The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by Lucifer777
When I describe the defenders of the Biblical deity as having the psychology of "genocidal psychopaths" I certainly mean to give offence, just as any philosopher in a debate would try to ruthlessly attack the "ideas" and "character" of an opponent, and I hope that I "do" give offence, but this is not merely an arbitrary insult, as a child would throw in a playground; I consider it "fair game" to describe those who would defend a sadistic and genocidal definition of a deity as being psychologically sadistic and genocidal themselves.

If you MEAN to give offence and attack the character of your fellow members rather than just the ideas they may hold dear, then perhaps ATS is not the best place for you.

Remember the T&C's?

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

edit on 12/2/11 by masqua because: bbcode edit

Let us say hypothetically that there are two football hooligans who are supporters of the two different football teams having an argument in a pub in Oxford, and at the same time there are two philosophers having a public debate at the Oxford University Student's Union, and that one of these philosophers is attemtping to defend and justify the primitive and savage definition of the biblical deity and the other philosopher is opposing that definition of a deity.

Let us say that one of the football hooligans says to the other that he has a big nose, that he has no taste in clothing and that his shoes make him look like a girl; this is all quite acceptible in an "ad hominmen" attack in a pub, but at the Oxford debating society, the moderater of the debate would most likely object to such remarks.

However, consider...

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your apurses, Nor a bag for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet a staff......... (Mt. 5)

"... everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock...........And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand’" (Mt. 7)

"...and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22.36

So, for example, while it is innapropriate in a "debate" to use the strategy of a football hooligan and to attack the "appearance" or attire of one's opponent, this does not apply to debates with Christians who, if they are wearing more than one robe, are monetarists (Capitalists), shoe wearers, or if they have ever cut their beard or their hair (unlawful acts according to te Mosaic Law), or if they have not sold their one robe to buy a sword and have become nudists; this is certainly an attack on the "appearance" of a Christian, and the accusation of "hypocrisy" is an attack on their character, but it is entirely appropriate in a debate between philosophers; if a person who represents an "anti-shoe-wearing" or "anti-monetarist" mentor and attempts to debate while wearing shoes or carrying money, it is appropriate to criticise the person over such issues and refer to the person as a "hypocrite." This will obviously give offence to the person and is intended to d so, however it is entirely appropriate, and to befrank one cannot have an honest debate if one attempts to avoid such exchanges.

Consider:

Numbers 31:7-18

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. ...... Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" ........ Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

In a debate with a Biblical fanatic, if one uses the debating strategy of the "Devil's Advocate" it is entirely appropriate to suggest that the Biblical fanatics should be slaughtered and that their virgin daughters should be taken as sex slaves; it does not matter at all if the philosopher making such an argument is making such a suggestion "seriously" or not; further if one attacks the "character" of the defenders of the Biblical deity and refers to them as morally subhuman or "immoral," that is also entirely appropriate and to refrain from expressing such a judgement, irrespective of how much offense is causes, would be tantamount to dishonesty .

The central argument which I have made in the OP is that if one worships a deity which, as Richard Dawkins has stated, can be defined as "[i[arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" then the devotee of such a deity is likely to take on such characteristics themselves; the "Joshua experiment" and the long and bloody history of Christianity is ample evidence of this.

If I allege that those who atempt to defend and justify the Biblical deity also have the characteristics of being " petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freaks; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleansers; misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bullies" then while these nouns and adjectives may give offence, they are entirely defensible and appropriate in an intelligent dabate; in fact to avoid using such nouns and adjectives would be tantamount to flattery and dishonesty.

There is a difference between just throwing arbitrary insults on one's opponents and using descriptive nouns and adjectives which are designed to give offence, but which are entirely descriptive. If, for example, I were to refer to George ("God told me to invade Iraq") Bush as a deluded, genocidal religious schizophrenic, he and his admirers may well take offense to that, and it is most certainly an attack on his character, but it is not merely an arbitrary insult and it is a description which can be intelligently defended,

Some nouns and adjectives (describing words) are certainly used to criticise and demean others, but if we ceased to use such critical terms, we would be unable to describe anyone honestly and would be reduced to flattery

Lux

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

Contrarianism i'm guessing

Or Irony - An Atheist with a deity within his name.

It's just a word, a word that man's created, i doubt his intentions were to offend the God squad.

Maybe i'm wrong xD

I think that when Richard Dawkins describes the Biblical deity as a " petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" that he "means" to give offense

As I have argued in the OP, those who revere such a definition of a deity are likely to take on such characteristics themselves; if they are offended by being described as having the psychology of "petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freaks; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleansers; misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bullies" then such offense is entirely intentional on my part; if the apologists for the Biblical deity are "offended" they may make arguments in defence of their deity and themselves, but to simply complain and whine about being described in such a way is rather petty and childish; it is simply not appropriate in the arena of intelligent debate.

Lux

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

There is no provisions in the Quran for sex-slavery.
I doubt you have hardly read it

Muhammad freed his slaves; your statements are just untrue. You are reading material from bigots who slander Muhammad because it suits your pre-conceived notions.

You the go on to cite the following:

en.wikipedia.org...
The major juristic schools of Islam have historically accepted the institution of slavery.

This is just further evidence that religious fanatics can be comfortable with holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

You are just wrong Lucifer, you are not telling the truth!

????

SLAVERY IN ISLAM

Islam institutionalized slavery. Muhammad began to take slaves after he moved to Medina, and had power. Slaves were usually taken in raids on nearby Arab tribes, or war, either through offensive or defensive actions. Islam allows the taking of slaves as "booty", or reward for fighting. This has led to numerous "jihads" by Muslim states and tribes to attack other non-Muslim groups and obtain slaves. Islamic jurisprudence laid down regulations for the proper treatment of slaves. However, abuses have occurred throughout history.

....


However, few people in the west know about Islam and slavery. Most would be surprised that Islam authorizes the taking of slaves as spoils of war. From the days that Muhammad drew his sword to rob and conquer non-Muslims to this very day, Muslims have been taking non-Muslims, and even other black Muslims, as slaves.



Muslims were enslaving black Africans long before any slave ships sailed for the New World. Muslims were taking and making slaves all over the lands they had conquered. Later, when slave ships were loaded with black slaves, often, a Muslim slave broker had the human cargo all ready to go. American slavers rarely had to go into inland to capture slaves, they were already waiting there, courtesy of some Muslim ruler, and/or slave broker! In many cases, if the black slaves were not sent to the New World, they were sent to the Mideast to be enslaved by Arabs, or kept by other black Muslims as slaves.


MUHAMMAD, MUSLIMS, THE QURAN, AND SLAVERY



To begin with, the Quran justifies slavery, and often mentions slaves. Here are some relevant verses:



33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."




23:5 - "... except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them:..."



The passage's context here (not quoted in full) details how Muslim males are allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls. Implicit in this is that Muslim males had slave-concubines. 70:30 is basically a repeat of 23:5.



Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of Muhammad having "relations" with at least one of his slave girls. Muhammad had sexual relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave. Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty."

More on www.answering-islam.org...

If there is a God, I doubt that She would be so psychopathic, cruel and lacking in intelligence to choose as Her alleged "Final Prophet," a 7th century, genocidal war lord and slave trader and I "do" mean to give offence, however were I not to do so, I would be reduced to flattery and dishonesty.

Lux

[Image removed]

Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Intuitively, from reading your numerous posts here, I feel that you are a rather gentle and loving creature; never the less the argument which I am attempting to make in the OP, is that one one attempts to justify the psychopathic and genocdial tribal deity of the Bible, that one tends to take on such characteristsi oneself.

I understand your argument about the old testament deity. Much has been misapplied to God since the beginning of Man's journey through time. I do not pay much heed to the old testament other than as a historical reference for one group of Mankind's evolving understanding of the supreme being. Christ did not teach to keep the old laws of Judaism. This is a misconception. He said that those laws were up to the time of John the Baptist. Christ brought the new law the new commandments. Love God with all your being, and your neighbor as yourself. His life and livinging testament was of love of each other. His final lesson was his willing death on the cross. He could have fought back, but would not violate his own laws and harm another. His death was his greatest lesson in loving all.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Well bear in mind that the fictional "Christ" of the Gospels promoted the view that we must strictly adhere to the "(Biblical) Law and the Prophets" which involves the mandatory execution of all devotees of competing deities, men who engage in homo-erotic relationships, witches, and so forth.

Again, when he said to "Keep the commandments" he was referring to HIS commandments. Let those who believe in the law of Moses be judged by Moses. I live by Christ's commandments and will be judged accordingly.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
My own personal definition of a deity is entirely contrary to that of the Biblical deity; I am not an atheist, but in Biblical terms I am guilty of so many executionable offences that I cannot count them; my current girlfriend is an evangelical Witch (Wiccanist), I have always been bisexual, I have always hated the god of the Bible and I am evangelically Neopagan.

I do not care how you or anyone else defines deity. That is up to you. The Master is within you and will guide you and teach you how HE sees fit. I do not care about your sex life so long as it does not bring harm to another. That is between you and your partner. Christ's teachings were how man interacted with each other. He recognised each as possessing the free will the were born with. He recognised the Deity within all. He merely was trying to teaching these walking talking manifestations of deity who they were and how to live harmoniously together.

I KNOW that this is not what is taught in most Christianity today. This does not mean that the teachings are not clear in the words attributed to Christ in the New Testament. It's called hiding in plain sight.

Hand someone a book, any book. Tell them everything that is in that book. Most will not even bother reading the book after you have told them what is in it. The few who do will come to your conclusion because it is already imprinted. A rare few will find their own meaning.

I do not care if it was revealed that the Bible was written by Walt Disney. The teachings of Christ are true regardless of the source. You do not need to convert to "Christianity" to be a follower of Christ. The master is within everyone by default. All one needs do is be willing to love his fellow man and not judge him. "Christianity" has made man a judging machine. I am sorry for this, but it is not Christ's teachings.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The New Testament fiction is a mixture of Judaism and numerous "ethical" teachings such as the "Golden Rule." We all wish to love and be loved; so when we mix socialist ethical teachings, which we can all relate to, with "kill all opponents of competing deities" it becomes a very dangerous mixture, since we all relate to comon ethical maxims such as "love each other."

Rome mixed the old testament in with the new. Christ did not do this.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
There are a number of Hebrew words which have been translated as "sin;" however essentially to be a "sinner" is to be "unlawful;" and Biblical law is anyway virtually impossible for a modern person to follow; to be a "non-sinner" you would have to hunt down all persons who worked on the Sabbath (Friday sunset till Saturday Sunset) and execute them; similarly with all persons who are not strictly heterosexual (this applies to males only), all adulterers, all women who were not virgins when they were married, all slaves who have escaped their masters, etc., etc.

Sin is a transgression against God's Law. God's Law is to love one another.

How else can 6 billion plus people on this planet share it while keeping their individuality? They must love each other totally. They must not judge one another. Otherwise, you get the world we have which is based on the law of the beast, dog eat dog, or survival of the fittest.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Further if your ATS photo is really an image of yourself, your hair and beard are not long enough for your age, since you are forbidden by the (Biblical) Law to cut your hair and shave your beard, so you are anyway, by default, a sinner.

Lucifer

edit on 11-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis

My grooming standards are not based on any written law. If I feel like shaving, I shave. I am 36.

I understand your revulsion against the teachings of "Christianity" as it has been passed about since Christ. Not all "Christians" are the same. Be careful of putting everyone in a box. I am sure you want to be judged for what YOU are, and not the box people put you in. Furthermore, to judge is a dangerous game to play. You do not know what has happened in someone's life to lead them to where they are. If born with the same faculties and faced with the same adversities, YOU most likely would be in the same place.

If you really want to prove the teachings of others as incorrect, do so by demonstrating the grace, love, and social superiority of your own, rather than revealing that yours are no better.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Christ did not teach to keep the old laws of Judaism. This is a misconception.

I do understand that there are probably as many different variations of Christianity as there are Christians, since most Christians simply adhere to their own personal beliefs, misinterpretations and prejudices, and they construct their personal faith based on selectively "quote mining" and "cherry picking" the Biblical texts; thus when I discuss the Biblical faith I tend to simply go straight to the central figures of that text (Moses and Jesus) and base my criticisms on them and on the Biblical deity herself (or himself).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."Mt 5

I am entirely aware that Christians universally reject the teachings of Jesus and the primitive religion of Jesus and are indeed openly hostile to the teachings and religion of Jesus; Christianity is simply a "made up" religion, and each Christian selectively chooses which parts of the Biblical text to follow and which to reject; however this is really the same for all religionists.

Love God with all your being, and your neighbor as yourself.

As I have argued in the OP, when a person "loves" and reveres the sadistic, psychopathic Biblical deity, they tend to psychologically take on such sadistic psychopathic qualities themselves; when one has a defintion of "goodness" which is the psychopathic deity of the Bible, this can have genocidal repercussions on society in general, and the long and bloody history of Christianity is ample testimony to this. Further, "loving" other people is just a general ethical principle; it is a general truthism that we seek to be loved and to love others.

His death was his greatest lesson in loving all.

Probably hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and crucified by the Romans, and certainly hundreds of millions of people were tortured, murdered, enslaved and subjected to genocide by the Christians throughout their long and bloody history.

I live by Christ's commandments and will be judged accordingly.

[image removed]

If it was true that you follow "Christ's commandments," you would probably be the only person in history to do so; it is simply impossible to live by the commandments of that religious charlatan (Jesus), since this would involve following all his edicts, following the Mosaic Law, and being able to miraculously cure leprosy and blindness, which is frankly impossible; all the persons who "claim" to be following Jesus' teachings can be shown to be merely hypocrites, charlatans, fake healers, etc., who simply prey on the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable. Furthermore, if you were an illiterate, homeless, shoeless, wandering, penniless, exorcist and fake healer, you would be unlikely to be able to afford an internet connection or be debating on this forum.

The teachings of Christ are true regardless of the source.

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14)

The teachings of Christ have long ago been proven to be false. See whywontgodhealamputees.com... and www.evilbible.com... for example.

Almost every song on the radio is a "love song;" our desire to love and to be loved is innate, however extracting a few words where the Jesus of the Gospels rambled on about "love" does not make the entirety of his teachings true.

Lux

Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Would you mind answering my question?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Loving "God" is very easy since it is just a concept in your mind; however as I have argued in the OP, when a person "loves" and reveres the sadistic, psychopathic Biblical deity, they tend to psychologically take on such sadistic psychopathic qualities themselves; when one has a defintion of "goodness" which is the psychopathic deity of the Bible, this can have genocidal repercussions on society in general, and the long and bloody history of Christianity is ample testimony to this. Further "loving" other people is just a general ethical principle; it is a general truthism that we seek to be loved and to love others.

Love and hate are polar opposites my friend. One cannot claim to love God if their God is hate. God is within you as you have correctly pointed out. If one claims to "Love" a God which "Hates", they have only revealed the truth of the God they supposedly love. Do not judge these people. They only know what they have learned through life. Show them another way through you of Love.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Probably hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and crucified by the Romans, and certainly hundreds of millions of people were tortured, murdered, enslaved and subjected to genocide by the Christians throughout their long and bloody history.

I have already acknowledged this my friend. What better way to discredit your enemy than to make people hate him by doing heinous things in his name.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
If that were true, you would probably be the only person in history to do so; it is simply impossible to live by the commandments of that religious charlatan (Jesus), since this would involve following all his edicts, following the Mosaic Law, and being able to miraculously cure leprosy and blindness, which is frankly impossible; all the persons who "claim" to be following Jesus' teachings can be shown to be merely hypocrites, charlatans, fake healers, etc., who simply prey on the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable.

I am not Christ. I am a follower of Christ. I AM.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14)

When Christ walked the earth, he did anything anyone asked of him. When he was put to death, his followers were supposed to carry on that tradition so his teachings would spread. Sadly, they were usurped by Rome.

We are supposed to follow Christ and carry on his work. We are supposed to do for each other what ever each of us asks of each other. We are the Children of God. We have the power to heal each other. We have the power to heal amputees. We do not because it is not profitable to the corporations who rule us.

WE are supposed to answer each others PRAYERS. That is love.

If love is so innate (which it is) why have we allowed so many things to come between us and each others hearts?

If the word "Christ" offends you. Then I will not let it come between you and I. That would be idolotry. Between you and I there is no Christ for Christ is within me. Between you and I is nothing but love.

If you have a need and it is within my power to perform, I will do it. That is love.

I am not trying to convert you my friend. There is nothing to convert to. The truth is within you and comes out in your own words. We both know what is truth and we can both see what has deceived this world. There is a way whereby we can overcome the division. That way is by not letting anything come between us. If you see one who does not teach love, love them, that others will see the truth through you. The name does not matter. The lesson does.

We are family. We are Brothers. We are Children of God.

I am your friend.

I AM.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Lucifer777

Star and flag for a most excellent post, Lucifer777. Sir, you are well learned and a sage.
I will be watching your posts.

reply to post by Lucifer777


His intention wasn't to offend though. He was just describing religion as best he could.

Christopher Hitchens destroys and ridicules religion; does he mean to offend individual people? No. But it can't be helped because religion is dumb. Why would an intelligent thinker lie to himself in order to prevent "offense".

Religion is not free from criticism, no matter how timid it may be.

I agree with you.

Love Dawkins BTW, currently reading "Climbing Mount Improbable" !!

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Love and hate are polar opposites my friend. One cannot claim to love God if their God is hate.

The Psychopathic God.

I do not define myself as an atheist; I would probably have to describe myself as a Deist or a Pantheist and a humanist, however if there is a Creative intelligence behind the universe, there is not very much that the Deist can say about such a Creator which is not merely an observation of nature, science, human psychology etc.

We are obviously social creatures; we derive pleasure from social interaction, from loving others and by being an object of the affection, friendship and desire (i.e., lust) of others. These are just general truthisms and statements of the obvious. Part of the danger of religion is that religious texts usually contain many general truthisms that even the most atheistic of philosophers would probably agree with, and these texts are usually combined with much more malevolent teachings. Similarly one could "cherry pick" and "quote mine" Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for perfectly innocent and benevolent quotations, however it is not because of the innocent and benevolent aspects of Hitler's philosophy that we generally define him as "evil."




The danger of persons who promote the Christian religion is not because they believe in a deity, but because they believe in a "particular" definition of a deity which as I have repeatedly stated, is a deity which Richard Dawkins accurately describes as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

It is such a deity which is the Biblical faithists definition of "goodness" and "love;" thus when a Christian claims to "love God," what they are claiming, from a humanist perspective is that they "love" and revere a definition of "evil." Thus the long and bloody history of Christian tyranny, holy wars, crusades, imperialism, inquistions, slavery, state terrorism, narco-terrorism, etc., is entirely unsurprising, since they define "goodness" as a deity who is clearly a genocidal psychopath.

Christianity as Theocratic Fascism

Further bear in mind that Christian political philosophy is by default that of a theocratic (God government) monarchy (i.e., a religious dictatorship.) A recent US opinion poll found that around 40% of the adult US population claims to believe that Christ will return in the near future, however the second coming of "Christ" depicted in the New Testament and partcularly the Book of Revelation is a genocidal global dictator (i.e., a "king of kings") who annihilates not only his military enemies but also all non believers.




As I have argued in the OP, Christianity is not merely a "harmless" hobby or a harmless belief such as a child's belief in Satna Claus; Biblical faithism has very real malevolent effects on the human consciousness, on society and on human history. The fact that the US religious right had no problem with a genocidal president who claimed that he heard voices from God such as George "God told me to invade Iraq" Bush is indicative of the malevolent and genocidal effect of religion on society. It seems that almost any amount of human evil can be justified by invoking "God."

In a militant, imperialistic state such as America, a genocidal lunatic who claimed to represent the Christian god and who was clearly suffering from an advanced form of religious psychosis was seen fit by much of the population to command the world's most powerful army and a host of nuclear weapons. Such a situation where the the majorty of the population of the world's most powerful military state are Chrstians represents a general threat to humankind; thus the current rise of the evanglically "anti-Christian" movement is not merely a "hobby;" the salvation of humankind is at stake (i.e., to save humankind "from" the Christians).
.

We are supposed to follow Christ and carry on his work.

That is the "problem" and this attempt to "follow" Christ has given birth to the multi-billion dollar Jesus business of religous charlatans and fake healers, where professional hypnotists prey on the poor, the sick, the disabled, the undeducated and vulnerable.

If love is so innate (which it is) why have we allowed so many things to come between us and each others hearts?

Well "part" of the problem is certainly religion and the concept of a hateful deity who despises human nature, who is defined as a "God of Love." "Love" is probably the most misused word in the process of religious hypnosis and indoctrination; "love" is also the most powerful hypnotic keyword used in everythng from seduction, religion, to selling used cars (a "lovely" car, for example). "Words are weapons."

[quoteIf the word "Christ" offends you.

The term is used to refer to a Messianic dictator. I live in a theocratic monarchy (the UK) where my head of state is allegedly Jesus' representative on earth to all Anglicans; however I am not a monarchist, nor a theocrat; on the contrary.

Lux

“......if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm”....'Che' Guevara

As I have argued in the OP, those who revere such a definition of a deity are likely to take on such characteristics themselves; if they are offended by being described as having the psychology of "petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freaks; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleansers; misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bullies"

Really?
Luci, Luci, Luci.

No one would know god better then you.,

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Be careful you don't become that which you despise.

Although I wont argue with the points you make, I am no match for you,

I would say lead by example, and not to use your voice/talent to inspire hatred.,

What is your mission?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Love Dawkins BTW, currently reading "Climbing Mount Improbable"

I was recently in Africa for a month surrounded by religious fanatics and the only two books I had were Dawkins' "God Delusion" and "Devil's Chaplain." I had previously read the "God Delusion" in my usual speed reading and skimming style, but this time I carefully read it cover to cover. I consider it probably the greatest work of the ages on "Philosophy of Religion;" I think it should be mandatory reading for all students of "Religious Studies" & philosophy.

I have only read a short synopsis of "Climbing Mount Improbable," however despite my immense admiration for Dawkins and the vital historical importance of his anti-Christian and anti-religious evangelism, I do have a conceptual problem with evolution and the idea of the absence of any creative intelligence or design.

Dawkin's has stated that he is open to the possibility that human beings are "designed," but not by a god, rather merely by "gods" who were intelligent beings, possibly from another planet. This seems to me to be a reasonable explanation for the sudden arrival of homo sapiens some 300,000 years ago or thereabouts, however as Dawkin's argues, this then leads to the question of who created such creators, and who created them, and so forth and so forth, and that the only reasonable explantion is slow gradual evolution.

Dawkins argues that the universe is so complex, that it is not a "solution" to imagine an even more complex being (i.e., a god) as the creator of the universe, since rather than solving the problem of how the universe seems to be designed, it just creates an even more complex problem; that of an incredibly complex uncreated, creator.

Frankly the problem of infinte causal regression, such as the question of who created the Creator's great, great, (ad infinitum) grandmother, is also a problem for materialists. Questions such as, "what was the origin of matter?" or "What existed before the beginning of time, and before that, and before that (ad infinitum)" are the equivalent mystery for a materialist.

If there is a Creator, the question of who created the Creator's great, great (etc.) grandmother has always puzzled me, and it simply makes no sense at all, but then the accidental origin of matter and all life makes no sense to me either. I simply assume that if the universe "looks" designed, perhaps it is because it "is" designed, but the question of who designed the designer just sends my head into a spin. I do believe that there is something "spiritual" about human existence and that there are other dimensions of reality apart from this one, which have been traditionally described as the realms of the "gods" or the "spiritual world" and so forth, but I simply cannot fathom how all this came into existence. Unfortunately, unlike George Bush, "God" does not seem to speak to me and has nothing to say on the matter. Thus I consider the question of God's existence or Her non existence to be unimportant.

Lux

reply to post by Lucifer777

Dawkin's has stated that he is open to the possibility that human beings are "designed," but not by a god, rather merely by "gods" who were intelligent beings, possibly from another planet.

I wont deny that possibility, and those gods could have had human emotions, maybe they were time travelers and knew exactly how the story ends.

reply to post by Lucifer777


My friend, we seem to have the word "Christ" coming between us. I told you I am not a Christian, yet you keep using the arguments Christianity has made as if I am supposed to defend them. I will not defend them because they are in error. They have distorted the message of Christ. Christs message was NOT about him, but Mankind.

So, lets just put the word "Christ" aside for a moment.

You know that the world must love one another in order for us to build a better world.

What does that mean to love each other?

Being judgemental is not love. That only leads to another looking for flaws in you. Then you have hate and discontent between you. You sow hate rather than love. The world never heals this way.

You are disgusted with the genocide done in this world. Wonderful! That is wrong too. You cannot end genocide by calling for more genocide. You become the evil you yourself despise.

My point my friend, my request to you, is for you to shine YOUR light of love. Be the beacon you know you have within you. If you truly believe in Love as the way, BE love.

It is easy to get angry at the misbehaving of a child. To discipline that child by instilling fear is never the correct approach. Children are to be reasoned with, loved, and taught through demonstration of the principles you know and believe are correct.

We ALL are children. The father within us all is the teacher. I AM sharing what he has taught me.

Take within your heart and weigh what I say. If you find I speak falsely, then I will trouble you no more.

I only do so because I do love you and want to see you grow the love within you.

Judge not, love all, be at peace.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


The issue is not the label. It's the philosophy and metaphysical claims that go with Jesus.

Even if you prove the "miracles" of Christ (immaculate conception, ressurection, conjuring tricks) it doesn't prove he was the son of any "GOD" and it doesn't prove thereby his philosophical and teaching is correct or most useful to our species.

Socrates - whether he did or didn't exist, his words are still clear. Socrates philosophical and moral teachings don't beg to be trusted, they don't beg for conversion, he doesn't state he is the son of God, He doesn't claim to reveal wisdom that he could not possible reveal.

With Jesus; I can't prove whether he existed but i CAN prove that his words and morals have be superseeded and in some cases could be considered as immoral. We have no need to bound morality and ethical teaching to any one figure - Especially "Christ"

Jesus taught immoral preaching.

(Luke 14:25-27 NIV) Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: [26] "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. [27] And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Passage reference there. (do your own research, before attacking)

We need to drop the Christ label, and drop talk of Christ, his messages and philosophies are outdated.

Vicarious redemption is wicked preaching, i'm not bound by Jesus's death nor his he responsible of "washing" us of our sins.

Jesus wasn't crucified to cleans our sins. This is believed because humans, for some reason, can't get the stupid primitive idea out of their head that god requires blood in exchange for us to survive death. This is ridiculous. Why would god let someone else be punished for stuff that we do? and his own son at that??? Jesus was crucified simply because his existence threatened the power of religious leaders of the time.

I forgot to comment on the King of Kings.

What does that mean my friend? Let me explain the monarchy you despise.

Christ is the King of Kings. We are all the Kings. Each of us are King and Queen of our own free will and our bodies is our Kingdom. King of Kings. Equal among equals.

This is the "Monarchy" you are rebelling against.

We can only get there by loving each other as Kings among Kings.



With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

I would say lead by example, and not to use your voice/talent to inspire hatred.,

On Memetic Conditioning

"A meme is an idea that behaves like a virus--that moves through a population, taking hold in each person it infects." en.wikipedia.org...

Let us say for example that I used Reichard Dawkin's description of the Biblical deity to describe Hitler as "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

I really doubt if anyone apart from the modern Neonazis would object to anyone making a statement like that about Hitler. This is because we have been subjected to a lifetime of anti-Nazi films and literature which portrays the Americans (who financed Hitler in the first place) and their allies as the "good guys" and the Nazis as the "bad guys."

Certainly I think that most of us would concur that the Nazis "were" certainly, relatively speaking, the "bad guys;" however if we have been raised in a nation where Christianity is the main religion, we will also have been subjected to a lifetime of propaganda which has portrayed the psychopathic Biblical deity and his hatred of human nature (which he supposedly created in the first place) as the definition of "goodness." Thus when we apply Richard Dawkin's description of the psychotic Biblical deity, it is clear that despite this being descriptive of such a deity, that this is likely to cause offense to those who have been memetically programmed to consider such a definition of a deity as a definition of "goodness."

With regards to inciting hatred against Christians, while this may certainly be one consequences of Richard Dawkin's attacks on Christianity and the Christian deity, it seems to me that Dawkin's is merely attempting to inform and educate and is on an evangelical crusade to "awaken" the victims of religious hypnosis and indoctrination. I doubt most people would object to the above description of Hitler as "inciting hatred against the Nazis and Neonazis," but they may object to a person who incites hatred against the evil definition of the Biblical deity and the Christians in general, since they have been memetically programmed to consider Christians to be "good," whereas I consider Christianity to be far more dangerous than Nazism, which in the modern world is anyway a very marginalised political ideology which appeals mostly to football hooligans.

Victims and Perpetrators of Religious Hypnosis

Just as many of the German Nazis who had been raised in Nazi orphanages and raised in the Hitler youth, genuinely believed that Hitler was a great and good person, so too it is with the Christians. The vast majority of Christians have not merely "chosen" their religion, but rather they have inherited their religion from their parents and from their surrounding society; many of these Christians have been indoctrinated since birth; many of them are barely literate, barely educated and have probably never even read the Bible; they are simply "victims" of religious hypnosis and indoctrination. My intent, and I think Dawkins intent, is simply to attempt to educate and awaken. There are of course Christians, such as the many Christian Internet actvists who are educated and literate enough to understand the evils of Christianity and of the Biblical deity, and who continue to spread their memetc virus; in addition to this there are also numerous professional hypnotists of the multi-billion dollar Jesus business who profit by spreading this mind disease. Inciting "hatred" against indoctrinated Christians or Nazis is probably less useful than attempting to "educate" and "awaken them, but it also has to be remembered that the history of Christianity "is" a history of human hatred albeit one which has made good use of the "mantras" of "love."

What is your mission?

Education. World Revolution. Blasphemy, Heresy, etc., all the usual activiities which we Communists get up to.

Unfortunately part of the attraction of Christianity is having a "saviour deity" who is waiting in the afterlife to guarantee entrance to heaven, so I have tried to reproduce this personally; I have an advanced Messianic complex and I promise to beat any price on salvation, or your money back in the afterlife plus 144 virgins, but if anyone else offers more than 144 virgins I am quite happy to raise the offer.


Lux

reply to post by Lucifer777

The teachings of Christ have long ago been proven to be false. See whywontgodhealamputees.com... and www.evilbible.com... for example.

Almost every song on the radio is a "love song;" our desire to love and to be loved is innate, however extracting a few words where the Jesus of the Gospels rambled on about "love" does not make the entirety of his teachings true.

This isn't true, its so far from the truth, yet easily misinterpreted by those struggling to find Love/Truth and their way in this school. Looking for the truth is like looking for a needle in the Haystack. Despite this duality so called 50/50, white and black squared checkerboard floor, or the ying/yang, the white squares are not in the open, they've been manipulated, twisted around, hidden. Its like a library with thousands of books where all the misconstructions, and misleading info is, even things that lead you into traps, and materialism, vanity, with the one book that has the truth in it, dismantled and taken apart with the verses found therein scattered and hidden throughout the world.

And yet, there is light in everything. Real Light, Love, Truth, that which activates within our hearts and souls, if they're not too compromised by the weeds and daily stresses and traps of life, and if there is room in us for truth, and we're not blinded by our worldly opinions and political stripes and all the divisions we've been taught.

Now I'm a recovering Catholic, yet I won't walk away from Jesus or his message, for it doesn't matter one bit if he was a real man who walked the earth, or a metaphor, he is showing the way back home. Not as a seeker like Budda, but as one who has Found. Who came from On High, who is His, Higher Self, and from the Family, Father/Mother, and those Good Family in the Heavenly Beyond who in Quantum Physics No Time, walked our walk already, who know and care for what we're going through as we're becoming ourselves here, and learning how to love so great ,we would never hurt a flie, learning how terrible injustice really is, having in our face, first hand expeirence, the flaws we still carry and need to work to overcome.

The traps: materialism, greed, power over others, pyramids, insensitivity, cruelty, retaliation, distraction, corruption, popularity, in short everything in this world doesnt' count ,what counts is Family/family, Love, and those things that are truly real beneath the surface of this false holographic stage, backdrop we're seeing. Its not real. There is NO SPOON.

So there is alot of corruption and control and things have been deliberately put into the religions and scriptures to tie God into wars, and smiting and judgments, and power, and pyramids, and none of this is true.

The Good Family/God, or whatever one wishes to see as the Father/Mother and Family above, the Spirit of Peace and Love, which is the Christ Consciousness, is True Love, and cares tenderly for every single one here and would give their all, to take away our suffering and help us through all our trials. All souls are in progression, even the ones that need to make U-Turns in their lives, even the enities, all willl make those U-Turns, but its very sad and terrible to wake up and remember eveyrone, and realize how much you've hurt them. We need to wake up and help one another, nudge one another here and now. Because there is a consequence to negativity and harming others, especially if one is not seeking to make ammends, realize their mistakes and seek forgiveness and attempt to work at putting their lives right. The suffering that goes on in this world/school, and afterwards if one isn't working at turning their lives around is terrible.

matthew 13 10-15

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.

This is the part that we can search for, for there is light and dark squares in all things. The Light is interactive and if we are true seekers, in prayer and meditation, reporting for duty to try and help this world, and help to overcome our difficulties and have Faith in anything that is Goodness, in the Highest Truth Love and Goodness, then you can ask to have your sight healed, to have the negative thoughts taken from you and any negative influences and to be uplifted.

Thats what this whole passage is about, its encouragement to seek for healing of our site, and a reminder that we all think we know things. Even in the Church they are often caught up in teachings of a God who wants retribution, or accepting of things that simply are not Love and never will be, and even a child knows theyr'e not. This passage is telling us that eveyrone here in the world, needs their site, and opinions and what they think they know healed.

There are many passages that mean things a little differently if you see with Light compared to the average interpretations.

Such as, the First Shall be the Last, most thinking the poor will be promoted and the wealthy will be eating humble pie, but this actually refers to the maturity of the ones more advanced who are willing to forgo being first, will offer the last piece of pie to the ones acting more like children, will yield their places in a long lineup and let others go ahead of them, for they're more concerned with serving others.

Mountains can move in our hearts and in our minds, when we start to see and ask for things for others, and ask for Light/Positive Thought and Love to Guide us and heal our minds and opinions.

I've never found any messenger or Teacher on this planet with the unconditional love and message that Jesus had, they can't distort it, even when they attempt to it still shines its light.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Even if you prove the "miracles" of Christ (immaculate conception, ressurection, conjuring tricks) it doesn't prove he was the son of any "GOD" and it doesn't prove thereby his philosophical and teaching is correct or most useful to civilisation.

Disprove them.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Socrates, whether he did or didn't exist, his words are still clear. Socrates philosophical and moral teachings don't beg to be trusted, they don't beg for conversion, he doesn't state he is the son of God.

Neither do Christ's. His teachings aren't about preaching, they are about doing. It is easier to preach than to do.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
i can prove that his words and morals have be superseeded and in some cases could be considered as immoral.

Show me.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Jesus taught immoral preaching.

(Luke 14:25-27 NIV) Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: [26] "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. [27] And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Passage reference there. (do your own research, before attacking)

Luke 14:25-33 (King James Version) 25And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. 31Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? 32Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. 33So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

You have taken the quote out of context. He was making clear to his disciples the mission they were on. They were going against the Roman Empire, and the Judaic Priesthood. They would be doing things contrary to both and it may end up costing them their lives. He was making clear that they should be following him because they genuinely despised the old ways, and absolutely believed in the cause they were embarking on.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
We need to drop the Christ label, and drop talk of Christ, his messages and philosophies are outdated.

You cannot speak for WE. I cannot speak for WE. You can only speak for YOU, and I can only speak for I.

If you feel Christs teachings are outdated, fine do not accept them. You do not understand them and I would not advise anyone adopt them based on how you understand them.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Jesus wasn't crucified to cleans our sins. This is believed because humans, for some reason, can't get the stupid primitive idea out of their head that god requires blood in exchange for us to survive death. This is ridiculous. Why would god let someone else be punished for stuff that we do? and his own son at that??? Jesus was crucified simply because his existence threatened the power of religious leaders of the time.

edit on 12/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

No he didn't die for our sins. He died to teach us how not to commit sin. He died to teach us the depths to which we should love one another. He died as proof that he believed what he said with all his heart and his soul.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Lucifer777

you know what ......I checked out Christianity for years ......after seeing a guy I went to high school with and noticing that him being a Christian(when before he wasn't) there was something completely different about him ...an energy, a peace, a gracefulness, a love..... I wanted that, and I wanted to check and see if there was anything to Christianity....

And after years and years of investigating this so called religion, debating with Christianities highest theological authorities, getting baptized, and going within to see if there real is a proverbial "kingdom f heaven within..... I found it all to be rather true ....as far as who Christ was and that we too can experience what he did and talked about and can be like him...... it has to do with enlightenment, and Love, and it is real..... it is ego death, it is esoteric.

On the other hand ......egoic individuals have hi-jacked christianity and made something that is sooooo freeing and is supposed to result in ego death and Love, and have turned into a war mongering exoteric whore.

And then folks like the OP come along and see how the Ego has bastardized something which was originally esoterically pure and still awesome ...and mistaken the Egoic actions to be the heart of Christianity.....

The true fruit of being a Christian is that the result will be a self-less, ego-less person, who loves all, does not judge, does not go to war, and helps others.

Everything else that you see that is not that, is simply an egoic working on itself and not yet at Christhood, and yet 90-some-odd percent of Christians will never get to this proverbial Christ-hood because its been bastardized and turned into an ego leading an ego......

But the Core of it is nothing like what is presented by the OP