Non Christians Apply Here

[Clint]

Ted;707621 wrote: I tried having a go on a "Christian" forum. It simply was not worth the aggravation. Still the only folks to call names and use put downs. Nothing has changed in 40+ years. It confirmed my stand on the right wing.

Shalom

Ted:-6


:yh_rotfl It's your story tell it any way you like. The truth is you were the last one standing. You ran everyone off with your put downs. The Christian forum is dead and you killed it... but that's what you set out to do from the begining.

Good to see you found the right forum.

Go ahead...take your best shot...I'm done.

Shalom:-6

[gmc]

posted by ted

BTW I don't see anywhere in this post where I've called upon a higher authority such as God. There is and was simply no need to do such.




I was being ever so slightly facetious.

First of all I've never condemned anyone because they have a faith or lack thereof.

It is rather interesting that you like Dawkins are so adamant about atheism. It really is an example of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism. Oh yes it is a faith and nothing more and nothing less. Collins, McGrath, Crossan, Borg, Fox.


Neither have I. I don't know you apart from this forum so any comments I make along those lines are a generalisation not intended to be about you specifically so please don't take them that way. If I say i consider religion a load of cobblers it is not a personal attack nor would I take it personally if you told me I was talking a load of cobblers

from the oxford english dictionary

cobbler

• noun 1 a person whose job is mending shoes. 2 chiefly N. Amer. a fruit pie with a rich, cake-like crust. 3 (cobblers) Brit. informal nonsense. originally in the sense testicles: from rhyming slang cobbler’s awls balls.


Having been impressed with your knowledge of british slang we can then have a good barney about it without things getting taken personally.



I'm not adamant about atheism nor would I describe myself as such. Dawkins makes some good point as does Karen Armstrong. I find his dogmatism just as irritating. Like many scientists he tends to tray and explain history and events in a simple scientific manner-he wants to know it happened and why but human society is never that simple. He may disagree with his protagonists but not all religious people are dangerous nutters. The ones that are are lethal beyond what their numbers would lead you to expect. Same with people who are passionate about politics-look at Hitler he was almost messianic in the effect he had.

posted by ted

Actually religious fundamentalism is new. It was developed in the western world in the 19th Cent. Before that those who followed the Bible accepted its metaphorical/midrashic style.


No it isn't. Luckily we exported a lot of it to the colonies.

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.html

The Puritans believed that the Bible was God's true law, and that it provided a plan for living. The established church of the day described access to God as monastic and possible only within the confines of "church authority". Puritans stripped away the traditional trappings and formalities of Christianity which had been slowly building throughout the previous 1500 years. Theirs was an attempt to "purify" the church and their own lives.


The early settlers may have wanted religious freedom but for themselves not for anyone else who didn't follow their way.

running out of time but there are endless examples where fundamentalists of one kind or another have tried to impose their will on everyone else. For a time England lived under a religious dictatorship so appalling that arguably the British psyche has resisted extremism of any kind ever since. It's a nice theory anyway.

posted by Ted

It is very easy to lump all religious/spiritual folks together as some kind of pariah just as it is easy for the fundamentalist to lump all scientists together. Both approaches are simply erroneous.


We agree (falls off chair in surprise).

[Ted]

gmc:-6

Thanks. I took no offense at "cobblers". I rather like the British sayings. I have a British friend who explains them to me after I've watched a British comedy which is far better than anything the Americans can turn out.

You are correct. I was wrong on that date. It actually is a product of the reformation.

I do think we agree on many things.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

Clint:-6

Actually it is not just my story. It is where Christianity is heading and with good reason.

You might find the following site informative.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments ... e_continue

Karen Armstrong: Unholy strictures | By genre | Guardian Unlimited Books

The Battle For God: Fundamentalism In Judaism, Islam & Christianity

Karen Armstrong presents a thorough and compelling account of the history of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. She sees the continued growth of fundamentalist movements as a response to a technologically driven world with liberal Western values. This opposition has resulted in many fundamentalists becoming more extreme and violent, leading to such events as the Oklahoma City bombing, violent anti-abortion crusades, and the assassination of President Yitzak Rabin. Religious fundamentalism stands at the heart of many of the most intractable conflicts in the world today; from the continued failure of Israel and the Palestinians to make a lasting peace to the influence of fundamentalist Christians in the US. By looking objectively at the origins and growth of fundamentalism and its opposition to modernism in all its forms Armstrong provides a unique insight into politics and international affairs. By tackling head on this emotionally charged field she produces a lecture that can only be described as profoundly important to an understanding of the modern world, its conflicts and the prospects for a future peace. Quoted on a report from the Lavin Agency.



Comment

Unholy strictures



It is wrong - and dangerous - to believe literal truth can be found in religious texts

Karen Armstrong

Thursday August 11, 2005

The Guardian

Priest with bible

The Bible: a holy encyclopaedia? Photograph: Getty Images



Human beings, in nearly all cultures, have long engaged in a rather strange activity. They have taken a literary text, given it special status and attempted to live according to its precepts. These texts are usually of considerable antiquity yet they are expected to throw light on situations that their authors could not have imagined. In times of crisis, people turn to their scriptures with renewed zest and, with much creative ingenuity, compel them to speak to their current predicament. We are seeing a great deal of scriptural activity at the moment.

Article continues

This is ironic, because the concept of scripture has become problematic in the modern period. The Scopes trial of 1925, when Christian fundamentalists in the United States tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools, and the more recent affair of The Satanic Verses, both reveal deep-rooted anxiety about the nature of revelation and the integrity of sacred texts. People talk confidently about scripture, but it is not clear that even the most ardent religious practitioners really know what it is.

Protestant fundamentalists, for example, claim that they read the Bible in the same way as the early Christians, but their belief that it is literally true in every detail is a recent innovation, formulated for the first time in the late 19th century. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.

We tend now to read our scriptures for accurate information, so that the Bible, for example, becomes a holy encyclopaedia, in which the faithful look up facts about God. Many assume that if the scriptures are not historically and scientifically correct, they cannot be true at all. But this was not how scripture was originally conceived. All the verses of the Qur'an, for example, are called "parables" (ayat); its images of paradise, hell and the last judgment are also ayat, pointers to transcendent realities that we can only glimpse through signs and symbols.

We distort our scriptures if we read them in an exclusively literal sense. There has recently been much discussion about the way Muslim terrorists interpret the Qur'an. Does the Qur'an really instruct Muslims to slay unbelievers wherever they find them? Does it promise the suicide bomber instant paradise and 70 virgins? If so, Islam is clearly chronically prone to terrorism. These debates have often been confused by an inadequate understanding of the way scripture works.

People do not robotically obey every single edict of their sacred texts. If they did, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and turn the other cheek when attacked. There are political reasons why a tiny minority of Muslims are turning to terrorism, which have nothing to do with Islam. But because of the way people read their scriptures these days, once a terrorist has decided to blow up a London bus, he can probably find scriptural texts that seem to endorse his action. "The Guardian Unlimited" by Karen Armstrong.

So much for fundamentalism. It is dangerous no matter the faith.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/trans ... trong.html

NOW with Bill Moyers. Transcript. Bill Moyers Interviews Karen Armstrong. 3.1.02 | PBS

Having been there and done that, that is how I see it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[nvalleyvee]

I, Rob;691960 wrote: When pressed I say I'm a Yew-Yew (UU, Unitarian Universalist). This basically means that I cherry-pick whatever spiritualist tenets/ideologies "fit". I even rent a pew at the local downtown church when the spirit moves, although I'm not a paying member per se.

I'm not averse to Christianity, nor Judaism or Islam. I'm averse to how many people practice their faith. As history proves, spirituality combined with entitlement and exclusivity makes for a perilous brew.


I'm just reading this tread so forgive me. I was raised Methodist. I grew up in my teens as Unitarian. I named my daughter in the Unitarian church as a child of all faiths so she could choose........it was a fate thing that one of best friends - a classical guitarist - played that day. The spirit be upon everyone.

[gmc]

posted by ted

The Battle For God: Fundamentalism In Judaism, Islam & Christianity

Karen Armstrong presents a thorough and compelling account of the history of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. She sees the continued growth of fundamentalist movements as a response to a technologically driven world with liberal Western values.


I'm intrigued enough to look in more detail what she has to say but I woud disagree with her to the extent that the rise in fundamentalism in the middle east is due to reaction to perceived injustice- Saudi Arabia actively encouraged wahabism as a safe alternative to allowing any kind of political freedom.-but also in reaction to the way the west deliberately wrecked democratically elected governments when they started taking action against what were perceieved to be their interests-in iraq by nationalise the oil fields so we had Saddam helped to power, Iran did the same so the shah was helped back top power. The left wing bogeyman was used cynically to get support at home. The problem is not liberal western values but rather the lack of them in the behaviour of US and other western governments. The US is the main one but europe is hardly in a position to be sanctimonious.

Human beings, in nearly all cultures, have long engaged in a rather strange activity. They have taken a literary text, given it special status and attempted to live according to its precepts. These texts are usually of considerable antiquity yet they are expected to throw light on situations that their authors could not have imagined. In times of crisis, people turn to their scriptures with renewed zest and, with much creative ingenuity, compel them to speak to their current predicament. We are seeing a great deal of scriptural activity at the moment.


So how do you explain the rise in america? what crisis is taking place that religious extremism seems to be an answer?

[minks]

I am a "golden rule-ist"

Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

[Ted]

gmc:-6

She is an intriguing writer.

It seems to me that the injustice you speak of arises from the technological west. They need oil; they certainly don't want others to gain the power they have as it would threaten both their desire for a gluttonous share of the world's wealth and resources as well as a threat to their way of life.

The second question is in part answerable by looking at the history of Christianity. A great many of these folks feel that the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God and thus feel that both events within and without the country will not only damage their ability to believe as they have been led to believe but will ultimately bring about the demise of the fundamentalism. This is one of the reasons we have the continual attempt to promote the creationist point of view and get rid of the evolutionist point of view. All of these lead to a questioning of the inerrancy of the Bible. A reading of the history of Christianity is a real eye opener when it comes to understanding the western approach to religion.

I think in part this comes up because western folks tend to want their contracts in writing signed, sealed and delivered. The Bible becomes such a contract and any demeaning of its legitimacy is seen as a potential threat. As a Christian pluralist my personal feeling is they they simply do not trust God enough and need that contract.

The crises within; evolution, science, education, immigration, free thinkers such as yourself of myself, those who diverge from the traditional, legislation and supreme court rulings on prayer in the public schools etc.

The crises from without; threats to oil supply, fundamentalist Muslims, other forms of government that are different from their's, new world views, the drug wars, the instability of apparent supporters such as Packistan etc.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

posted by ted

It seems to me that the injustice you speak of arises from the technological west. They need oil; they certainly don't want others to gain the power they have as it would threaten both their desire for a gluttonous share of the world's wealth and resources as well as a threat to their way of life.


It's the age old struggle for resources the west just happens to have been lucky enough to be strong enough and militaristic enough to get their own way a lot of the time not so much moral superiority as better cannon although religion was used to give the moral justification for both imperialism and slavery. -. In a very real sense it is continuing imperialism by another name except policies being pursued by governments and their results are not what most people want done in their name. Very few want democratic governments overthrown or puppet regimes out in place but that is want has been happening and we are all paying the price for it. Just look at Pakistan the same is about to happen-the west backs a military dictatorship sooner or later it will be replaced with a more radical govt hostile to the west because the people don't like foreign governments mixing it with their politicians. Unlike Iraq and Iran they actually do have nuclear weapons.

Old imperialism died when populations were no longer prepared to fight simply at the behest of their rulers in the name of patriotism the current version might not last but hopefully we won't get dragged in to another world war.

posted by ted

The second question is in part answerable by looking at the history of Christianity. A great many of these folks feel that the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God and thus feel that both events within and without the country will not only damage their ability to believe as they have been led to believe but will ultimately bring about the demise of the fundamentalism. This is one of the reasons we have the continual attempt to promote the creationist point of view and get rid of the evolutionist point of view. All of these lead to a questioning of the inerrancy of the Bible. A reading of the history of Christianity is a real eye opener when it comes to understanding the western approach to religion.

I think in part this comes up because western folks tend to want their contracts in writing signed, sealed and delivered. The Bible becomes such a contract and any demeaning of its legitimacy is seen as a potential threat. As a Christian pluralist my personal feeling is they they simply do not trust God enough and need that contract.


I reckon there's always a section in society that end up feeling somehow morally superior and need the security of an authority to reassure themselves and reaffirm what they think they know. You get the same kind of mentality with political extremists-I know what's best for you so you will do what you are told.

I think in part this comes up because western folks tend to want their contracts in writing signed, sealed and delivered.


Not always. Western tradition is also the free assembly of equals to decide on the law and settle disputes. The forum of ancient time started like that before the lawyers took over and decided that not everybody was equal any more and that some by right of birth were somehow morally superior to the rest .

posted by ted

People do not robotically obey every single edict of their sacred texts. If they did, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and turn the other cheek when attacked. There are political reasons why a tiny minority of Muslims are turning to terrorism, which have nothing to do with Islam. But because of the way people read their scriptures these days, once a terrorist has decided to blow up a London bus, he can probably find scriptural texts that seem to endorse his action. "The Guardian Unlimited" by Karen Armstrong.


Good way of putting it. But why the fascination of fundamentalists for the viscious god of the old testament?

[Ted]

gmc:-6

Good points.

Why the fundamentalist fascination with the vicious God of the Old Testament?

I can think of a few reasons. The Bible has to be the inerrant and absolute word of God so don't try to understand what it means allegorically. Such a thought apparently demeans the Bible and destroy the faith. It must be taken literally.

A failure to realize or perhaps more to the point to accept that Jesus taught a different road. They looked at the early martyrs and saw it as unjust and surely God will see that such injustice is properly dealt with. I guess one could call it a certain amount of vindictiveness.

This vindictiveness is seen today in such countries as the US when they continue to practice capital punishment. This reflects back on the vicious God of the OT.

There is also, I think, a certain amount of apparent certainty in being a literalist. Humans really want that certainty. They simply want to be right and thus comfortable. It is a false sense of certainty but it seems to me it is simply a lack of trust in God.

My personal approach is to live today following my faith and trust the future to God. Could I be wrong? Sure. I don't think I am but I could be. That's life. I like what Martin Luther is reported as having said when asked about heaven. His reply was something to the effect that heaven was well and fine as it was in God's hands. It's the earth that I'm worried about.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

posted by ted

A failure to realize or perhaps more to the point to accept that Jesus taught a different road. They looked at the early martyrs and saw it as unjust and surely God will see that such injustice is properly dealt with. I guess one could call it a certain amount of vindictiveness.


That's what really puzzles me. how a misogynistic, gay hating, bible thumping fundamentalist call themselves Christian completely escapes me. It's as if JC had never been there. How on earth do they end up having such influence beyond their numbers in a country like the US.

Don't misunderstand I do know that christian fundamentalist has a sklightly different meaning in the US but to me it the term is synonymous with religious fruitcake, a kind of christian fascist.

fascism

/fashiz’m/

• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.


Kind of fits doesn't it?



I also many of different faiths-even catholics and protestants that can socialise without trying to kill each other-up the road from me there is a mormon temple a free church of scotland and a catholic church cheek by jowl who maintain a wary peace-although in the case of the mormons it is a puzzled one as the sectarianism has them speechless with confusion, being asked if you are a catholic mormon or a protestant one is a new experience for many visiting americans. Christian fundamentalists don't really get a hold as such but there is a kind of religious revival going on which is depressing in a modern age. Why is muslim fundamentalist looked on as an aberration and dangerous but christian fundamentalism somehow Ok. Religious warfare has no place in the 21st century it would be agreat shame if we ever let it start all over again.

[gmc]

Another question for you. Why is the debate in the US apparently between atheism and religion. Why not secular and religious. Seems to me that the word atheist is used when secular would be a more apt description of the kind of society most people want to live in. Is it because as a more pejorative term is helps stir up the debate? The US was set up as a secular state for very good reasons that are still valid today. So why not the emphasis on that aspect rather than the religious aspect.

Iraq used to be a secular state-look what's about to happen there now.

[tude dog]

Iraq used to be a secular state-look what's about to happen there now.


Oh, what a joy it must have been to live in Iraq's secular state.

I sure do miss the good old days.

[gmc]

tude dog;711554 wrote: Oh, what a joy it must have been to live in Iraq's secular state.

I sure do miss the good old days.


Is that why you now live in America? When do you plan to return home? Saddam was a problem best sorted by the Iraqis themselves now all they have to look forward to imo is years of internecine warfare of the worst kind.

Or if you are an American would you prefer if the US ceased to be secular? Just curious because it seems to be becoming a serious issue in the states.

[tude dog]

gmc;711654 wrote: Is that why you now live in America? When do you plan to return home? Saddam was a problem best sorted by the Iraqis themselves now all they have to look forward to imo is years of internecine warfare of the worst kind.

Or if you are an American would you prefer if the US ceased to be secular? Just curious because it seems to be becoming a serious issue in the states.


I am an American and do appreciate the fact that we have a secular government.

With that said, it goes without saying secular does not necessarily mean beneficial.

The issues of religion in the public sphere are nothing new. For example you can go back to the Scopes monkey trial, in the '20s I think.

Court battles to determine what, if any expression of religion is allowed in public will never cease.

[gmc]

tude dog;711722 wrote: I am an American and do appreciate the fact that we have a secular government.

With that said, it goes without saying secular does not necessarily mean beneficial.

The issues of religion in the public sphere are nothing new. For example you can go back to the Scopes monkey trial, in the '20s I think.

Court battles to determine what, if any expression of religion is allowed in public will never cease.


Secular means not bound by religious rule. I would put it to you that you cannot have a free society which is ruled by religion. Also that in the likes of the court case you mention is the issue not whether a religious group should be able to impose it's belief system on everybody else. The use of the law to try and stop the teaching of the theory of evolution because it is deemed to be blasphemous is ridiculous IMO. How about the sale of contraceptives? Catholics can choose not to use them but to try and stop them being sold at all is a step too far, they have no right to impose their views on others. If you don't want to watch harry potter because you think it encourages witchcraft (don't know if that actually happened in the US or whether it is apocryphal ) don't go see it but you have no right to try and stop it being shown.

[Bryn Mawr]

tude dog;711554 wrote: Oh, what a joy it must have been to live in Iraq's secular state.

I sure do miss the good old days.


I'm sure that most Iraqi's would agree with you.

[tude dog]

gmc;711752 wrote: Secular means not bound by religious rule.


Fair enough.

Also that in the likes of the court case you mention is the issue not whether a religious group should be able to impose it's belief system on everybody else.


I sited that in the context of

curious because it seems to be becoming a serious issue in the states.
My point being secular vs. religious is nothing new, nothing more.

How about the sale of contraceptives?


Sales to an 11 year old, is that kosher?

Catholics can choose not to use them but to try and stop them being sold at all is a step too far, they have no right to impose their views on others.


Catholics have less right than anyone else to petition the government, to change laws?

Or did I miss something? Catholics now have the power to ban contraceptives without the usual procedures required the rest of us who want to change law?

Gee, I did not know it was big on the Catholic agenda to ban contraceptive for the rest of us.

If you don't want to watch harry potter because you think it encourages witchcraft (don't know if that actually happened in the US or whether it is apocryphal ) don't go see it but you have no right to try and stop it being shown.


I guess I missed the news the day any serious attempt was made to stop Harry Potter from being shown in the U.S.

[gmc]

posted by tude dog

My point being secular vs. religious is nothing new, nothing more.


I know it's nothing new I just wondered if it was becoming an issue in a big way.

Sales to an 11 year old, is that kosher?




Probably not- on then other hand at that age they should be getting proper sex education and religious groups should accept the fact that the best defence against teenage pregnancy is by making sure that teenagers-the girls especially are fully aware of what the y are doing and its consequences. Countries where sex education starts in primary school have the lowest rates of unwanted pregnancies.

posted by tude dog

Catholics have less right than anyone else to petition the government, to change laws?

Or did I miss something? Catholics now have the power to ban contraceptives without the usual procedures required the rest of us who want to change law?

Gee, I did not know it was big on the Catholic agenda to ban contraceptive for the rest of us.


I used that as an example but if they had enough political clout they would and do. Most religions in the right conditions will want a religious state if they can get it. If they can't get it they do their best to get their views imposed. On the other hand liberals just want everybody to do their own thing so long as it doesn't affect others. Which do you prefer, liberal democracy or religious oligarchy. If you want to live in a fair society you have to accept some people don't believe as you do and leave them alone.

posted by tude dog

I guess I missed the news the day any serious attempt was made to stop Harry Potter from being shown in the U.S.


http://childrensbooks.about.com/cs/cens ... nharry.htm

Maybe you're in the wrong state. Incidentally some church groups tried the same here but they tend to get laughed at more rather than taken seriously.

[tude dog]

gmc;712069 wrote: posted by tude dog

I know it's nothing new I just wondered if it was becoming an issue in a big way.


I would say no more than usual, and why not? We do live in a democracy with freedom to promote concepts you want.

should be getting proper sex education and religious groups should accept the fact that the best defense against teenage pregnancy is by making sure that teenagers-the girls especially are fully aware of what the y are doing and its consequences.


Sex education by itself is not the problem. Problem is when government decides without parental input what is taught. Between you and me, I trust parents more than a government bureaucrat.

Countries where sex education starts in primary school have the lowest rates of unwanted pregnancies.


Problem here isn't sex education; lord knows we have enough of that. Issues concerning unwanted pregnancies have nothing to do with education.

I used that as an example but if they had enough political clout they would and do.


On the question of contraception this is a settled question. Jump up and down all you want in 1965 our Supreme Court made it a Constitutional right. (Griswold v. Connecticut,)

In any event I have no more faith in liberals that would tell me how to live my life.

Most religions in the right conditions will want a religious state if they can get it. If they can't get it they do their best to get their views imposed.


We have plenty of the loony left here who want to impose their concept of a fair society and will do their best to impose their will on the rest of us.

On the other hand liberals just want everybody to do their own thing so long as it doesn't affect others.


Oh really? :wah:

If you want to live in a fair society you have to accept some people don't believe as you do and leave them alone.


Hey, I ain't looking for trouble. Can you please tell your saintly liberals to keep their fingers out of my pocket book and stop trying to promote nonsense?

posted by tude dog

htp:/childrensbooks (Can't post URLs till I have 15 posts)

Hardly a national movement. This is a big country and attempts at local censorship is an occasional problem.

Maybe you're in the wrong state. Incidentally some church groups tried the same here but they tend to get laughed at more rather than taken seriously.


As I strive to stop my state from accepting the latest bull-hockey from our indigenous liberals.

[Bryn Mawr]

tude dog;712308 wrote:

Problem here isn't sex education; lord knows we have enough of that. Issues concerning unwanted pregnancies have nothing to do with education.




Would you care to back that up with anything substantive?

There's a mass of evidence to the contrary.

[gmc]

posted by tude gog

We have plenty of the loony left here who want to impose their concept of a fair society and will do their best to impose their will on the rest of us.


so do we come to that except your loony left don't really seem to be loony left. ours still want to nationalise everything again.

In any event I have no more faith in liberals that would tell me how to live my life.


from the american edition of the oxford english dictionary

liberal

• adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.


The US is founded on the basic liberal principles of individual liberty and freedom. How did the word liberal come to mean the opposite of what it actually does mean in american usage? I keep seeing it used almost as an insult. What american wouldn't instinctively be a liberal in the literal sense? I mean when did you stop believing in individual liberty for instance?

posted by tude dog

Hey, I ain't looking for trouble. Can you please tell your saintly liberals to keep their fingers out of my pocket book and stop trying to promote nonsense?


Neither am I just enjoying talking to someone with a different way of looking at things on the other side of the planet. Has it's upside-at least you don't have to try and understand strange accents.

Over here they the liberals don't get enough votes to get elected although all their best ideas get pinched by the other parties anyway. No strong leader you see as by nature most liberals don't fall for the leadership cult. Yours don't seem to be getting anywhere either.

[Ted]

gmc:-6

Great discussion. I've been away for a few days and may be again but will return or a regular basis.

If Jesus were to appear today he would be totally appalled at what they have done with him. He would be horrified.

I think they use the term atheism just because they hate it so. It's a good catch all and something to hang onto. Now that J.K. Rowling has said the wizard is gay there should be a lot of twittering coming out of the fundamentalists soon. Perhaps even book burnings. Why not? LOL.

Most fundamentalists claim they are teaching the "Full Gospel". A scrutiny of the authentic teachings of Jesus will clearly show that they are not. They are picking and choosing which is exactly what they accuse me of doing. The only difference I suppose is that I admit it and can show why I do.

I'm just into a book by Karen Armstrong, "The Bible; A Biography" and it is most enlightening on the history of the development of the Bible including the alterations and redactions as well as the additions and deletions of the writers and editors. This does not destroy the wisdom to be found therein but certainly opens the Bible to great discussion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

posted by ted



I think they use the term atheism just because they hate it so. It's a good catch all and something to hang onto. Now that J.K. Rowling has said the wizard is gay there should be a lot of twittering coming out of the fundamentalists soon. Perhaps even book burnings. Why not? LOL.

Most fundamentalists claim they are teaching the "Full Gospel". A scrutiny of the authentic teachings of Jesus will clearly show that they are not. They are picking and choosing which is exactly what they accuse me of doing. The only difference I suppose is that I admit it and can show why I do.

I'm just into a book by Karen Armstrong, "The Bible; A Biography" and it is most enlightening on the history of the development of the Bible including the alterations and redactions as well as the additions and deletions of the writers and editors. This does not destroy the wisdom to be found therein but certainly opens the Bible to great discussion


What amuses me is when those who use the bible to condemn homosexuality are using the King James bible for their text. There is a certain delightful irony in using a version of the bible commissioned by a gay scotsman to condemn homosexuality. Pointing this out tends to leave them a bit speechless since most are unaware of the preferences of King James. Watching a fundamentalist going in to denial does have it's moments.

As to the term atheist, they have to demonise opposition somehow as it's easier than agreeing to disagree. I think you need to teach both religion and science in schools and let kids make up their own minds eventually but also respect other beliefs. . I find a fundamentalist atheist (I mean in the sense of not being prepared to accept another's point of view is worthy if respect) just as irritating as a fundamentalist christian-or fundamentalist anything come to that. The other stock in trade of a fundamentalist is to assume that someone that does not share their world view does so because they have not read the bible. Equally I find some bible thumpers are actually very ignorant of history outside of what they read in the bible.

some of the supposed myths do have corroboration from secular sources-such as the flood, parting of the red sea, soddam and Gomorrah. They do seem to describe real events but what you don't understand is explained as being an act of god and hundreds of years later the story changes a lot in the telling. Imagine how hurricane katrina or the fires in california would seem to a stone age culture-god must be really angry at them.

One side latches on to scientific explanations as corroboration of bible events but still argue it was an act of god while the other uses the scientific explanation as proof it was not an act of god and each insists they are right.

[Ted]

gmc:-6

Some very good points.

I may or may not be on for a few days. I seem to be having trouble getting my computer to start. I'll have to get my son on it. That is his profession.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Glaswegian]

gmc;710054 wrote: religion was used to give the moral justification for both imperialism and slavery


America provides an apt context for illustrating the truth of the above statement. Let me first of all say a little about the relationship between Christianity and the institution of slavery in that country.

Christianity functioned as a powerful ideological device to legitimate and sustain the institution of slavery in both colonial and post-revolutionary America. The attitude of the Christian religion towards slavery in 'the land of the free' was crass and hypocritical because it championed the freedoms and rights of American citizens while denying these very same freedoms and rights to African-American slaves. The doctrines and texts of Christianity were used on the one hand to remove any doubts on the part of whites that African-American slaves were undeserving of freedom, and on the other to inveigle the latter into accepting their condition of bondage as a natural and proper one. For example, Christian clergy sympathetic to the institution of slavery exhorted slaves "to count their Masters worthy of all honour, as those whom God has placed over them in this world" and they cited the authority of scripture - such as Paul's Letter To Philemon - in order to justify slavery to both whites and slaves alike.

Throughout the history of slavery in America the Christian religion operated as a highly effective instrument of oppression and mystification against slaves. But not only that. As a result of sanitising slavery, as a result of giving it a 'clean bill of health', the Christian religion also served to make it palatable to those Americans who might otherwise have been so outraged by it as to become active and vociferous opponents of it. Because Christianity provided slavery with legitimacy 'from on high', and therefore with the ultimate sanction and approval in the eyes of many, it was the most insidious and efficacious component of the particular ideological system which made slavery possible back then - the system which black writers of today call 'the white regime of truth'.

Now, before anyone in this forum jumps in at this point and starts bleating stuff like - "Ah, but Christianity wasn't always pro-slavery. For example, William Wilberforce was a Christian and his religion motivated him greatly in his efforts to end that appalling institution." - let me say just this: If William Wilberforce needed Christianity to tell him that slavery was wrong then he was a moral idiot. African-Americans who endured the misery and suffering of slavery didn't need Christianity to tell them that it was wrong. I don't need Christianity to tell me that slavery is wrong. You don't need Christianity to tell you that slavery is wrong, gmc. And I hope that no one else in this forum does either.

With regard to how religion was used to give the moral justification for imperialism in America - for example, how Christianity was used by European settlers as a basis for appropriating the land of the native American Indians and forcing the latter to become refugees in their own country - well, that history is just as loathsome and abominable as the history of the relationship between Christianity and slavery in America. But more about that later....

[Ted]

Glaswegian:-6

I finally read one of your posts and must concur.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[YZGI]

Ted;713205 wrote: Glaswegian:-6



I finally read one of your posts and must concur.



Shalom

Ted:-6
:wah: I'll take your word on this Ted. :wah:

[Ted]

YZGI:-6

I only ever read a few of his first posts. I found them simply not worth my while reading so I simply skipped over them. I thought that I might give him another chance and read that one. Being visually impaired I try to make the best use of the sight I have as of yet.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[tude dog]

Bryn Mawr;712311 wrote: Would you care to back that up with anything substantive?

There's a mass of evidence to the contrary.


What do you want from me?

Contrary to what?

[tude dog]

gmc;712353 wrote: posted by tude gog



so do we come to that except your loony left don't really seem to be loony left. ours still want to nationalise everything again.





from the american edition of the oxford english dictionary

l

The US is founded on the basic liberal principles of individual liberty and freedom. How did the word liberal come to mean the opposite of what it actually does mean in american usage? I keep seeing it used almost as an insult. What american wouldn't instinctively be a liberal in the literal sense? I mean when did you stop believing in individual liberty for instance?

posted by tude dog



Neither am I just enjoying talking to someone with a different way of looking at things on the other side of the planet. Has it's upside-at least you don't have to try and understand strange accents.

Over here they the liberals don't get enough votes to get elected although all their best ideas get pinched by the other parties anyway. No strong leader you see as by nature most liberals don't fall for the leadership cult. Yours don't seem to be getting anywhere either.


Our liberals dont get much traction when things are going well.

Looking at your definition, are things suppose to change for the sake of it?

Rather irrational me thinks.

[tude dog]

gmc;712353 wrote: posted by tude gog



so do we come to that except your loony left don't really seem to be loony left. ours still want to nationalise everything again.





from the american edition of the oxford english dictionary

l

The US is founded on the basic liberal principles of individual liberty and freedom. How did the word liberal come to mean the opposite of what it actually does mean in american usage? I keep seeing it used almost as an insult. What .


A well deserved insult.

Call me a liberal?

thems fight'n words.

Your dictionary defination is just fine, I guess.

I just wonder how it applies in the real world.

[RedGlitter]

When I made this thread, I had something totally different in mind. It seems now like it's taken on the same tone as the Christian thread.

[tude dog]

RedGlitter;713295 wrote: When I made this thread, I had something totally different in mind. It seems now like it's taken on the same tone as the Christian thread.


Well, seems I helped to hjack this thread so I owe you an answer.

I am a Jew.

I love my religion and I can understand how Christians love theirs.

In my country it is open season to ridicule people of faith, but that is our cross to bear, (so to speak).

[RedGlitter]

tude dog;713311 wrote: Well, seems I helped to hjack this thread so I owe you an answer.

I am a Jew.

I love my religion and I can understand how Christians love theirs.

In my country it is open season to ridicule people of faith, but that is our cross to bear, (so to speak).


Hi Tude Dog.

I never wanted this to be a thread where anyone's faith or lack thereof was ever ridiculed. Was never my intention. I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular, just the general way the thread went. I'm pagan and I'm also a spiritualist and I noticed that almost all the discussions in the religion section were about christianity with the occasional atheist thread thrown in. I couldn't find any discussions I could be a part of. I was wondering how many others here were of a faith or religion that was different from the one always talked about, or who were agnostic or atheist. That's what I meant by my earlier post.

[gmc]

tude dog;713269 wrote: Our liberals dont get much traction when things are going well.

Looking at your definition, are things suppose to change for the sake of it?

Rather irrational me thinks.


Not quite sure what you mean here. I was trying to highlight that liberal in US usage seems to be synonymous with left wing socialism and big government and lack of freedom when in fact the US owes a great deal to liberalism. If you want to undermine political opposition one of the ways to stop discussion about what is being said and have the opposing viewed dismissed out of hand. It's like the current debate about socialised healthcare in the US. It seems not to be based ion is this a good idea or not, is it a fair way to do things but rather this is socialised medicine therefore bad let's not talk about it and anyone advocating it should be ignored.

The language used does matter, it's how we express what we think and yes meaning of words change all the time-gay used to mean happy for instance. George Orwell coined the term for it.

newspeak

• noun ambiguous euphemistic language used in political propaganda.

— ORIGIN the name of an artificial official language in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).




It's a way of diminishing the impact of what the speaker has to say. You see it all the time, warfare becomes a police action. torture becomes robust questioning techniques. skinny becomes the fashionably thin. Environmentalist becomes a tree hugger a liberal becomes pinko communist. Fairness in accessing healthcare for all regardless of wealth becomes socialised medicine and anything socialised has to be bad just because it is.

Things change all the time whether for the sake of it or not is rather a moot point



posted by tude dog

A well deserved insult.

Call me a liberal?

thems fight'n words.

Your dictionary defination is just fine, I guess.

I just wonder how it applies in the real world.


Good question but so is why is it changing. Next time you hear somebody using liberal as an insult try asking what they have against individual liberty. Odds are they won't have thought about it or really appreciate what they are saying. . In the UK it's usually wishy washy liberal-so busy seeing the other point of view they appear indecisive. In reality liberals are the most dangerous people to annoy. Live as you wish, Do what you like so long as you don't oppress others but don't mess with my liberty. politics should be about how we all live together not about who is right or wrong.

posted by red glitter

When I made this thread, I had something totally different in mind. It seems now like it's taken on the same tone as the Christian thread.


I don't really see that. I avoid the religious threads. I'm not religious so arguing about the nuances of faith is a bit pointless IMO and as to which is the right one I don't even want to go there. I'm not sure i understand what you mean about the same tone.

On then other hand I don't see why you can't talk about religion without it becoming personal. Disagreeing with someone is not insulting them it's disagreeing with them and frankly anyone who can't handle being disagreed with should steer clear of any kind of discussion forum. You either end up agreeing to disagree or change your opinion in some way

posted by tude dog

Well, seems I helped to hjack this thread so I owe you an answer.

I am a Jew.

I love my religion and I can understand how Christians love theirs.

In my country it is open season to ridicule people of faith, but that is our cross to bear, (so to speak).


It's a free country which means you have to accept that others do not share your point of view and may indeed ridicule it. Religious freedom also means others can choose to be free of religion and not have it imposed on them. You can't stop people ridiculing your faith any more than they can stop you ridiculing you for not having any. On the other hand i would defend your right to worship what you want I just draw the line when religion tries to dictate to others just as i draw a line when atheists try to dictate as well. Neither side really knows

Tude dog I didn't know you were jewish and now I do know it doesn't make any difference.

[Bryn Mawr]

tude dog;713262 wrote: What do you want from me?

Contrary to what?


The section of your post that I quoted in mine?

It read, in case you cannot find it, :-

tude dog wrote:



Problem here isn't sex education; lord knows we have enough of that. Issues concerning unwanted pregnancies have nothing to do with education.




Could you provide any evidence that the number of unwanted pregnancies bear no relationship to the amount of sex education given - that is, after all, what we were discussing.

[tude dog]

Bryn Mawr;713415 wrote: The section of your post that I quoted in mine?

It read, in case you cannot find it, :-

Could you provide any evidence that the number of unwanted pregnancies bear no relationship to the amount of sex education given - that is, after all, what we were discussing.


First of all I have no argument with sex education. If I remember correctly my point has to do with who determines what is taught.

[quote=ME]Sex education by itself is not the problem. Problem is when government decides without parental input what is taught.

Do we have a problem here?

I did some checking and the numbers were not impressive. imo.

I'll give that sex education can affect the number of pregnancies, but the root causes have nothing to do with sex education and whether a girl gets pregnant, repeatedly.

[tude dog]

gmc;713391 wrote: Not quite sure what you mean here. I was trying to highlight that liberal in US usage seems to be synonymous with left wing socialism and big government and lack of freedom when in fact the US owes a great deal to liberalism.


I can give you that. At one time liberalism was the correct thing. Especially when it came to race relations.

If you want to undermine political opposition one of the ways to stop discussion about what is being said and have the opposing viewed dismissed out of hand.


That is exactly the current tactic used by liberals against consevatives. It is necessary because liberals in this country have no new ideas to bring to the table.

It's like the current debate about socialised healthcare in the US. It seems not to be based ion is this a good idea or not, is it a fair way to do things but rather this is socialised medicine therefore bad let's not talk about it and anyone advocating it should be ignored.


I don't buy that at all.

The language used does matter, it's how we express what we think and yes meaning of words change all the time-gay used to mean happy for instance. George Orwell coined the term for it.


Agreed.



posted by tude dog



Good question but so is why is it changing. Next time you hear somebody using liberal as an insult try asking what they have against individual liberty. Odds are they won't have thought about it or really appreciate what they are saying. . In the UK it's usually wishy washy liberal-so busy seeing the other point of view they appear indecisive. In reality liberals are the most dangerous people to annoy. Live as you wish, Do what you like so long as you don't oppress others but don't mess with my liberty. politics should be about how we all live together not about who is right or wrong.


Actually, I look to see who is right or wrong, or somewhere inbetween.

Whene there is a right or wrong I have no problem calling it.

posted by red glitter



I don't really see that. I avoid the religious threads. I'm not religious so arguing about the nuances of faith is a bit pointless IMO and as to which is the right one I don't even want to go there. I'm not sure i understand what you mean about the same tone.

On then other hand I don't see why you can't talk about religion without it becoming personal. Disagreeing with someone is not insulting them it's disagreeing with them and frankly anyone who can't handle being disagreed with should steer clear of any kind of discussion forum. You either end up agreeing to disagree or change your opinion in some way

posted by tude dog



It's a free country which means you have to accept that others do not share your point of view and may indeed ridicule it. Religious freedom also means others can choose to be free of religion and not have it imposed on them. You can't stop people ridiculing your faith any more than they can stop you ridiculing you for not having any. On the other hand i would defend your right to worship what you want I just draw the line when religion tries to dictate to others just as i draw a line when atheists try to dictate as well. Neither side really knows

Tude dog I didn't know you were jewish and now I do know it doesn't make any difference.


Thank you, I never expected my religion to make any difference. I expect to be slammed for the goofy things I post:)

Only mentioned that for Red Glitter as it was her thread.

[Ted]

As a Christian pluralist I don't see why all of humanity cannot work together. Whether one is Hindu or Buddhist, atheist etc. is irrelevant in the world today. I try to respect all.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[drumbunny1]

Agnostic

[Ted]

drum:-6

Absolutely.

Shalom

Ted:-6