to your opinion but so am i
i don't view the laws regarding homosexuality in the same way as some others do, although i will say that i believe the homosexual laws, and the laws regarding children and adultery and bestality and etc, were initially meant to keep the peace, safety and health of the people, since they had no lawyers or courts of law or medical clinics or medicine or police at the time. the closest thing they had to law enforcement were the laws they made up on the fly, and they seem to be centered around survival, perpetuation of the race, and the least amount of fighting as humanly possible. also you should recall that i originally stated that i don't think some of the laws viewed as being laws of god, were from any divine beings, other than moses. who knows, maybe they thought he was semi-divine since he was raised as the son of the pharaoh (who was considered a living god) and seemed to have the ear of the almighty? still, he was just a human being of his time. i dunno. now to address your reference regarding being lead to the passage against homosexuality:
as far as i can tell, yeshua was not a huge supporter of mosaic law for humans. in fact, he frequently referred to it as inhumane and gave examples of why that was. he mentioned what there was about sex that made it a problem for believers: et al, the war was between the flesh of the believer and the spirit of the believer and that these two things were entirely at odds with one another. since sex fits into that category (being a flesh based function), he taught that it's best to avoid it so your energy could be channeled into something more spiritual. i think this was the focal point not whether the person was hetero- or homo- or bi-sexual. the homosexual problem was a societal issue. this is the only spot where it becomes a real problem.
so i'm going to assume that had she found the passage on homosexuality, she would've avoided it because it doesn't address the issue of "healing," which she was praying for, but rather of judging and tearing down. i'm guessing though. i have no real way of knowing how she would handle it, but that's my best guess.
i was in the hospital on full llfe support, in a coma, for 5 days. the insurance company sent a man to convince my husband to have the machines turned off that were keeping my comatose body from being declared legally dead. the doctors told him if i survived at all, i would be a vegetable and paralyzed on my left side. he prayed about it and felt sure he was told by god, to call my sister on the phone, who lived in a different state, and have her come out and talk to my comatose body. she resisted the idea, as she felt it would be giving him false hope, as the doctors had basically made it sound so grim. she got off the phone with him and told her hubby her misgivings about it and he said that god does sometimes use people's voices to heal (something she had been doing for years -- talking to large groups of women on women related subjects from a christian viewpoint).
so she called her prayer chain ladies (moms, grandmas, wives, aunts, nieces, sisters, etc) and asked them to pray for me and for her, as she was ill at the time, herself. then got on the plane and flew to my hospital, 2000 miles away. as the plane crossed the country, she felt better and better and by the time it arrived, she was feeling great, full of energy. she talked to my comatose body for awhile and when the nurse came in the room, asked me to open my eyes if i could hear her. and my eyes popped open. she told the nurse, "she just opened her eyes on command." the nurse said, "as far as i'm concerned, that did not happen. i've seen her charts. there's no brain wave activity. i know families want so much to see their loved ones heal, but i'm afraid that was just a normal nerve response." so my sister asked me to open my eyes again, but this time the nurse looked over and sure enough, my eyes opened.
the nurse ran down the corridor (i was in neuro critical care) to get the doctor, who proceeded to reprimand her for giving the family false hope. but she insisted and my sis, backed her up on it. so back down the hall they came, with the doc. my sis asked me to open my eyes, and they popped open. after that, i got progressively better, and within a few hours, i was trying to sit up in bed, wiith hoses coming out of every orifice.
miracle? i think so. you might not, and you're welcome to your opinion but so am i
edit on 19-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason
given)
Re Undo
You wrote:
["do you really feel you have to insult me repeatedly?"]
That's a question of definition, depending on the extent of a persecution complex at the recieving end (I still see 'whining' in your response). But I certainly am going to oppose your opinons and attitudes until you manifest something tangible enough to relate to.
Quote: ["i've seen this before, and much worse than you're dishing out now."]
What a strange statement. But maybe this is another expression of the competitive mindset I earlier suggested you function from. Am I supposed to feel downcast, in possession of minor-value debate-agression, because I stay inside certain limits?
Quote: ["the stereotypes and assumptions are thick as molasses. i can take it, but i don't think it's necessary. do you? do you wish for this conversation to degrade into tit for tat grudge match or actual conversation?"]
My main assumption is, that I would like you to get to a reasonably well supported position (I can define further on request), stay there, respond from there and use basic rules of meaningful semantics and at least some logic. I still haven't any clear idea of where you come from, or where you want to go, except that some pre-jewish paranormal entity is involved somewhere, and that you feel persecuted (maybe on behalf of some undefined christianity). So please: A solid square one from you.
Quote: ["i understand why people are sensitive about this issue. i lived in a state that was all one religion and it wasn't my religion. it was hard living there. people treated me horribly. they treated my kids horribly. i hated it with a passion, and i learned a great deal about oppression and prejudice, and especially MOB MENTALITY. i don't ever want to go thru that again. you understand now? if not, i can always make it crystal clear!"]
I genuinely sympathize with your former plight, especially if you had small chances of getting away from it. And by presenting your own alternative to prevent such situations, you may actually bring communication around. But by comparing democratic majority ruling to mob-mentality in the context of your former oppression isn't exactly an expression of anything collective, but only of your own, very subjective attitudes, however justified they are related to the specific situation you describe.
You wrote:
["do you really feel you have to insult me repeatedly?"]
That's a question of definition, depending on the extent of a persecution complex at the recieving end (I still see 'whining' in your response). But I certainly am going to oppose your opinons and attitudes until you manifest something tangible enough to relate to.
Quote: ["i've seen this before, and much worse than you're dishing out now."]
What a strange statement. But maybe this is another expression of the competitive mindset I earlier suggested you function from. Am I supposed to feel downcast, in possession of minor-value debate-agression, because I stay inside certain limits?
Quote: ["the stereotypes and assumptions are thick as molasses. i can take it, but i don't think it's necessary. do you? do you wish for this conversation to degrade into tit for tat grudge match or actual conversation?"]
My main assumption is, that I would like you to get to a reasonably well supported position (I can define further on request), stay there, respond from there and use basic rules of meaningful semantics and at least some logic. I still haven't any clear idea of where you come from, or where you want to go, except that some pre-jewish paranormal entity is involved somewhere, and that you feel persecuted (maybe on behalf of some undefined christianity). So please: A solid square one from you.
Quote: ["i understand why people are sensitive about this issue. i lived in a state that was all one religion and it wasn't my religion. it was hard living there. people treated me horribly. they treated my kids horribly. i hated it with a passion, and i learned a great deal about oppression and prejudice, and especially MOB MENTALITY. i don't ever want to go thru that again. you understand now? if not, i can always make it crystal clear!"]
I genuinely sympathize with your former plight, especially if you had small chances of getting away from it. And by presenting your own alternative to prevent such situations, you may actually bring communication around. But by comparing democratic majority ruling to mob-mentality in the context of your former oppression isn't exactly an expression of anything collective, but only of your own, very subjective attitudes, however justified they are related to the specific situation you describe.
reply to post by bogomil
okay so you need more support for what i'm saying (i think you're ignoring the point on purpose and i'm not sure why other than maybe how much fun it is to poke fun at the kid with coke bottle glasses or something): so here's the support:
every job i worked at while there, i was eventually accused of stealing from and fired/quit. the first job, the owner's son was also working there. no telling how many people got fired in that fashion before his dad figured out it was his son doing it not his employees.
the second one, the boss begged me to stay after informing me that some of the other employees had accused me of stealing, because i was a hard worker. i refused to stay because there's no sense in working in an environment where people think you're stealing (it was a restaurant. i was a hostess, not a very glamous or well paying job, and a couple of the waitresses thought i was stealing their tips ..i think they were both were rather grumpy, but i always helped them bus their tables, pour drinks for their customers, making it easier for everyone. i was so disheartened because i had worked hard for $4 an hour, and really wanted to be a waitress, but the boss wouldn't let me because i did too good of a job at hostessing. shot myself in the foot i guess).
and finally, i was fired because 40 dollars came up missing from my cash drawer in a convenience store. turned out it was the girl who cooked the cinnamon rolls in the morning. the assistant manager, who liked me, called me to tell me they had found the real culprit and how sorry he was that i had lost my job.
and that's just a MINUTE part of what happened to me and my family while we were there. why would i get accused three time in a row, of stealing, when i wasn't, if it wasn't some sort of mob mentality issue -- et. al, give those outsiders hell! and they did. i found out via my next door neighbor, who was a really sweet lady, that the other moms in the neighborhood, were blaming my son when ever anything went wrong between the children when they played together, because he was the only one in the group that wasn't the majority religion.
etc ad freakin' nauseum, etc.
okay so you need more support for what i'm saying (i think you're ignoring the point on purpose and i'm not sure why other than maybe how much fun it is to poke fun at the kid with coke bottle glasses or something): so here's the support:
every job i worked at while there, i was eventually accused of stealing from and fired/quit. the first job, the owner's son was also working there. no telling how many people got fired in that fashion before his dad figured out it was his son doing it not his employees.
the second one, the boss begged me to stay after informing me that some of the other employees had accused me of stealing, because i was a hard worker. i refused to stay because there's no sense in working in an environment where people think you're stealing (it was a restaurant. i was a hostess, not a very glamous or well paying job, and a couple of the waitresses thought i was stealing their tips ..i think they were both were rather grumpy, but i always helped them bus their tables, pour drinks for their customers, making it easier for everyone. i was so disheartened because i had worked hard for $4 an hour, and really wanted to be a waitress, but the boss wouldn't let me because i did too good of a job at hostessing. shot myself in the foot i guess).
and finally, i was fired because 40 dollars came up missing from my cash drawer in a convenience store. turned out it was the girl who cooked the cinnamon rolls in the morning. the assistant manager, who liked me, called me to tell me they had found the real culprit and how sorry he was that i had lost my job.
and that's just a MINUTE part of what happened to me and my family while we were there. why would i get accused three time in a row, of stealing, when i wasn't, if it wasn't some sort of mob mentality issue -- et. al, give those outsiders hell! and they did. i found out via my next door neighbor, who was a really sweet lady, that the other moms in the neighborhood, were blaming my son when ever anything went wrong between the children when they played together, because he was the only one in the group that wasn't the majority religion.
etc ad freakin' nauseum, etc.
edit on 19-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by undo
had i written a thread about how an atheist was complaining about atheism being viewed with less popularity than it did before, i would expect atheists to show up to support their world view.
It's not about popularity though...I guess popularity or "mob preference" as you may call it... (lol) is a measuring stick for us to use, but that's it.
For me the issue is boundaries and decency and humanity.
Don't encroach on anyone else's life, don't get up in their face with your religious mumbo jumbo and treat people decently.... that's it.
Live your life the way you want to and leave others to do so.
Free speech is fine.... but when free speech becomes hate speech or oppression or discrimination, then It's no longer free speech.
i would also expect some people who disagree with atheism to show up and try to suggest atheists should just be quiet about their opinions and keep it to themselves. and i would also suggest that people who think that way, should check themselves because you don't want to live on a planet where freedom of speech is limited, based on world view.
People have every right to their opinion.... but the point is, barring the "Atheist Bus Campaign" which was almost a parody of the way you have "god said this and god said that" billboards everywhere, Atheists don't go around spouting off at people.
Atheists don't stand around in the town centre trying to convert believers to non-believers, Atheists don't go knocking at your door and offering you literature on denying your faith or any such thing.
This is the point.
Believe what ever you like..... but leave me and everyone else the **** alone.
edit on 19/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)
Re Gorman91
You wrote:
["Obedience gets you freedom."]
As in the famous kz-camp motto: "Arbeit macht frei"
Quote: ["Revolting gets you longer work"]
Some people have the strange idea, that they don't want to grovel. Especially not to an alleged 'god'.
Quote: [This strategy was also used by American slaves. And many were set free by obedience and gaining money to buy their freedom in patients. After that, nobody could stop their freedom."
Considering that slaves were supposed to be only half-human anyway, in sore need of Massa's wisdom and authority, freedom probably would do them more harm than good.
Do you have a past in KKK?
Quote: ["I would say the bombing of German civilians who pretended the holocaust wasn't ending was perfectly justifiable."]
If hypocracy deserves bombing, quite a few christians are in for a hard time.
Quote: ["Ghandi used this part of Christianity to win the people their independence."]
Just for the record, Ghandi was a Jain.
Quote: ["But you can still protest and peacefully march."]
That's what the medieval PACIFIST gnostics did, or rather tried to do. They were tortured and slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands by some of your loving christianities. Are you consciously lying, or are you just ignorant?
Quote: ["God will move those who need to be moved."]
Good old Calvin. You can always fall back on pre-destination, where the rich stay rich, the poor stay poor, the ill mostly die, and christianities stay in power. Ofcourse unless a call for 'free will' is urgent for debate-tactical reasons.
But for a christian to talk his way out of paradoxes is a small matter. It's probably part of sunday-school training.
Quote: ["Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."]
It's obviously very imporatant to repeat and emphasize the doctrine of total submission, in case anyone should forget it, or, D-g forbid it, oppose it.
Quote: ["Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them"]
And once MORE. Sorry, the fairytale entertainment value is diminishing through all these repetitions. I'm bored, but still a bit spooked about somebody actually believes this, so I'll read on after all. Maybe we come to the distorting mirrors soon. That's always fun.
Quote: ["What this mean is quite simple. Your priority is to God, not to your own advancement. Cultural differences, class differences, etc etc. They don't matter"]
I believe our good Gorman has a writer's block now. The plot has completely stuck.
Quote: ["The community of Christ is very communistic in that all are equals."]
I take it this doesn't refer to the early anarchist communism, but rater to the later Stalinist version, where the top was somewhat more equal than the rest.
Quote: ["Kings should not only rule, they should come down to their people and help them. it's a very beautiful system."]
What about Popes and that crowd. It certainly is a beautiful system, especially for kings by god's grace and the clergy.
Quote: ["The Roman stoics had a similar belief. Slaves were not slaves."]
And black is not black, but white. Impeccable christian logic; I'm always impressed.
Quote: [They were people who worked and were to be given food water and respect."]
Wasn't that overdoing the humanistic principles a bit? I mean, they WERE after all only slaves, so why all this pampering.
Quote: [They are who they are and they must not be punished for it."]
Why must they not be punished for being slaves, isn't that what slaves are for? Ofcourse apart from being worked to death and producing more slaves through their own unrefined biological ways, so different from the civilized missionary position.
Quote: ["Do I really have to go on?"]
Yes please, the whole post reminds me so much of the old happy time back on the plantation, that I'm getting sentimental.
Quote: [You should really remember the logo. Deny ignorance. Because you, sir, are eating ignorance pie. Oh well. They say that's the most tasty pie. but I hear it's also the least healthiest. Enjoy!"]
It does me good to see some from the old school. They don't make fanatics like that these days.
You wrote:
["Obedience gets you freedom."]
As in the famous kz-camp motto: "Arbeit macht frei"
Quote: ["Revolting gets you longer work"]
Some people have the strange idea, that they don't want to grovel. Especially not to an alleged 'god'.
Quote: [This strategy was also used by American slaves. And many were set free by obedience and gaining money to buy their freedom in patients. After that, nobody could stop their freedom."
Considering that slaves were supposed to be only half-human anyway, in sore need of Massa's wisdom and authority, freedom probably would do them more harm than good.
Do you have a past in KKK?
Quote: ["I would say the bombing of German civilians who pretended the holocaust wasn't ending was perfectly justifiable."]
If hypocracy deserves bombing, quite a few christians are in for a hard time.
Quote: ["Ghandi used this part of Christianity to win the people their independence."]
Just for the record, Ghandi was a Jain.
Quote: ["But you can still protest and peacefully march."]
That's what the medieval PACIFIST gnostics did, or rather tried to do. They were tortured and slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands by some of your loving christianities. Are you consciously lying, or are you just ignorant?
Quote: ["God will move those who need to be moved."]
Good old Calvin. You can always fall back on pre-destination, where the rich stay rich, the poor stay poor, the ill mostly die, and christianities stay in power. Ofcourse unless a call for 'free will' is urgent for debate-tactical reasons.
But for a christian to talk his way out of paradoxes is a small matter. It's probably part of sunday-school training.
Quote: ["Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."]
It's obviously very imporatant to repeat and emphasize the doctrine of total submission, in case anyone should forget it, or, D-g forbid it, oppose it.
Quote: ["Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them"]
And once MORE. Sorry, the fairytale entertainment value is diminishing through all these repetitions. I'm bored, but still a bit spooked about somebody actually believes this, so I'll read on after all. Maybe we come to the distorting mirrors soon. That's always fun.
Quote: ["What this mean is quite simple. Your priority is to God, not to your own advancement. Cultural differences, class differences, etc etc. They don't matter"]
I believe our good Gorman has a writer's block now. The plot has completely stuck.
Quote: ["The community of Christ is very communistic in that all are equals."]
I take it this doesn't refer to the early anarchist communism, but rater to the later Stalinist version, where the top was somewhat more equal than the rest.
Quote: ["Kings should not only rule, they should come down to their people and help them. it's a very beautiful system."]
What about Popes and that crowd. It certainly is a beautiful system, especially for kings by god's grace and the clergy.
Quote: ["The Roman stoics had a similar belief. Slaves were not slaves."]
And black is not black, but white. Impeccable christian logic; I'm always impressed.
Quote: [They were people who worked and were to be given food water and respect."]
Wasn't that overdoing the humanistic principles a bit? I mean, they WERE after all only slaves, so why all this pampering.
Quote: [They are who they are and they must not be punished for it."]
Why must they not be punished for being slaves, isn't that what slaves are for? Ofcourse apart from being worked to death and producing more slaves through their own unrefined biological ways, so different from the civilized missionary position.
Quote: ["Do I really have to go on?"]
Yes please, the whole post reminds me so much of the old happy time back on the plantation, that I'm getting sentimental.
Quote: [You should really remember the logo. Deny ignorance. Because you, sir, are eating ignorance pie. Oh well. They say that's the most tasty pie. but I hear it's also the least healthiest. Enjoy!"]
It does me good to see some from the old school. They don't make fanatics like that these days.
edit on 19-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by blupblup
I like to be told what is right and wrong. What defines right and wrong? Who invented it? And not to mention a secular society is only a good thing for a few generations. Once the people lose a grasp on things, people decay.
The law, government, society.... morals.
Depending on what context you mean.... do you mean right and wrong legally.... morally?
"People decay in a secular society...."
What?
As opposed to an archaic and brutal religious one?
Killing people who want to study the stars or invent things or who go against the word of god?
Gimme a break man.... :shk:
What a joke.
In addition to that, you don't have a right to not be preached to. People have their right to speak. If you don't like it, walk the other way. You have a right to privacy in your place of dwelling. But the public forum is just that. The public forum. Once you are out, your rights end where your skin does. You don't like it? Move on.
I do.... actually I used to quite enjoy a good-spirited debate with some religious folk.
When I used to see them on the street and they'd approach me, I'd have a good old chat with them.... no problem... question things... point out flaws and illogical things in the Bible and so on.
Always with a smile and never in an insulting or rude manner.
It always boils down to faith..... never facts or reason or reality... but faith.... and that's fine.
Now I don't see many preachers ( which is good) on the street... we don't have a big religious right here like the states... and generally we're not bombarded and guilt-tripped like American citizens are.... religion just does not feature in the majority of people's lives in the UK. Which is good.
I like the way it is here.
I don't want to hear about how Jesus can help me in my life and how if I only gave myself to god (translation= stopped thinking for myself) I would be on the path to salvation and all that jazz.... I'm good as I am thanks.
edit on 19/1/11 by blupblup because: Spelling.... of course
reply to post by blupblup
you shoiuld be afraid of hate speech laws. do you have any idea how fast that could be turned against atheists? that should scare the hell out of you.
you shoiuld be afraid of hate speech laws. do you have any idea how fast that could be turned against atheists? that should scare the hell out of you.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by blupblup
you shoiuld be afraid of hate speech laws. do you have any idea how fast that could be turned against atheists? that should scare the hell out of you.
I've had the whole "hate speech & Free Speech" debate/conversation so many times on ATS.
Really can't be arsed to get into it.
I don't live in America.... your ideals and values differ from mine.
I don't believe everyone deserves the right to go around racially insulting people or mocking and insulting whichever group they chose because of "Free speech"
I believe there are things you just should not say... in a decent and civilised nation.
And that's why we have laws protecting people in the UK.
A brief outline here
en.wikipedia.org...
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J: Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
I don't go around attacking other people and telling them how to live their lives or insulting their gender/race/sexual orientation or otherwise... so I have Nothing to fear from hate speech laws.
Thanks for your concern though, and your detailed reply.
edit on 19/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)
Re Undo
You wrote:
["okay so you need more support for what i'm saying"]
No, what I asked about is: "What ARE you saying?" The support can come after I understand, what you're talking about.
Most of your latest post is self-biographical, and as interesting the story about your nice character compared to the scum surrounding you then is, I'm still not wiser or closer to understanding, what this has to do with this thread (as it has developed) or the OP.
And please don't tell me, that you only 'respond' to me. I have already two times said, that I won't continue this side-tracking, and two times has my mortal shortcomings lead me back. This time I'm serious (I hope): Please get to a point related to the thread.
You wrote:
["okay so you need more support for what i'm saying"]
No, what I asked about is: "What ARE you saying?" The support can come after I understand, what you're talking about.
Most of your latest post is self-biographical, and as interesting the story about your nice character compared to the scum surrounding you then is, I'm still not wiser or closer to understanding, what this has to do with this thread (as it has developed) or the OP.
And please don't tell me, that you only 'respond' to me. I have already two times said, that I won't continue this side-tracking, and two times has my mortal shortcomings lead me back. This time I'm serious (I hope): Please get to a point related to the thread.
reply to post by bogomil
point is, if you already don't agree with someone's world view, it's real easy to become overly sensitive to anything they do, to find ways to accuse them of things they didn't do, to seek ways to shut them up, to blame them for stuff that hasn't been applicable for thousands of years, to take stuff out of context, to manipulate the rising discomfort people have on the subject into outright disgust with a person they don't even know and will probably never know, and finally, to make their lives a living hell even if they never done anything wrong to you at all, ever. it's a human predilction to tend to this kind of treatment of people they disagree with on subjects like world views and politics. in fact, billions of people down thru the history of the planet, have been murdered over such things. i've been dead once already. i really do not want to end up there again, over something as obvious as a difference of opinion.
point is, if you already don't agree with someone's world view, it's real easy to become overly sensitive to anything they do, to find ways to accuse them of things they didn't do, to seek ways to shut them up, to blame them for stuff that hasn't been applicable for thousands of years, to take stuff out of context, to manipulate the rising discomfort people have on the subject into outright disgust with a person they don't even know and will probably never know, and finally, to make their lives a living hell even if they never done anything wrong to you at all, ever. it's a human predilction to tend to this kind of treatment of people they disagree with on subjects like world views and politics. in fact, billions of people down thru the history of the planet, have been murdered over such things. i've been dead once already. i really do not want to end up there again, over something as obvious as a difference of opinion.
reply to post by blupblup
Morals don't exist. Even in the bible the only word like morals is to stop moral injustice like affairs and what not. And That's for a good reason. Morality is man made. it has no constant. It's a variable that orbits around logic. Logically speaking, you are and individual. You have rights. All members of your species deserve the right to exist the way they see fit up to the point it violates another's rights. And what a person is isn't really hard to describe. DNA settles that. What the governments, laws, or religions saw is irregardless to this natural fact. The whole of nature follows it. It evolutionarily makes sense.
Key word archaic. Modern societies don't act like that. And they are as far stretched as in all kinds of varieties as any. But there is one example of a society trying to cut itself off from religion. Only one society was brave enough to try it. Communist Russia. And they slowly became decayed socially. The whole world goes through times of secularization and religious extremification. As long as the two sides are present, nothing goes wrong. Take away one, and it all goes to hell. This is called Juxtaposition. And weather you like it or not, mankind decays without it. Reminding that people have rights have rights switches between each side. One generation a violent atheist group makes sure religious people don't force their views, the next generation the religious people remind them of the importance of the individual. They'll occasionally also switch positions on those matters. But you cannot have 100% one way society. You end up with chaos. Because fast is man to forget why he doesn't do certain things.
Besides, plenty of Christians and Jews wanted to study the stars. In utterly ultra-religious societies, science was embraced and endorsed by the church. Using the Catholic Church against one Jew is not sufficient evidence to go against 10,000 years of human history where, overall, religious people eagerly sought knowledge. In fact, one could argue that the only group that ever really did persecute science were dark ages Christians. And the fact is they were so far off from what the original Christians were they were just retarded. Luckily the protestants stopped that nonsense. Who, fyi, highly endorsed science and knowledge. And the reason for the dark age attitude was vary obvious. Civilization collapsed. It wouldn't matter what religion or lack there of they were following. The same story would have happened. Meanwhile, we have a very long long long history of religious people seeking science of the stars, chemistry, even evolution in ancient Greeks and native american traditions. But alas, you want to beat a dead horse from one time period, from one group of people. Go ahead, I won't stop you. But you'll just look foolish to the rest of the thousands of years of human history.
If you're good as you are then keep walking and let the people do what they want.
Anger at another group, or desire to put them away or out of your face, is nothing more than lack of faith in your own beliefs or lack there of. After all, if you truly believe what you do, truth should eventually get rid of all others, without you having to do anything but speak. Anything else, and you're just showing doubt in what you claim to preach.
Morals don't exist. Even in the bible the only word like morals is to stop moral injustice like affairs and what not. And That's for a good reason. Morality is man made. it has no constant. It's a variable that orbits around logic. Logically speaking, you are and individual. You have rights. All members of your species deserve the right to exist the way they see fit up to the point it violates another's rights. And what a person is isn't really hard to describe. DNA settles that. What the governments, laws, or religions saw is irregardless to this natural fact. The whole of nature follows it. It evolutionarily makes sense.
Key word archaic. Modern societies don't act like that. And they are as far stretched as in all kinds of varieties as any. But there is one example of a society trying to cut itself off from religion. Only one society was brave enough to try it. Communist Russia. And they slowly became decayed socially. The whole world goes through times of secularization and religious extremification. As long as the two sides are present, nothing goes wrong. Take away one, and it all goes to hell. This is called Juxtaposition. And weather you like it or not, mankind decays without it. Reminding that people have rights have rights switches between each side. One generation a violent atheist group makes sure religious people don't force their views, the next generation the religious people remind them of the importance of the individual. They'll occasionally also switch positions on those matters. But you cannot have 100% one way society. You end up with chaos. Because fast is man to forget why he doesn't do certain things.
Besides, plenty of Christians and Jews wanted to study the stars. In utterly ultra-religious societies, science was embraced and endorsed by the church. Using the Catholic Church against one Jew is not sufficient evidence to go against 10,000 years of human history where, overall, religious people eagerly sought knowledge. In fact, one could argue that the only group that ever really did persecute science were dark ages Christians. And the fact is they were so far off from what the original Christians were they were just retarded. Luckily the protestants stopped that nonsense. Who, fyi, highly endorsed science and knowledge. And the reason for the dark age attitude was vary obvious. Civilization collapsed. It wouldn't matter what religion or lack there of they were following. The same story would have happened. Meanwhile, we have a very long long long history of religious people seeking science of the stars, chemistry, even evolution in ancient Greeks and native american traditions. But alas, you want to beat a dead horse from one time period, from one group of people. Go ahead, I won't stop you. But you'll just look foolish to the rest of the thousands of years of human history.
If you're good as you are then keep walking and let the people do what they want.
Anger at another group, or desire to put them away or out of your face, is nothing more than lack of faith in your own beliefs or lack there of. After all, if you truly believe what you do, truth should eventually get rid of all others, without you having to do anything but speak. Anything else, and you're just showing doubt in what you claim to preach.
reply to post by bogomil
Not really. The only people who viewed Blacks as half humans were the land owners. Then after the civil war, many more grew to hate them because of political stiff and class anger. No KKK about it. But nice of you to assume another's background is extreme just because they are not the same opinion of yours. Are all Jews bankers? Are all protesters gay commies? Are all catholics drones to the pope? Are all southerners KKK? I mean, after all. These people certainly don't have the same opinion. They could only be extremists.
A slave in the time that the Bible was written was just a class. It meant you were conquered. Shall I show you pictures of societies in S America where captured enemies, though now slaves, still had honor in the eyes of their conquerers? So much so that they let them ride on carry-equipment of their own servants? Rome, for example, did not much do anything for slaves in terms of forcing them. There were rebels. But overall a slave in a good household lived a half decent life. Greek slaves who had knowledge were put to work teaching and doing the skills they had. The time that the bible was written at had its writers as slaves, technically. They were forigengers. Not true romans. No different than slaves. This is not 1860 America. This is 100 Rome. Don't go masta and other irrelevant terms on me. Abraham promised his whole positions to his slave before he had a son. Because that 's what a slave was. A person who worked not for cash, but for life and care. What Jesus was saying, they are all human and deserve dignity. He didn't have to tell them to liberate anyone. That naturally leads to freedom. It's pretty obvious that when God says you and your slave are equal, he is saying you and your slaves are both the same. What's the point of having a slave if you are told you are equal to him? That is what leads to freedom.
Not hypocriticy. Denying the holocaust. And yes, plenty of Christians deserve bombing. Hence why we bombed the Christian populated cities in Germany. That certainly had some religious undertones throughout the war.
Just for the record, Gandhi was a Hindu whom learned what the Christians preaches and turned it against them.
Ok. So thousands of years ago Christians killed gnostics. Why am I responsible? Why, better yet, is the religion of today responsible? Do you the Spanish still blame the Italians because the Romans conquered them? Who the hell is talking of ignorance if you think that the actions of one man reflect the opinions of another. No people on Earth have not been slaves. No people on earth are innocent of stealing land. No people on Earth are innocent of raping and pillaging. Because no one is God. And it's all right there is that book what you should and should not do. But people ignore it. Now what counts is a man doing what he wants. What the individual does. I could care what a Christian did to a gnostic in 100AD as much as a young boy in Mongolia could care what Caesar told Brutus. Associating unlinked people with the same ideology is the very definition of ignorance.
No, Because it is ion our calling to give all we can give, save all we can save, and earn all we can earn to help with. That's not predestination. If you want to talk God, God is out of time, He's the author. We're the characters. So the author knows how the story goes, even though the characters don't. Why? That's the way it is. You'r ein this universe, suck it up.
Submission to follow what is right. Not to submit to cruel leaders. Beating your enemy with a stick is not the only way to beat him.
I mean, your post is full of ignorance and assumptions. Can you please stop assuming and just saying untrue crap?
If you rebel, you die. That's what all governments go by. If you don't rebel, you go up. Slowly. It's much slower, but it gets you there in the end. This is what works.
Now, if the world was perfect, leaders would help their people. Slaves and the underclass would work with pride, and the people in between would do the same. People would do with pride what their skills have allowed. As I said, cotton farming is not the only work for a slave. Many times in history slaves had honor. In fact the Turks had a class of slave that they turned into leaders called the Devşirme. The Architect Mimar Sinan is one such example, and he is arguable one of the greatest Islamic architects ever. They would take a person with skill, enslave them to learn that skill, then put them into a job that their skills could be used for as freemen.
Do stop assuming all kinds of wild idiocracy.
Not really. The only people who viewed Blacks as half humans were the land owners. Then after the civil war, many more grew to hate them because of political stiff and class anger. No KKK about it. But nice of you to assume another's background is extreme just because they are not the same opinion of yours. Are all Jews bankers? Are all protesters gay commies? Are all catholics drones to the pope? Are all southerners KKK? I mean, after all. These people certainly don't have the same opinion. They could only be extremists.
A slave in the time that the Bible was written was just a class. It meant you were conquered. Shall I show you pictures of societies in S America where captured enemies, though now slaves, still had honor in the eyes of their conquerers? So much so that they let them ride on carry-equipment of their own servants? Rome, for example, did not much do anything for slaves in terms of forcing them. There were rebels. But overall a slave in a good household lived a half decent life. Greek slaves who had knowledge were put to work teaching and doing the skills they had. The time that the bible was written at had its writers as slaves, technically. They were forigengers. Not true romans. No different than slaves. This is not 1860 America. This is 100 Rome. Don't go masta and other irrelevant terms on me. Abraham promised his whole positions to his slave before he had a son. Because that 's what a slave was. A person who worked not for cash, but for life and care. What Jesus was saying, they are all human and deserve dignity. He didn't have to tell them to liberate anyone. That naturally leads to freedom. It's pretty obvious that when God says you and your slave are equal, he is saying you and your slaves are both the same. What's the point of having a slave if you are told you are equal to him? That is what leads to freedom.
Not hypocriticy. Denying the holocaust. And yes, plenty of Christians deserve bombing. Hence why we bombed the Christian populated cities in Germany. That certainly had some religious undertones throughout the war.
Just for the record, Gandhi was a Hindu whom learned what the Christians preaches and turned it against them.
Ok. So thousands of years ago Christians killed gnostics. Why am I responsible? Why, better yet, is the religion of today responsible? Do you the Spanish still blame the Italians because the Romans conquered them? Who the hell is talking of ignorance if you think that the actions of one man reflect the opinions of another. No people on Earth have not been slaves. No people on earth are innocent of stealing land. No people on Earth are innocent of raping and pillaging. Because no one is God. And it's all right there is that book what you should and should not do. But people ignore it. Now what counts is a man doing what he wants. What the individual does. I could care what a Christian did to a gnostic in 100AD as much as a young boy in Mongolia could care what Caesar told Brutus. Associating unlinked people with the same ideology is the very definition of ignorance.
No, Because it is ion our calling to give all we can give, save all we can save, and earn all we can earn to help with. That's not predestination. If you want to talk God, God is out of time, He's the author. We're the characters. So the author knows how the story goes, even though the characters don't. Why? That's the way it is. You'r ein this universe, suck it up.
Submission to follow what is right. Not to submit to cruel leaders. Beating your enemy with a stick is not the only way to beat him.
I mean, your post is full of ignorance and assumptions. Can you please stop assuming and just saying untrue crap?
If you rebel, you die. That's what all governments go by. If you don't rebel, you go up. Slowly. It's much slower, but it gets you there in the end. This is what works.
Now, if the world was perfect, leaders would help their people. Slaves and the underclass would work with pride, and the people in between would do the same. People would do with pride what their skills have allowed. As I said, cotton farming is not the only work for a slave. Many times in history slaves had honor. In fact the Turks had a class of slave that they turned into leaders called the Devşirme. The Architect Mimar Sinan is one such example, and he is arguable one of the greatest Islamic architects ever. They would take a person with skill, enslave them to learn that skill, then put them into a job that their skills could be used for as freemen.
Do stop assuming all kinds of wild idiocracy.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Re Gorman91
You wrote:
["Morality is man made. it has no constant. It's a variable that orbits around logic. Logically speaking, you are and individual."]
It's a part of what's called utilitarian philosophy, and it functions excellently, where it's used.
Quote: ["But there is one example of a society trying to cut itself off from religion. Only one society was brave enough to try it. Communist Russia."]
Why on earth should any society cut itself off from religion? That's dictatorship. Cutting government free from ANY special interests though, that's sensible.
Quote: ["In fact, one could argue that the only group that ever really did persecute science were dark ages Christians. And the fact is they were so far off from what the original Christians were they were just retarded. Luckily the protestants stopped that nonsense."]
Again your knowledge of european history fails you. While the numerical extent of protestant inquisition and opposition to science was smaller than the catholic, the brutality was sometimes intensified. And again I refer to Calvin.
Quote: ["But alas, you want to beat a dead horse from one time period, from one group of people."]
In a recent post, you presented some thoughts on slavery, which IMO isn't so different from what the christianities had in the dark ages.
Quote: ["If you're good as you are then keep walking and let the people do what they want."]
If 'letting people do what they want' includes enforcing their personal version of truth on others. Absolutely not.
Quote: ["Anger at another group, or desire to put them away or out of your face, is nothing more than lack of faith in your own beliefs or lack there of."]
The 'insecurity gambit' again. Actually it's more applicable on religionists, who have some obsessional need to push their religion. Atheists generally say "bugger off".
You wrote:
["Morality is man made. it has no constant. It's a variable that orbits around logic. Logically speaking, you are and individual."]
It's a part of what's called utilitarian philosophy, and it functions excellently, where it's used.
Quote: ["But there is one example of a society trying to cut itself off from religion. Only one society was brave enough to try it. Communist Russia."]
Why on earth should any society cut itself off from religion? That's dictatorship. Cutting government free from ANY special interests though, that's sensible.
Quote: ["In fact, one could argue that the only group that ever really did persecute science were dark ages Christians. And the fact is they were so far off from what the original Christians were they were just retarded. Luckily the protestants stopped that nonsense."]
Again your knowledge of european history fails you. While the numerical extent of protestant inquisition and opposition to science was smaller than the catholic, the brutality was sometimes intensified. And again I refer to Calvin.
Quote: ["But alas, you want to beat a dead horse from one time period, from one group of people."]
In a recent post, you presented some thoughts on slavery, which IMO isn't so different from what the christianities had in the dark ages.
Quote: ["If you're good as you are then keep walking and let the people do what they want."]
If 'letting people do what they want' includes enforcing their personal version of truth on others. Absolutely not.
Quote: ["Anger at another group, or desire to put them away or out of your face, is nothing more than lack of faith in your own beliefs or lack there of."]
The 'insecurity gambit' again. Actually it's more applicable on religionists, who have some obsessional need to push their religion. Atheists generally say "bugger off".
reply to post by bogomil
Yea it functions excellently when its right. Morality is as broad as sharia law to Jesus Christ. Where is a constant? There is none.
Government shouldn't pick religions, but I see no problem with religious people in government governing by their religious beliefs. If you don't agree, don't vote. A republic is suppose to defend you if you don't agree so that you don't get abused.
Then don't mix the two. You've just admitted that they agreed with science some times. Then do not associate all. Those who resist it it were wrong. End of story. They are not us and I am not them. So don't associated the two. I am a man. I make my own decisions. I chose they are wrong.
Slavery in the dark ages was called serfdom. It was a half-decent plan for the situation they were in. But man is stuck in his ways so that when the system wasn't needed, they kept going with it.
No crap you're not allowed to force your views on others. At least not without significant logical reasons why. IE, You have to prove the holocaust did not happen to teach it in the classroom. No one can, because it happened. You can't prove God, so you shouldn't teach it in the class room. But if someone wants to preach their beliefs or protest a teaching they can go right ahead and debate. It's part of teaching. What you can prove with reasonable levels of scientific matter you can teach and force on others through the school system.
No, all people with belief and lack there off are divided pretty much the same way. You have your evangelicals, your "I don't care" people, and your dictators. Dictatorship is insecurity. IDK people are just boring and lack the desire to learn things, and the evangelicals should have their right to preach. The "Insecurity gambit" is quite true However. If you have to force your ways, it means you fear the people you are forcing your ways on.
Yea it functions excellently when its right. Morality is as broad as sharia law to Jesus Christ. Where is a constant? There is none.
Government shouldn't pick religions, but I see no problem with religious people in government governing by their religious beliefs. If you don't agree, don't vote. A republic is suppose to defend you if you don't agree so that you don't get abused.
Then don't mix the two. You've just admitted that they agreed with science some times. Then do not associate all. Those who resist it it were wrong. End of story. They are not us and I am not them. So don't associated the two. I am a man. I make my own decisions. I chose they are wrong.
Slavery in the dark ages was called serfdom. It was a half-decent plan for the situation they were in. But man is stuck in his ways so that when the system wasn't needed, they kept going with it.
No crap you're not allowed to force your views on others. At least not without significant logical reasons why. IE, You have to prove the holocaust did not happen to teach it in the classroom. No one can, because it happened. You can't prove God, so you shouldn't teach it in the class room. But if someone wants to preach their beliefs or protest a teaching they can go right ahead and debate. It's part of teaching. What you can prove with reasonable levels of scientific matter you can teach and force on others through the school system.
No, all people with belief and lack there off are divided pretty much the same way. You have your evangelicals, your "I don't care" people, and your dictators. Dictatorship is insecurity. IDK people are just boring and lack the desire to learn things, and the evangelicals should have their right to preach. The "Insecurity gambit" is quite true However. If you have to force your ways, it means you fear the people you are forcing your ways on.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
gorman
your posts are really interesting!
i would like to add, that a friend of mine got a job pickin' cotton. he always jokes about his days as a cotton picker. (imagine captain jack sparrow, and you have the equivalent of what this guy talks like and looks like (without the hat of course)).
anyway......
i was thinking of the year of jubilee. hubby and were talking about it, back when we had such a financial crisis starting, and he wrote congressmen and such with the idea of jubilee.
wonder if they read it or even thought about it. it's such a simple solution.
your posts are really interesting!
i would like to add, that a friend of mine got a job pickin' cotton. he always jokes about his days as a cotton picker. (imagine captain jack sparrow, and you have the equivalent of what this guy talks like and looks like (without the hat of course)).
anyway......
i was thinking of the year of jubilee. hubby and were talking about it, back when we had such a financial crisis starting, and he wrote congressmen and such with the idea of jubilee.
wonder if they read it or even thought about it. it's such a simple solution.
new topics
-
Bizarre Labour Party Tic Toc Video Becomes Even More Embarrassing
Regional Politics: 4 hours ago -
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 14 flags -
Dr. Demento
Music: 12 hours ago, 6 flags -
Bizarre Labour Party Tic Toc Video Becomes Even More Embarrassing
Regional Politics: 4 hours ago, 4 flags -
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 10 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 259 • : marg6043 -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 1039 • : JJproductions -
What Is 'Quad Demic'? Mask Mandate Returns In These US States
Diseases and Pandemics • 43 • : DeadlyStaringFrog -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies • 32 • : firerescue -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness • 23 • : fringeofthefringe -
President Carter has passed
Mainstream News • 56 • : angelchemuel -
Remember These Attacks When President Trump 2.0 Retribution-Justice Commences.
2024 Elections • 141 • : bluesman023 -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 8009 • : Cymru -
Bizarre Labour Party Tic Toc Video Becomes Even More Embarrassing
Regional Politics • 8 • : gortex -
What Comes After January 20th
Mainstream News • 39 • : DontTreadOnMe