Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

[Roscoe]

I wondered when someone would recognize the common denominator in all this. People.

 

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


So he's a century off, he's still right.


<hr></blockquote>

How is he right? Anyone that claims to be a christian while all the other christians are the false christians has a fool for a lawyer.

Unless you have unaltered scriptures you can never make any real claims as to what "real" christians are. I have heard and seen claims of some following "first century" christians which is interesting because exactly how do they know what that is? They were eccentually Jews with a few new books if they had any new ones at all. Not all "christians" had the same new books.

So if Roscoe is correct then ALL christians are not christians. This happened the minute these messianic Jews moved away from Judaism. This further happened when all "christian" sects around the Empire who ALL had differing religious views came together to stick spears into each other to see whose view was the correct one. This happened from the 1st century and continued on thru the 5th century. To start all over again 1000 years later.

What defines a "christian" is the new testament. If any "true" christian makes any claim that they are doing as Abraham who did not have any scriptures then you are not a christian but a new age Jew. Since the Bible is claimed to be by atleast the vast majority of Christians as the unaltered Word of God then it cannot have been changed by these alleged Pagan Catholics (which is funny in of itself since Pagans were certainly not universal, they had a wide variety of views). Again if Roscoe's claim is a procedural(ceremonial) one, ie left foot in as opposed to left foot out then fine. That was addressed by the Reformation Period with Luther and Calvin. Luther preceded Hobbes. But then again is turning yourself about any different other than just a different procedure.

DumpsterDan from my knowledge of this board unless Roscoe has misrepresented he is or atleast claims to be a christian. I get a great chuckle down the street in the Harvest bookstore when standing in the Occult section and everyone is in it but Harvest. Christianity was a cult in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It did not start to have solidarity as in one world vision until the 4th century and onward which by going by unaltered Word of God was just the compilation of various scriptures that each parish used to sermon its people. The procedural aspect that Roscoe may be alluding to happened over a 1000+ year time frame. It was not BAM overnight.

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

Not at all. I think you've probably been royally screwed over by 1 or more men, and found God as a substitute for your need for a relationship with the opposite sex.

<hr></blockquote>

Wrong! God doesn't fullfill that in me. Has nothing whatsoever to do with God. If today a very close friend or family member personally knew VERY WELL a single guy my age who filled the bill, and I filled his, and he wanted to meet me, I'd say "Sure! Send him over!" In fact I have nieces and family members who are keeping a watchful eye out for a guy for me, they know what I want/need, they know my limitations, they know I don't want a BF who isn't already fully aware of those limitations.

So ding ding ding, wrong again. I will ALWAYS prove you guys WRONG when it concerns ME! What amazes me is, that you all can actually believe you know me at all, when you've never met me, and MOST the time you never really (really!) READ my posts -- you just draw from the top, internalize, twist it about in your own experiences and limited knowledge, and spew it back as a mirrored reflection of yourself, and not at all anything really about me.

Try listening to me for a change. REALLY listening. However, for some of you guys that wouldn't be very much fun because you have such a hella good time taking everything I say out of context, and turning it into a joke. Yeah, well, funny thing is, I don't have to take things you guys ay out of context; all I have to do is quote you verbatim to my family or friends and they crack up, or say, "I can't believe how SICK! Why you even post there?" Why? Because it amuses me, and because for the political experiences, and keeping tabs what goes on in the world, and to hear the viewpoints of other countries, and because I have the TIME right now to do this.

 

[Wisty]

It sounds to me, from all you're posting, that you have decided you do NOT want to be religious, you do NOT believe in God, and in spite of growing up in a religious family (wasn't it catholic or something?) you want no part of it. Though, didn't you also post your wife and children attend church? (Or did I mix you up with others. It's hard to keep all of you straight, and so much material goes down in this forum that it's honestly information overload at times.) I wonder how you can be open-minded and permissive with them, when you lambaste the rest of us religious people here on OT?

 

[DumpsterDan]

It's common knowledge my friend.

"The official recognition of sun worship in the Roman Empire began during the time of Aurelian when he instituted the cult of "Sol invictus". The cult of Sol Invictus and that of Mithra are virtually the same.

In the year 307 A.D. Emperor Diocletian, a sun worshipper, was involved in the dedication of a temple to Mithra and was responsible for the burning of scripture which made it possible for later emperors to formulate their own version of "Christianity."

After the rein of Diocletian, Emperor Constantine, while claiming to be a Christian maintained the title "Pontifus Maximus" the high priest of paganism. His coins were inscribed: "SOL INVICTO COMITI" (COMMITTED TO THE INVINCIBLE SUN).

During his reign pagan sun worship was blended with the worship of the Creator, and officially entitled "Christianity."
One of a million for instances.
Study it out. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>


you just draw from the top, internalize, twist it about in your own experiences and limited knowledge, and spew it back as a mirrored reflection of yourself, and not at all anything really about me.


<hr></blockquote>

This method looks familiar... Let me think... who's an expert in this again?

 

[Wisty]

&gt;If the Bible had never been written, all of those people would not have been killed in the name of God.

I hate to tell ya, but, 1. they would have killed anyway; 2. they would have killed even more; 3. we wouldn't have the laws we have today; 4. we woudln't have the government we have today; 5. we might all still be barbarians; and or 5. if we had evolved to the point of nukes, we probably would have nuked ourselves into oblivion by now.

Without the bible, we would NOT be as we are today. And I DOUBT we would have been BETTER; I tend to believe (and NOT because I'm Christian but from a intellectual standpoint) we would have been a lot WORSE. Look at the countries that have no religion, none have done as well as those who do, namely those who have the Christian one which allows everyone to live and let live.

Meanwhile you keep referring to PAST history. You can't keep going back and saying, "Well, the Christians murdered these people and those people in the name of God!" EVERYONE back in history murdered EVERYONE for ANY number of reasons.

As for modern-day Christians murdering for the sake of God or just because, it doesn't happen. Only isolated cases. Well, I'm talking about the Christians of U.S. and U.K. and the more modern countries. And I'm not talking about the Jews in Israel v. Palestinians since that's not a Christian problem, per se.

Anyhow, I don't know why you're so pissed off at Christians, other than the the hypocrites and intolerants and rednecks and greedy gimme-gimme-money-money. I don't think I want to ask why, because I'm sure you and most the forum will TELL me. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Wisty]

&gt;This method looks familiar... Let me think... who's an expert in this again?

You? /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh2.gif

 

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


I think the catholic religion is all messed up. They place an old man at the top of the heap and then he decides EVERYTHING for the entire catholic world until he drops dead and another steps in to do the same thing. We aren't supposed to be going to a POPE! We're supposed to going directly to GOD HIMSELF! We can study with others, we can even ask questions of our elders just as we do our parents and grandparents simply because they've lived many years longer than we and often have learned things we haven't yet learned; but our choices and decisions are our own, between us and God. The catholic religion removes a lot of "free will."


<hr></blockquote>

That's nice Martin. I think you addressed that in the 16th century. Can you tell me what your thoughts were when you made this...an exerpt:

<blockquote><hr>


Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. "Faith is not enough,'' they say, "You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.'' They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, "I believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this 'faith,' either.


<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote><hr>


Also in the bible it talks about men and women "burning" (lustful), hence if you cannot live peacefully on your own, you are to marry and the husband enjoys the wife's body, and the wife enjoy the husbands, and neither to deny each other, and leave their parents and family and become a family of their own. So, priests and their celebacy and being unable to marry are things that got misconstrued, since it is UNNATURAL to spend your whole life alone, specially if you have sexual wants and needs and long to have children and a wife.


<hr></blockquote>

Whoa the cart a minute. The Priesthood to include Nuns are married. The Nuns are said to be married to Christ but that is also of the Priest class. They are married to the Church. It simply appears to be a rather modern marriage where young boys are concerned. *drum roll*

Ahhh, be careful with words like unnatural. Is it natural to only have one partner your entire life? We are one of the few creatures that practice monogamy.

I agree on the celibacy. It was actually celebrate. They translated it wrong. But this was again because they were married to the Church. Unless you want them to start humping the walls. Well better yet since big C means the entire embodiment of all worshippers then they should start having sex with whomever walks through the doors. So little boys unless against state laws would still fall under this realm.

<blockquote><hr>


There are so many things about the catholic religion that I find man-made, that go against the teachings of Christ Jesus.

But there are protestant sects which misconstrue the bible as well.


<hr></blockquote>

Atleast you put the but in there. The book the protestants use came from those pagan catholics.

<blockquote><hr>


I'm not saying the catholic people are all bad. And I'm not saying the popes are bad. Some are, some could be, but I'm not saying they all are. I'm just saying, it's screwed up! And needless suffering occurs because of it. And also, the priesthood attracts unsavory characters who get into so they can molest young boys; or can't contain their sexuality and wind up doing things they wouldn't do if they could have married.


<hr></blockquote>

Yes you are. You just dont say it to their face. Catholicism is very structured and it was designed that way to have ONE vision and not multiple visions of what God is. Pope, ie emperor and his cardinals, ie senate to bishops, ie provincial governors. But aye they tend to be a tad too restrictive.

<blockquote><hr>


I attended the catholic church for years, had close friends who were catholic, dated catholics, almost married one, my brother married into a large family of them, I found the catholic masses were so beautiful. But it never called me to convert. Too many things just didn't make common sense about it. So I lost interest.


<hr></blockquote>

You could never get the hang of sit, stand, kneel, eh? Catholics like to stick the non-Catholics in the front so they can poke fun of them as they remain confused as to what do do next. Everyone sits and you are still standing. Should have just got a pew in the back and close your eyes. Holy Water stings in the eye. I dont think one needs a license to drive a holy water vial. Was your cracker stale? Just pick a different church.

 

[Orglif]

<blockquote><hr>

I hate to tell ya, but, 1. they would have killed anyway; 2. they would have killed even more

<hr></blockquote>

 

[Mother Zub]

oh... welll....... like Im going to read your whole God Damned (literally hehe) thread &gt;:&lt;

The vacume WOULD have been filled... so the question from our perspective is completely neutral in answer. It could have been a lot better... it could have been a lot worse.

realistically...
I would guess that if christianity had never been born then Islam would not have been born (just because it takes a particular set of instances to create the particular events)....
Secondly Main thing christianity replaced as far as major religions was greek mythology. ONe of 2 thing could have happened. 1) Greek mythology would have spread as christianity... as "silly" as it might seem now, I think it could have been adequately "twisted" over the ages to survive in its place.2) you could have preserved regional faiths. That could not survive IMO. Something would have had to rise above the rest in western europe. I dont know enough about the history of that region to name which it would have been, but I venture to say that in any case, it, nor greek mythology, would have been superior.

I know sure effect... there would be no modern isreal if not for christians, take that as good or bad, but it is substantial anyway. And SOMETHING would have had to rise in the middle east, perhaps a unified Baal+his "parthanon" set? Which, I assure you, is not superior.

I find it unlikely that eastern or african religion would have taken hold.... though I cant say the part that christianity perhaps played in the formation of the relatively modernized dominance of colonial europe... the whole deal would likely not have happened.
Going from that... America likely would not have been English, further none of us would have been born and be here to ask. There would be other people saying "What if X religion had not been?" and they would have the same discussion and at least one one would be etherally and eriely simular to this one and it would be utterly circular.

"X religion" would SURELY have its own history and attrocieties and dogma. I can not see the formaion of man pre-scientific era forming without a replacement "answer" for the questions that seem to be programmed into the human mind about origin and death. SURELY it would also have its own basic set of human laws and a rule simular to the "Golden Rule" as this rule is IN NO WAY UNIQUE to christianity... far from it.

an itchy little part of me wants to say that the replacement of Christianity wouldnt have been as clever and we would have a scientific athiest society with a humanistic moral code by now... following the advent of modern science, but I actually severly doubt that.

I expect without christianity the world would be disappointingly and/or reassuringly, simular.... depnding on if your glass is half empty or half full.


Well. That takes care of that! *brushes off hands*

 

[Roscoe]

Devin - I didn't read all your post so my bad if you answered this already but did you see my previous response to your last message to me bout my Catholic statement? I do not belive what I said - I was intentionally jerking the conversation around.

When is this thread ever going to die?

 

[Guest]

Actually i thought about someone else.
You are projecting again.

 

[Mother Zub]

bah read my reply... same diff kinda. Better phrased perhaps.. maybe not.

I would like to hear your contention that we would literally be better off... what do YOU propose would have happened... or do you think we would be in the exact same place... except without all the "messy christian stuff?"
Maybe you think christianity was blocking some true enightenment? funny how it didnt happen anywhere else where christianity was not a factor during religious formation.
Where was there ever in early formative periods of history a time or place in which a religion brough actual enlightenment that was actually digested and PERFORMED by the general populous of X-land which stopped attrocieties and deadly wars ....OR was there an area that did not form religion (and did not partake in cruelty and attrocity... but I think it will be a bad enough time finding early history ANYWHERE without religion that had no part in war and death and treatments of peoples that we find today unsavory)?

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif ...no offence.
a wise man once said... "Think about it"

 

[Orglif]

Wow, Mutha Zubs. You kinda went Wistaria on me there. That is to say, you went off on this crazy, psycho tangent, and it had no foundation in anything. Let me explain for you:

Wistaria says that "if the bible had not been written, all those people killed in the name of God would still have been killed. Or possibly more people would have been killed."

To which I replied: "Are you really that stupid?"

Then you retort with: "I would like to hear your contention that the world would be better off," a statement I can work with, though almost completely unrelated to what we were talking about. To wit: I'm not contending that the world would be a better place, I'm saying it's stupid to think that the hundreds of thousands--or more--people killed by the tyranny of religion would still be killed. By who, the Polish? Give me a break.

Then you go off, expounding upon a bunch of crap:<blockquote><hr>

what do YOU propose would have happened... or do you think we would be in the exact same place... except without all the "messy christian stuff?"
Maybe you think christianity was blocking some true enightenment? funny how it didnt happen anywhere else where christianity was not a factor during religious formation.
Where was there ever in early formative periods of history a time or place in which a religion brough actual enlightenment that was actually digested and PERFORMED by the general populous of X-land which stopped attrocieties and deadly wars ....OR was there an area that did not form religion (and did not partake in cruelty and attrocity... but I think it will be a bad enough time finding early history ANYWHERE without religion that had no part in war and death and treatments of peoples that we find today unsavory)?

<hr></blockquote>
...which is all elaboration related to your initial, faulty statement. Christ, both you two have some twitchy knees, eh?

 

[GBob]

I'm not sure that "Are you really stupid?" and "Then you go off, expounding upon a bunch of crap:" are valid debating tactics. And "...which is all elaboration related to your initial, faulty statement" makes no attempt to support your claim. That is the common but also invalid you are wrong because I said so approach. The only attempt I see at making a point is something about the Polish. Oh well...

Mother Zub 1
Orglif 0

 

[Orglif]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm not sure that "Are you really stupid?" and "Then you go off, expounding upon a bunch of crap:" are valid debating tactics.

<hr></blockquote>
No ? Nice thinking. "Are you really that stupid" is an insult. "Then you go off, expounding upon a bunch of crap" is an explanation. I'm not trying to debate, you jerkoff.
<blockquote><hr>

That is the common but also invalid you are wrong because I said so approach.

<hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about? Did you read her reply to my post? It was a long string of illogical conclusions. How can I debate that? I clearly stated how her conclusions were false:
<blockquote><hr>

I'm not contending that the world would be a better place, I'm saying it's stupid to think that the hundreds of thousands--or more--people killed by the tyranny of religion would still be killed.

<hr></blockquote>
Don't waste my time with this third-grade . Give me something tangable.

 

[Mhoram the Mage]

At least by using insults you were able to get some responses. I apparently had such bullet-proof arguments that no one could tackle them. Roscoe tried, but soon gave up after my opinions proved to be full of truth and logic.

 

[Roscoe]

lol - troll! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[GBob]

I guess you missed it - I understand what you were doing- thanks for clearing it up- at least you understood what you were doing. I just don't think throwing insullts around is a good thing to do. I don't think the point you refute (with no basis) is illogical. Again you made a statement that "I'm saying it's stupid to think that the hundreds of thousands--or more--people killed by the tyranny of religion would still be killed." I see no logic or facts to make this claim. It's common for people to throw inslults with little logic, or information to back thier view and then attack conclusions of others. At least you could try to have more of your view than of your insults.

If you want to know a liitle bit about why those people might still die read back in the thread (even this page).

 

[Orglif]

<blockquote><hr>

If you want to know a liitle bit about why those people might still die read back in the thread (even this page).

<hr></blockquote>
I did. Well, to the best of my abilities. On this page I see nothing but Wistaria saying: "Everyone murdered Everyone with no reason,"--which is an unsubstansiated bleating from a sheep who doesn't understand history--and not much else. Now, I know I may be asking alot of a guy who'd rather criticize the way someone posts, rather than supply his own arguments--see, we're very much alike--but could you be so kind as to do me the favor of quoting a few of these reasons?

For my own part, it's a fact that religion caused hundreds of thousands of people to invade a foreign nation in the Name of God, to reclaim the Holy Land, and murder everyone in sight. This happened, what... 14 times? Now, please, supply some logic and reason as to how this still would have happened without religion.

Over the course of history, religious zealotry has driven people to much more extreme ends than virtually any other cause. Show me the error in this thinking. Or we can go back to criticizing the way each other posts.

 

[GBob]

This from Baker I think is accurate:

Indeed... All those people would have killed in the name of communism, capitalism, Allah, England, the tao, Buddha, .....

People kill people. It's a nasty reality. We'd have different history, no doubt, without the Bible but it doesn't mean people wouldn't have found something to kill each other over. We simply would have justified the crusades in the name of ______ instead of God.

While you may not agree with it I don't think it is stupid or without logic. People justify their actions in all sorts of ways. Many times it is a thinly veiled attempt to gain or protect power and wealth.

 

[Orglif]

<blockquote><hr>

At least by using insults you were able to get some responses.

<hr></blockquote>
You read that thread I pointed out to you. It's blatently obvious that the vast majority of posters to the OT forum have skulls full of bonemeal and oats, and not much else; rather than debate articulately, which loses it's flavor when the most common reply to a debate is: "so you love Saddam Hussein?" I've resigned myself to petty insults and flaming. No offense to those of you who are the exception to this rule: you know who you are.

 

[Orglif]

<blockquote><hr>

Indeed... All those people would have killed in the name of communism, capitalism, Allah, England, the tao, Buddha, .....

<hr></blockquote>
Okay, through an error on my own part, I had broadened the scope to "without religion," and would hope you can accept my argument on those terms.

I do not doubt that there would still be murder in the world. I'm not trying to peg all the horrors of history on religion. But look specifically at the Crusades: without the Holy Land, without Allah, without Christianity, who would have spent hundreds of thousands of lives, and hundreds of years attempting to claim that region of the middle east? England had many other woes, I assure you.

And to your side, many of the deaths attributed to religion were in fact political moves wrapped up in faith for the acceptance of the masses; many more were simply antagonism spawned from the arrogance of believing one's faith was correct.

People will alway kill each other: that much is true. However, some motivators are far more potent than others, and very few match the audacity and self-importance that religion can inspire in a person. I do not honestly see how the bodycount attributed to it could be matched or breached through some other motivator (over the course of history).

 

[Orglif]

I see your argument as an attempt to apply some sort of metaphysical: "there will always be death... even in the absence of one form, another form will fill it" reasoning to the debate, the same way that many people say: "even without guns, people will still be killed." Which, for all intensive purposes, is accurate; however, the scope and range of the murders perpetrated wouldn't be nearly as broad, not: "the same or more," as Wistaria puts it.

 

[imported_TobyOne]

Quite a debate you got started here eh??

Anyway, i agree with you..

Christianity and other religions is mostly stupid people not intelligent enough to accept the world as it is.
Instead they need a devine book instead of common sense and/or try to justify a lot of BS by quoting religious writings.

There is no GOD, we, people, are in charge of what happens. When you die you wont go to hell or heaven, you'll either be burned or eaten by worms..

 

[GBob]

From what I can tell violence was created long before religion. As soon as man figured out he could use a stick to knock his fellow man upside the head he has been doing it. I think the great motivator for man has always been other peoples stuff: land, food, wealth and not religion. I think stuff was the great motivator before religion and continued to be after religion came about.

In fact I don't think religion is even in second place; I think revenge has been the cause of more deaths than religion and has been around much longer. It is a response built in to man at a very basic level - revenge is a natural reaction that attempts to prevent future acts. It also is self renewing. Joe kills Bill - Bill's family kills Joe and his wife - Joe's family kills Bill's Brothers ect ect. It becomes a cycle that is diffcult to break.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

So ding ding ding, wrong again. I will ALWAYS prove you guys WRONG when it concerns ME!

<hr></blockquote>

You're a woman. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

And kiddo, you really, really, really need to chill.

Have you ever heard the phrase: Me thinks thou doth protest to much?

You're absolutely right. None of us (that I know of) have met you. And to be honest, with the way you spew at people and call them names, I don't think many people would want to.

And you're not PROVING anyone wrong.

Someone makes a statement, and you make one to the contrary. That's not proof, it's conjecture. I have seen no proof that you don't live in a house with 150 telepathic cats, and I bet you can't show me any, even if I really cared.

Ask yourself this: If you had never posted on this board, who would have an opinion of you?

NOBODY! Any opinion we have is based on YOUR posts. That's it.

And frankly, too many people here seem to hold this opinion for the blame to be laid at anyones feet but your own.

I post here for the same reason I do most things in life; it's enjoyable. Once it stops being that, I'll stop.

The name calling doesn't bother me either, because what in the world do I really care if someone thinks I'm an idiot or a jerk or worse. I've pissed off people my entire life, and after awhile, you get use to it. You'll pardon me if I care even less what your "friends" think.

Finally, that was a very, very annotated opinion I gave you. Sorry if I was a bit off.

*yikes*

 

[Guest]

OMG!

We can't know anything about you, but by God, you know all about us!!! LOL

Anyway, first, it was Baptist, and I switched to Adventist. My kids attend a non-denominational Christian church geared toward the younger crowd, which is fine by me. I think most churches actually take time to consider new ways to alienate our youth.

Now, as I've said before, I like to argue because it does one of two things. Either it shows me that I'm wrong, or it reinforces my beliefs/opinions.

I'm not sure why I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I'm not sure if it's because *I* want to, or because I was conditioned to.

The question is, do I have the right type of faith? Do you have the right type of faith?

I don't know. If having doubts, and calling people to task for their beliefs is wrong, well. . .frankly I don't care. It helps me out, and that's really all I'm interested.

Sorry if that's a bit self-centered. . .err. . . actually, no I'm not. We all have faults, and we'll just call that one of mine.

And lambaste you? Gimme a break.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Without the bible, we would NOT be as we are today.

<hr></blockquote>

Proof please.

<blockquote><hr>

As for modern-day Christians murdering for the sake of God or just because, it doesn't happen. Only isolated cases.

<hr></blockquote>

Well. . .which one is it. It doesn't happen, or it only happens in isolated cases?

<blockquote><hr>

And I'm not talking about the Jews in Israel v. Palestinians since that's not a Christian problem, per se.

<hr></blockquote>

Why would you even mention these two groups. Neither one believes that Jesus was the Son of God, so therefore, they *aren't* Christians.

<blockquote><hr>

Anyhow, I don't know why you're so pissed off at Christians. . .

<hr></blockquote>

What in the world gave you that idea? This whole thing began as a question on the validity of the Bible.

As for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and others, how can you say they would have happened without the Bible?

Look at the WTC! If the US hadn't done so much to "fulfill" it's Biblical obligation to Israel, do you really think we would be a target of the Muslims?

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Wisty]

Interesting, but one of those quotes wasn't mine. It was the one that was better-worded than mine, of course. bummers. lol

And, no, I'm not saying catholic "people" are bad. I'm say "the religion" is screwed up, hence, people follow it blindly and wind up screwed-up. I HAVE said, many times before, about my experiences with the catholic church and catholics, how beautiful the mass, how sincerely devoted many catholics are to their faith. So? People can be good people mislead to practice stupid or bad things; and reverse.

Anyhow, amusing, and interesting.

And, no, I don't attend church. Haven't yet found one that I want to buy the clothes, wear the clothes, drive the van, park the van, walk through a crowd, shake the hands, nod the nods, smile the smiles, walk through the doors, sit on the bench, pass the hat, hear the hear, say the say, sing the sing, notice the hypocracy, disagree the disagrees, fall asleep, think other thoughts, leave, and go home where I feel more at home. I'm not saying there aren't good churches and good church goers and earnest, dedicated, loving church goers. I've just not found the one right for me, and may never, or may. But I've been thinking about trying again, doing the church thing, church to church to church. Perhaps after I move -- I've a niece or two interested -- and if my mother lives long enough to get moved back here (as has been her plan for over a year) take her to church, too.

I probably expect too much from churches. And I probably will never agree 100% with anything they say nor the way they deliver it. And it is not required of me (spiritually) to attend any church; though it is wise to gather with those who are likewise searching for the same knowledge, and discuss it. I'm more a one-on-one person. Church can be beautiful and inspiring, but also intimidating and uncomfortable. But no matter what, it's between God and me. It needs not go any further, if it doesn't work out that it can.

 

[Wisty]

re, without the Christian bible we would not be here today.

MMII wants proof please.

The proof please is what I said, history. And the fact most our U.S. laws are patterned after the Christian bible. And the fact that countries that did not pattern their government after the bible, have not been as successful, and wind up creating wars (WWI, WWII, the communist wars, the despotic wars, etc.) They also torture and kill their citizens. They have one heirarchy that gets all the goodies, and a vast majority that does without.

Check history.

I would say that without Christianity (say in future) there could be a country that patterns a good government, except that I cannot say that, owing to the fact, Christianity has been here for several thousand years, governments have been patterened after it for hundreds of years, that is already in the history, and if the future countries would in some way have access to history, hence their chances of creating a good government is enhanced because of it -- so I cannot objectively judge future governments, other than in actuality, the fact Christianity has played a large part in creating them, mainly U.S. But comparing non-Christian governments and how brutal many of them have been, proves to me we have lucked out because of Christianity rather than suffered for it.

Though there are rogue Christians, too. But that's not true Christianity. I'm still waiting to see how Islam works out. So far there have been too many rogue Islamic and intolerant Islamic governments. I'd like to see a true Islamic government and how it works so I can compare.

Yes, some of the Christian government is a blend of Judiasm and other religions and non-religions + fine-tuning + modernizing + women now being active role-players in the government itself. So it's not ALL Christian, but EXTREMELY Christian based from the onset.

That is my proof. Should be yours, too.

If not, give me other scenarios where you feel we'd be fine if we'd NEVER had Christianity or any religion. And, "proof please"?

 

[BA_Barrackas]

It's pointless to speculate what the world today would have been like without the Bible. There are so many variables to take into account that it is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy what it would have been like even two thousand years ago, nevermind today.

Regardless of how it would have turned out, it would probably be a safe bet to say that there would be the same amount of killing and wars going on as there are in this version of the world. Why? Because of basic animal instinct. Survive, spread and reproduce. From lowly bacteria to philosophising humans, almost every living creature is ruled by those directives.

In order to successfully acheive them, other factors come into play. Power, dominance, superiority over the competition and so on. In humanity, they manifest themselves as war and conflict. Unfortunately they are as inescapable as our very own physical existance. As long as we exist as we do now, they will continue to exist. Religion has nothing to do with it. For the most part, it's just another cover for power and dominance, thus a vehicle for successful survival of a particular group.

My own personal view is that the only solution is to eventually utilise technology to fully escape the animal aspect of our physical existance. To evolve into a new form of "technological" life, which on a fundamental level is based on order and control, but which emulates the "old life" so that people can still lead fulfilling lives, enjoy their culture etc. without the hassle of death and conflict.

Though when you think about that, it's more or less a "Trammelisation" of life itself, with all the negative things that brings about. The never-ending debate continues heh...

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

OMG!

We can't know anything about you, but by God, you know all about us!!! LOL

<hr></blockquote>

I didn't say that, but I expected that forthcoming. And if I'm wrong about someone and they correct me, I stand corrected. Some people here on OT never stand corrected no matter how much I correct them when it concerns "me". No, I wasn't referring to you in that one.

<blockquote><hr>

Anyway, first, it was Baptist, and I switched to Adventist. My kids attend a non-denominational Christian church geared toward the younger crowd, which is fine by me. I think most churches actually take time to consider new ways to alienate our youth.

<hr></blockquote>

True, some churches are good at alienating. But in many cases kids just grow bored or up and away to other things, but some return or not.

<blockquote><hr>

Now, as I've said before, I like to argue because it does one of two things. Either it shows me that I'm wrong, or it reinforces my beliefs/opinions.

<hr></blockquote>

I prefer to just talk, discuss, agree to disagree respectfully. Arguing involves emotions, which means people are hitting touchy buttons which are getting in the way of pure intellectual discourse. We all have that problem. Which is why once it hits argumental levels we don't often learn much.

<blockquote><hr>

I'm not sure why I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I'm not sure if it's because *I* want to, or because I was conditioned to.

<hr></blockquote>

1. Mine was a conscious decision. 2. And from personal experiences. All the talking people did or didn't do to me throughout my life was mere drop in bucket compared to the former 2 reasons. I would say that if all my family were anti-Christians I would likewise be, but that's not true because all my family were anti-some things and though I began thinking as such, I learned they were flat out wrong, so I switched to the other side, and we still argue about it today (me trying to enlighten them; them hanging tightly to their misconceptions). Besides which, no one in my family or close friends were very religious anyway. Going to church was again more my choice. I could go or not go, no one cared. Just as long as I was respectful to people, specially parents and relatives (haha, well, I was respectful only as long as they were respectful toward me), followed U.S. laws, did my chores, got through school, didn't lie, cheat, steal, do drugs (oops! damn those cigarettes!), and tried to live a healthy life, they were fine with me -- until they got irked about something and was looking for someone to dump on -- but families are like that, the pecking order and all that.

<blockquote><hr>

The question is, do I have the right type of faith? Do you have the right type of faith?

<hr></blockquote>

Dunno about you. As for me. Hmm. Biblically-speaking I'm a rebel. Spiritually-speaking, I'm as dedicated and sincere as they come, well, concerning those of my personality type, history type, intellectual type (since I can only compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples). Good-hearted human being, I'm about as good as they get, because I never never spend a day thinking and planning how to eke revenge on someone who never did a thing to me, and I don't even do it to those who have done bad thigns to me, with the exception that sometimes I am angry and sometimes I want to bring the law into what they've done and sometimes when the people continue to wreak havoc with other people's minds and lives I just wish the wreakers would "poof!" and vanish forever. I guess the only area where I excel, if excel I even slightly do, is spiritually -- my heart really really (this time!) believes and wants to stay close to God. If that makes my religion the right one or not, I cannot say. I only know it's not just good for me, it's good for the rest of the world, because I prefer we all get along, compassionately and fair-mindedly, than make everyone miserable and equally screwed up. I also accept any good-hearted person from any walk of life, faith, or non-faith.

<blockquote><hr>

And lambaste you? Gimme a break.

<hr></blockquote>

OK. Where? Finger? toe? arm? neck? J/K!!!!!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

The proof please is what I said, history. And the fact most our U.S. laws are patterned after the Christian bible. And the fact that countries that did not pattern their government after the bible, have not been as successful, and wind up creating wars (WWI, WWII, the communist wars, the despotic wars, etc.) They also torture and kill their citizens. They have one heirarchy that gets all the goodies, and a vast majority that does without.

<hr></blockquote>

ROTFLMAO!!!

Show me where the scripture says anything about other system than monarchy? Jahveh himself acts as absolute monarch, no opposition allowed.
Most of the time since Christianity appeared was spent in feudal system and under monarchy, which has always claimed to be "god given right".

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

You're a woman. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

And kiddo, you really, really, really need to chill.

<hr></blockquote>

And you're a man and you HATE being wrong, hence...

<blockquote><hr>

Have you ever heard the phrase: Me thinks thou doth protest to much?

<hr></blockquote>

And Me thinks you doth EXAGGERATE to[sic] much to the point of (see following) could that be a trait toward lying? Where does exaggeration end and slander/libel commence?

<blockquote><hr>

You're absolutely right. None of us (that I know of) have met you. And to be honest, with the way you spew at people and call them names, I don't think many people would want to.

<hr></blockquote>

Lol. ME spew? I learned it from the people here! Including you. You don't think you spew? Well, from your posts you strike me as hating to be wrong, you get into very grumpy moods, you are more sensitive (feelings hurt or ired) more than some of the other males here (some worse, some better)... takes one to know one, as they say. So I guess you're noticing your own posting traits in those you see or think you see in mine. Another "double-standard" for which males are notorious for, sad to say.

<blockquote><hr>

And you're not PROVING anyone wrong.

Someone makes a statement, and you make one to the contrary. That's not proof, it's conjecture. I have seen no proof that you don't live in a house with 150 telepathic cats, and I bet you can't show me any, even if I really cared.

<hr></blockquote>

Who said I did live in a houseful of telepathic cats? I don't know who picked that up, even Cynewulf has tossed that at me erroneously (but, hey, since 1992 he's tossed many erroneous, self-induced or self-misconstrued things about me, the likes of which he's said I've tossed at him, too, about him. Point is, I no one one here personally except him. And he/I don't even know each other much at all. And I can't imagine he would be the one stirring up all this . However, since I don't know him much, who knows what he really does? That's my point on that, and the fact I hope it's NOT Cynewulf who sits back there in the private admin rooms with the rest of you or in PM, using me as some scapegoat -- urm scapekitty. That he has come to my aid more than once in life makes me wonder why he wouldn't do so here, too.) Meanwhile passing that by.

Back to telepahtic cats. I don't know that cats can telepath any more than I can. I do know animals "pick up" and so can I and so can other humans who haven't tuned out those natural instincts/abilities. And I do believe there is more than meets the eye in life and death. But for the hard-core skeptics like you, Cynewulf, etc., even if I have given examples of experiences I've had (which I have given) you still come back with trite, over-blown, cynical, and exaggerative (bordering on libel?) gobblegook that I never said nor ever claimed. At first it irked me, then baffled me, and now just amuses me how you all can THINK you do and can FABRICATE or TWIST all this crap into sounding like I said it and or that you somehow know me personally and hence can judge my character.

And who is "spewing" now? What you just posted is a "spew," imo, anyway.

<blockquote><hr>

Ask yourself this: If you had never posted on this board, who would have an opinion of you?

<hr></blockquote>

Guess what. There are hundreds of people who have never even READ this board let alone posted, yet most people here gossip and libel and fabricate and exaggerate and poke fun, etc, about them. So?

(More proving you wrong, and you can't take it, right? lol)

<blockquote><hr>

NOBODY! Any opinion we have is based on YOUR posts. That's it.

<hr></blockquote>

Well,
1. MANY people STILL dont READ my posts, beginning to end, word for word, and AS each word STATES. Instead, for reasons of their own, they either CANNOT read, CANNOT read my posts end to end, CANNOT read my words for what they really mean, CANNOT read without taking slight and or internalizing and seeing only what they WANT/NEED to see, or CANNOT read things they don't like and not get angry and hold some sort of eternal grudge.

2. I never said I'm the world's greatest poster. Words can only do so much without the rest of the body and time and personalities which are willing to step out of selves and see the other person for what they really are.

3. I've said all the above before many times, and yet I'm having to say them AGAIN, and to you... case in point... you people can't read and comprehend my posts as they were TYPED/DELIVERED/FELT... some big thick wall is between. Kick it down or give up and don't read me at all.

<blockquote><hr>

And frankly, too many people here seem to hold this opinion for the blame to be laid at anyones feet but your own.

<hr></blockquote>

Too many? What about all those 'too many' in PM and elsewhere who don't hold the same opinion of the 'too many' here? Ah, and just how many of the 'too many' are "males" here, too? You HAVE to take that into consideration, since all my life it has been the same. MALES (many) can't take it when a FEMALE points out their flaws and takes them to task. Some men spend the rest of their lives trying to beat that female (verbally, whatever) back down into submission so she can no longer make them feel uncomfortable, she can no longer make them feel inferiour, can no longer make them look at the things they do which down deep they know are wrong but refuse to stop doing them, ... drives the men bonkers... been there, done that, I know who's wrong and who's right in these areas, and the wrong one isn't me. But, I also know it will continue... and the fact it happens not just to me, but any female who takes men to task, or who simply refuses to be like men or like they believe a female must be, etc., etc.

Also, for the people who get all riled up over my "opinions and stances" about things, means I've done my job. I've exposed their "issues." I've drug them from their boxes. Now hopefully they will take a long, closer look at the issues and see what needs done. Just as I take long, closer looks at mine when people drag them from me.

And you need to stop being so touchy. I thought you enjoyed debating? What good is it if everyone is exactly like you? There'd be no debate. You'd learn nothing new. I'm not like you (in many ways). Make use of it. Stop trying to smash it down so that I will be more like you. And stop with the "majority" crap here. I already explained there are all kinds of majorities and or those in power. I gave examples (Saddam for one). So-called majority does not mean right nor good.

Again, when concerning "me" none of you will win. It doesn't matter if each and one of you feel you dislike or disrespect or even hate "me" does not mean "I" am deserving of any of that, does not mean you even know me at all, does mean mean I will believe your misconceptions of me (in fact, it just makes me all the stronger); meanwhile it does mean, I will continue as I always do, and that is, if something doesn't feel right in my being, I will question it and change it if so. If it feels right, no one will deter me. When concerning "me" I'm by far older and much wiser than all of you put together. When concerning many things about life, I'm much older and even wiser than many of you here. In some subjects, I'm just a newborn, learning.

I posted all this, for a reason. And that being, once again, you'll have to accept me as is, and direct your replies to my posts and not at "me personally" or simply stop reading my posts. We will never get any further in this tirade of trying to convince me that something is wrong with me while everything is so right with the rest of you. Never. Sorry. But what is, is.

 

[Wisty]

&gt;WTF are you talking about?

Actually, WTF are YOU talking about? You made no sense whatsoever, least of all based on anything I posted. As usual.

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

From what I can tell violence was created long before religion. As soon as man figured out he could use a stick to knock his fellow man upside the head he has been doing it. I think the great motivator for man has always been other peoples stuff: land, food, wealth and not religion. I think stuff was the great motivator before religion and continued to be after religion came about.

In fact I don't think religion is even in second place; I think revenge has been the cause of more deaths than religion and has been around much longer. It is a response built in to man at a very basic level - revenge is a natural reaction that attempts to prevent future acts. It also is self renewing. Joe kills Bill - Bill's family kills Joe and his wife - Joe's family kills Bill's Brothers ect ect. It becomes a cycle that is diffcult to break

<hr></blockquote>

Good post. And I agree to most of it, except that religion (even Christianity, but only because of the unenlightened and era of bygonedays) has helped fueled the animal instincts (savagenesses) in us -- except we are the worst of all the animals because of our brains, extreme intelligent possibilities, clever cunningness, tool-making, verbal communication, and ability to band together to kill off whatever we want to kill off.

However religion, one that teaches compassion and fairness and love and honesty and inhibits our more brutal, greedy, animal/self-gratifying tendencies, has been what has made U.S. so successful, especially modern Christianity and those philosophies based on all the good traits we have come to know and even take for granted. We've gone through a lot of backwards phases, but have arrived in a much more workable one.

It depends upon the religion or philosophy. There are good (benevolent to human kind) and bad (malevolent to human kind) religions and philosophies -- and governments. True, bad governments can succeed, but not in the benefit of all, and only for the benefit of a few, and history proves sooner or later the majority of starving and abused will rise up and take down the bad government. I just don't know that if NO good-kind of religion/philosophy NEVER existed, a GOOD kind of government would have originated, since I'm not sure angelic qualities (that is, good ones) are inherit in each and every human or human kind in general. Like, Lord of the Flies -- they began as civilized children, who eventually turned into brutal, greedy, twisted, power-seeking, older kids, in spite of being raised otherwise. I just don't know that I can say, without SOME guideline that is HIGHER and MORE POWERFUL than humans, we would succeed, especially if we had NO history or knowledge of such higher power.

 

[Guest]

*sighs*
It's hard to make sense based on anything you post.
I will try again...

And the fact most our U.S. laws are patterned after the Christian bible. - Really? You are the only ones with laws against killing (but with death penalty), stealing, incest etc.?

And the fact that countries that did not pattern their government after the bible, have not been as successful, and wind up creating wars (WWI, WWII, the communist wars, the despotic wars, etc.) - Define communist wars, please. And despotic wars while you are at it. WWI was fought by very christian empires of all kinds - catholic, protestant and orthodox, so? Hitler did not follow the canonic virtues, ok.

They also torture and kill their citizens. They have one heirarchy that gets all the goodies, and a vast majority that does without. - Please, give me an example of awful tortures of Norwegian citizens. Atrocities in Finland. Poverty in Denmark and Holland (ask local Danish folks for assistance).

And then come back to explain that US system is superior to any other because its biblical. Meanwhile you may also address the questions like: why democracy concept comes from pagan Greece and most cristian countries and biblical Israel were absolute monarchies.

 

[Guest]

I would just like to throw in here I do not think that the US government is superior to any other government style. Its just another way of doing things.

 

[Guest]

*yawn*

Okay. You just keep proving my point, but that's fine.

I'm done with this particular part of the discussion.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Been so before, and I'm sure I will be again.

TTFN

[EDIT] BTW, when I spew, there's no mistaking.

 

[Budner]

"do not think that the US government is superior to any other government style"

I can't think of a more successful government than the US.

 

[Guest]

Depends on what you find important in a government, or the goals that you think it has reached.&lt;shrug&gt;

 

[Budner]

Fair enough. I mean the overall picture: economy, rights, security, freedom, standard of living, national pride, diversity, tolerance, etc.

Obviously we can make progress in all those areas. But I can't think of any place I'd rather live than in the U.S.

 

[Mhoram the Mage]

If by "troll" you mean someone who delights in thinking up humorous insults to mix in with my opinion and commentary, then I suppose I'm guilty.

Edit: Mostly I find myself laughing my arse off when I visit stratics, and I gotta thank you all for that. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Bethusda]

Since in other threads, I nominated myself supreme deity, and that I have a peculiar reverence for Oreo cows - I command all ye to cease thy endless prattle. Come to my alter, feed upon the plentiful oreos and pet the gentle cows. Bethusda is all - there is no need for such discourse.

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/queen.gif

 

[Mhoram the Mage]

You have no idea how badly I want some oreos.

 

[Guest]

lol

On a stupid whim, I typed in http://www.oreocows.com!

Click on California. Those are the ones I was talking about in Napa!

 

[Wisty]

re, your accusation, re, Wistaria being stupid

As usual you impart absolutely nothing intelligent to the threads, just stupid zings and attempts at trying to be witty. Generally I ignore your threads except now and then when I happen to notice them. Why don't you contribute something worth reading? And, yes, I do! I at least try.

The reason you post was so worthless (as so many of yours) is because you don't bother to back up WHY you believe what I posted (about religion, bible, etc.) was stupid. You just lamely, as usual, make innuendoes or rude comments, probably because you aren't a very bright person and this is the only thing you CAN do. Mmm?

 

[Wisty]

&gt;And the fact most our U.S. laws are patterned after the Christian bible. - Really? You are the only ones with laws against killing (but with death penalty), stealing, incest etc.?

I was referring to U.S. since that's the country I'm most familiar with. Our government originated by and for Christians, as did the laws. Most remain as is, or similar to what they were; some have altered (such as divorce is legal, people can worship whatever they want including non-Christian theories, and so on.)

I was comparing U.S. to countries (in general, not in specific) which did not originate by/for Christians, which in fact were anti-religion and how laws and lifestyle was not at all similar to U.S. nor as successful -- and I exampled the communist and despotic countries which allow few if any freedoms, have no concern for human life (other than that of the leaders/regime), allow the citizens to suffer and starve, etc., and eventually those countries fail or the governments are brought down by their own starving people or brought down by countries such as U.S.; whereas the U.S. continues to thrive, and if we don't stray too far from our original basis and ideals, and or if some other country(s) don't become stronger and take U.S. over, it should continue as successful as ever. Though I do worry about the influx of illegal immigrants who may not have U.S. in their best interests and drug trafficing from other countries and over-population and pollution and concern that the baby boomer parents have raised their children to take wise control when we no longer can function, and that they are raising their children, likewise -- apathy being one of the worst problems -- the education system being robbed of funding and growing more and more ineffective -- and so on.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about that? I was merely giving my views as to why I believe Christianity has benefited the U.S. rather than was a detriment, as far as laws, lifestyle, freedoms, and success. And that U.S. owes a lot of thanks to Christians for creating it as such. Though many anti-Christians and anti-religionists refuse to take any of that into consideration, as if the U.S. merely sprung up all by itself, under some non-denominational rock, magically, all by itself, and that all the original English colonists (including Spanish catholics and Native-American religion which also influenced) were just invisible people who blew in on the wind like weeds and sprouted without a brain or thought or conviction... we just sort of "poofies!" arrived, voila! No religion, no Christians, no Christianity, nothing... just IS.

List countries which:

were NEVER based upon nor enfluenced in ANY way by Christianity,

AND

which arrived at similar Christian-like (humanitarian, democratic, lots of personal freedoms) governments by accident or by some other means which in no way was related to religion.

Perhaps I might be interested in your side of the disagreement then. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.