To hate Jews is to hate God

by Greatest I am Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

To hate Jews is to hate God.

If you believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, then you must believe that God planned for it and set the conditions even before the earth was formed. If as most believe, the Jews were the cause of the sacrifice, then one must believe that God put the notion and desire to kill Jesus in the Jewish hearts. Jews then were God’s tools in carrying out God’s plan. Jews then should be venerated just as Jesus is because Jesus and Jews were required and caused by God to participate in the sacrifice. They were all doing God’s will and not their own.

Jesus was a Jew and to hate Jews means that Jesus is also hated. The church has historically persecuted Jews and only repented for their actions in 2011 with the pope acknowledging that not all Jews should be hated. Just those directly involved in the sacrifice of Jesus. Ignoring of course that they were charged directly by God to be and do what God wanted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jews-not-responsible-for-death-of-christ-pope-says-49267/

Why then have Christians historically hated Jews, and by inference, hate the Jew part of God/Jesus the Jew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The weird twist to this history is that the Christian right who hates Jews the most, is now the ones pushing for funding of the Jewish homeland to fulfill prophesy.

Most Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. Is the Christian right just funding Jews to help drive them to destruction at the hands of God?

Jews tend not to read the O. T. the way Christians do. Are Christian interpretations of Jewish text superior or inferior to the Jewish interpretation of their own myths?

Regards
DL

by polyglide Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:28 pm

You mean improbable like evolution and natural selection.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:33 pm

You mean improbable like evolution and natural selection.

When you have your degree in any scientific subject then you could argue this point sensibly. Anything else just makes you look silly.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:05 pm

I don’t believe that Americans fear being taken over by Mormonism. A widely varying swath of people I know voted one way or the other in November 2012 without seeming to care one way or another about what Decker, referencing Mormon doctrine, calls the Mormon Plan for America.

That’s what scares me. Many Black voters were focused on Romney’s “forty-seven percent-ism” in their opposition, while many White voters were focused on Romney’s “Christian-ism” in their support (got to the link provided by Shirina above). And Snowy, among the people with whom I regularly interact, most have at least one college (university to you) degree.

Among all these folks, only two refused to vote for Romney because of their knowledge of Mormonism. One is a retired electrical engineer, one is a musician with a degree in political science, both are White (upper case intentional), and neither voted for Obama.

My immediate fear was assuaged by Romney’s convincing defeat, and I am encouraged by signs that some Republicans “get it” and are attempting to move the Republican Party back to its roots. If you’ve looked at the electoral maps, notice the Republican pervasiveness in the immediate post-civil war era. Snowy, there were a number of freshly-minted US citizens, ex-slaves, who were elected to various offices during these Reconstruction years. All were Republicans; that was the party of Black liberation.

In my time, which is your time plus about ten years, there has been no mainstream political party of Black liberation. Prior to the infiltration of ex-Dixiecrats that remained Dixie rats in their new home, the Party of Lincoln had long ago slipped away from its nascent radicalism. Meanwhile, even after the Dixie rats got the boot, the Democratic Party never accorded Black Democrats adult status.

Why was Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm never taken seriously by post-Dixie-rat-exodus white (lower case intentional) Democrats as a presidential candidate in 1972? Why was Barbara Charline Jordan never considered at all by post-Dixie-rat-exodus white (lower case intentional) Democrats as a presidential candidate in 1976? Why did a significant portion of Oprah Winfrey’s white (lower case intentional) female “liberal” fan base “go postal”, figuratively speaking, when, during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Oprah endorsed United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. rather than Hillary Rodham Clinton, “the first legitimate female candidate”, in the words of one Oprah white female “liberal” denigrator? Click the links for Wiki articles about Ms. Chisholm and Ms. Jordan, both of whom were elected to posts as United States Representatives (“Congresswomen”) at a time that Black candidates faced difficulty getting elected to be your dogcatcher.

And lest we by chance believe that white (lci) Democrats have grown beyond this covert propensity for looking at Black folks as non-adults, the recent United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Elizabeth Rice debacle should come as an eye-opener…

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Susan_Rice%2C_official_State_Dept_photo_portrait%2C_2009.jpg

27th United States Ambassador to the United Nations

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.

… as the US Senate has sole responsibility for giving consent to US Presidents’ cabinet appointments, and the current US Senate is solidly Democrat (53 Democrats, 2 Independents, 45 Republicans). Seems that Democrats still have a hard time recognizing and supporting Black women.

Barbara Jordan 101:

Barbara Jordan on Impeachment, July 25, 1974
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CDcYiyF5eLc

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 1
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/Bg7gLIx__-k

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 2
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/2YvxjfoOJLw

Romney has already started to “fade away”, and in my mind that’s a good thing. But I do not believe that high level Temple Mormons have abandoned their quest to replace my democracy with a Salt Lake City “prophet”-and-“apostles”-directed theocracy. Will American USV voters fail to recognize the next high level Temple Mormon in “Christian” clothing that the “prophet” and “apostles” maneuver into position as a presidential candidate?

I’ve not known of a “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” candidate that (a) has sworn a blood oath to in effect eradicate the US Constitution, or (b) conducts her/his most important business in deep secrecy. I’ve been in various “church buildings” of all types and have always had full access to all proceedings therein, even when Roman Catholics take communion. Good luck as a non-Mormon, or a non-temple-pass-card-carrying-Mormon, trying to gain access to a Mormon temple.

The Sovereign State of California, home of the world’s eighth largest economy, has had at least three Catholic governors, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Roman Catholics, and George Deukmejian, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic. Neither of them during their tenures attempted to turn the reins of power over to a Pope or an Archbishop.

I’m unsure as to whether atheism is rational, given the fact that atheists assert that there is no omniscient being without being omniscient themselves. Perhaps you are referring to agnosticism, wherein those that are truly agnostic assert nothing whatsoever except “I don’t know.” That's my stance insofar as you and the rest of the world is concerned. I know, and since my knowledge is personal, accessible only to me, I cannot know for you. That’s just an aside.

The real “test”, in my mind, is whether a potential candidate has an ironclad commitment to government under God; all men gender inclusive are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (including the unalienable right to not believe in the Creator), and governments are instituted among men gender inclusive to secure these unalienable rights unto all men gender inclusive. Pat Brown, Jerry Brown, George Deukmejian, John Kennedy, and other Catholic chief executives unknown to me, used the powers entrusted to them to do just that, so I am not automatically distrustful of those whose beliefs do not mirror my on.

I remain thoroughly distrustful of high level Temple Mormons. One more item for your consideration, a letter sent to presidential candidate George Romney by a high level Temple Mormon during his bid for the Republican nomination. in 1964.

A letter that George Romney received in 1964 (when Romney was governor of Michigan) from a Mormon apostle named Delbert L. Stapley.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

by snowyflake Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:30 am

Well thank you for that Rock. I would never have thought the Osmonds were racists. They must have had kittens sitting next to the Jackson 5 at the Grammy's.

Reading the mormon website and all the gobbledy gook of Cain being the father of black people convinces me more than ever that all these myths are just stories designed to frighten the uneducated, gullible and deluded. That is their belief and who are you to say they are wrong? It's just your mythology against their mythology.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:31 pm

snowyflake wrote:
I would never have thought the Osmonds were racists.

I don’t know that the Osmond’s that we know about are racists. The dichotomy between regular Mormons, a substantial number and percentage of whom, I’ve been told, have never been allowed within a temple, and high level Temple Mormons, such as High Priest Temple Mormon Mitt Romney, who disapproved (perhaps in a pleasant, conciliatory tone of voice) Black Mormons’ temple pas cards as a matter of course, as standard operating policy, until his highness the most holy Mormon prophet decided that God had finally decided to let us nappy-headed pick-a-ninnies into heaven as something other than white folks’ eternal servants, has puzzled me for decades. On a personal level, every Mormon with whom I’ve interacted has been courteous, even though some have been vaguely distant.

by Shirina Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:13 pm

Back to your questions, I’ve not known of a “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” candidate that (a) has sworn a blood oath to in effect eradicate the US Constitution, or (b) conducts her/his most important business in deep secrecy.

See the Dominionists with which Mike Huckabee is at least loosely affiliated. They believe in a total re-write of the US Constitution to bring it in line with Old Testament law. Every now and again, you see a Dominionist break the surface into public view such as the politican from Georgia who said it should be legal to kill our own children if they disobey their parents. (See my post in my blog section concerning ridiculous things conservatives have advocated), but by and large, they conduct their affairs secretly just as the Mormons do. I bring up Mike Huckabee only because, in a nationwide poll of Republicans, Mike Huckabee scored higher than Romney, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry for who they had wanted to see nominated in 2012.

The thing that must be remembered about the Christian evangelical/fundamentalist crowd is that they are openly fascistic and yet still maintain a very threatening number of supporters both in the electorate and in public office.

Few things in American life are more chilling than this:

To hate Jews is to hate God - Page 6 Harry-potter-book-burning

To hate Jews is to hate God - Page 6 Harry-potter-book-burning

To hate Jews is to hate God - Page 6 96304_m

The top picture shows Christian evangelicals burning books. The bottom shows Nazis burning books. The only difference between them is the type of cross that each one uses as a symbol.

even when Roman Catholics take communion. Good luck as a non-Mormon, or a non-temple-pass-card-carrying-Mormon, trying to gain access to a Mormon temple.

The Catholics really aren't much better. How many secrets do you suppose are being guarded behind the walls of the Vatican? And who, exactly, votes for the Pope? Catholicism is directly responsible for the spread of HIV in Africa, they refuse to give legal prescriptions to customers in pharmacies all across America, they protect pedophiles, they aided the escape of Nazi war criminals (See "The Rat Line"), and even told American nuns that they were spending too much time on charitable good works and not enough time hating on the gays.

Religion in all of its various flavors - from Protestantism to Catholicism to Islam - is inherently fascistic, oppressive, and anti-freedom. ANY presidential candidate that is overtly religious causes red flags to appear on my radar. It is well that you brought out Mormonism as yet another religious institution to be feared, but it IS, after all, only "yet another" ... because they are ALL to be feared and mistrusted. Mormonism, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, are probably the least understood of all "mainstream" religious beliefs and exposing Mormonism for what it is definitely needs to be done. But that only means that Mormonism is taking its place next to all the rest of the religions which believe the world would be a better place if everyone bent a knee to their particular gods, laws, and beliefs.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:35 pm

If Dominionists are anti-US Constitution, then they place themselves in the same league as the Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Scammers and Scammed. I personally have no tolerance for anyone who wishes to destroy my Constitution, which I have sworn an irreversible oath to protect and defend.

I voted against Ronald Reagan twice; had I been there, between the Black man that tackled Hinckley and me, there might not have been enough of the would-be-assassin and would be Constitution destroyer for the Secret Service to have taken into custody. As it was, I came damned near to striking the TV screen trying to get my hands on that madman from across the country.

I’ll study Dominionism as I have Mormonism.

There are two types of Roman Catholics, Vatican and the rest. I’ve been “deep in the bowels” of several Roman Catholic cathedrals, pretty much unescorted, and there was nothing shielded from my non-Catholic view. I cannot and will not compare non-Vatican Roman Catholic “secrecy”, which I’ve not seen, and Mormon Temple secrecy, which to me is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt unto a moral certainty. You ought to talk to a few Los Angeles Catholics who have heard former Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahoney’s name “drug out in the open” for all to see. You’ll never see that happen with Mormonism.

Book burners are not Christians; they’re definitely book-burners, and most likely fascists. Nazis called themselves Aryans, and that’s also a lie, because there is in fact no such thing as an Aryan.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:44 pm

Dominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems with the common belief that the law of God, as codified in the Bible, should exclusively govern society, to the exclusion of secular law, a view also known as theonomy. The most prominent modern formulation of Dominion Theology is Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J. Rushdoony in the 1970s. Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that Christians alone should control civil government, conducting it according to Biblical law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism#Dominion_Theology

This is not Christian; conversely, this is contrary to Jesus’ teachings.

by snowyflake Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:00 pm

I believe, you Rock, are a Christian. But I also believe there are many Christians who think you are not based solely on their own beliefs of what the scriptures say. It's down to interpretation of what the bible says. You think you have the inside track on belief but those less educated but no less believing think they are right.

This is where 'belief' falls down and falls apart and sadly falls so short.

by polyglide Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:47 am

You have no idea what my qualifications are, however, you only have to look at those qualified in politics to see that they are of little value compared with common sense, which you are sadly lacking, the same applies to some scientists whose theories are based on speculation and supposition, I base my ideas on what I can actually see, all the animal life, the vegitation the probabilities involved and I have yet to see any other plausible explanation for them than instant creation.

I have asked for an explanation of natural selection.

Where did all the alternatives come from, from which those involved decided to select.

I have asked for a step by step explanation how the acorn evolved to produce an oak tree and examples of the seeds discarded and the resulting trees of those discarded.

There is no answer because it is nonsense.

My opinion is based on what I can actually see and prove beyond reasonable doubt, along with my steadfast belief in God.

by Shirina Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 pm

I base my ideas on what I can actually see

Really? So you're seeing gods, now, are you? I can only assume, also, that you were there when the universe was "instantly created," walked side by side with Adam and Eve, attended Methuselah's funeral, witnessed the Seven Plagues of Egypt, crossed the Red Sea with Moses and climbed Mount Sinai with him - watching as God carved out the 10 Commandments. You wandered the desert for 40 years eating mana while following a pillar of fire, you kept Jonah company inside the "big fish" for three days, watched the construction of the Tower of Babel, and inspected Solomon's work as his temple was built. You were there as Mary gave birth to Jesus. Perhaps you were one of the people renting a room at the inn, forcing Jesus to be born in a manger, eh, Polyglide? You traveled with the three wise men to give Jesus gifts of myrrh, frankincense, and gold. You witnessed Jesus walk on water, attended the Sermon on the Mount, and personally saw Jesus heal the sick with miracles. You must have been the 13th apostle just off the edge of the picture in Da Vinci's famous Last Supper painting (just where is the Holy Grail, by the way?). You were present when Judas received his silver in exchange for betraying Jesus, you were in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus almost ran away from his own destiny. You knelt before the cross on Calvary Hill as Jesus was crucified then you stood outside of his tomb and saw the door slide away, a resurrected Jesus ascending to Heaven.

If you base your ideas on what you can actually see, then I must assume you have seen all of this and more. Just how old are you, anyway? I'm betting you don't look a day over 3,000 years. At any rate, going by what can be seen, tested, verified, and reproduced is what science does - and religion is NOT science. You base your ideas on FAITH, not occular verification. If what you say is true, then looking at the Bible, all you would see is a book, not The Truth and certainly not gods.

and I have yet to see any other plausible explanation for them than instant creation.

That's why we call them blinders - take them off.

I have asked for an explanation of natural selection.

I have also told you several times that a message board is a poor place to get those answers. Science is not for the simple-minded. It takes real work to truly understand it which is why, I am more than certain, religion appeals to a lot of people as an alternative explanation. Most people here consider me to be fairly intelligent yet even I struggle with the higher echelons of science at times. I'm no Einstein or Hawking. Yet it is a struggle worth engaging in because I find science to be far more enlightening than a benighted little book that occasionally offers up a pearl of wisdom that is actually worth believing in. If you TRULY want the answers you keep asking us for, then it's high time that you begin your own struggle with science. I am not, nor have I ever been, a science teacher. Pick up a book on evolution, genetics, or the Big Bang and read it. I mean a real book on those subjects, not a creationists website or a rag written by a Christian apologist. Even if you don't come away from it doubting your own creation myths, at least you'll be able to debate the topic in an informed way. No more talk about elephants with three trunks or giraffes with three legs. Good luck.

by polyglide Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:24 pm

No, what I have seen is the complete deterioration of the human being to such a low level that we find the world in a state very similar to the time when others had turned their backs on God.

Of course you do not want to talk about facts you want to decry those who have real belief and who have no doubt about their belief, you, I know. have great doubts that things cannot have been created without intelligence being involved and then we come to from where did that intelligence emmerge and the only logical answer is from a source beyond our understanding.
It is no good going over other peoples theories, none add up to the answer.
The one answer to everything is that there must be an intelligence capable of creating from that which is available, we do not know what was originally available but we do know there must be a creator, everything is created, nothing comes about by chance, it may seemingly be by chance but there is always an explanation of how and why

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:16 pm

methought wrote:I haven't read all the comments on this thread to date - just the heading - which had me puzzled. 'To hate Jews is to hate God'. Is this an assertion that Jews are the same as God?
.

Jesus said that we are all sons of God.

Should anyone hate their brothers?

Especially if they bare innocent of wrongdoing?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:28 pm

polyglide wrote:You mean improbable like evolution and natural selection.

More like talking snakes and donkeys and a son murdering genocidal fool of a God who condemns mankind just to have to die for him. That is really dumb of your God.

Woo.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:36 pm

polyglide wrote:No, what I have seen is the complete deterioration of the human being to such a low level that we find the world in a state very similar to the time when others had turned their backs on God.

Of course you do not want to talk about facts you want to decry those who have real belief and who have no doubt about their belief, you, I know. have great doubts that things cannot have been created without intelligence being involved and then we come to from where did that intelligence emmerge and the only logical answer is from a source beyond our understanding.
It is no good going over other peoples theories, none add up to the answer.
The one answer to everything is that there must be an intelligence capable of creating from that which is available, we do not know what was originally available but we do know there must be a creator, everything is created, nothing comes about by chance, it may seemingly be by chance but there is always an explanation of how and why

Fear mongering you do as well as organized religions.
Have a look at reality.

https://www.youtube.com/v/jbkSRLYSojo

As to there having to be a creator.
Care to comment on this clip?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

by Shirina Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:47 pm

No, what I have seen is the complete deterioration of the human being to such a low level that we find the world in a state very similar to the time when others had turned their backs on God.

I'm curious to know what the world looked like when humans DIDN'T turn their backs on God. Should we bring back inquisitions, crusades, witch burnings, trials for heresy? Should we wage war against non-believers, subjugate and objectify women, and reinstitute slavery? Should we bring back cruel and unusual punishments for even petty crimes, abolish the court system, bring back lynch mobs, disband all scientific institutions, teach only the Bible in school, and scapegoat minority groups as the cause of plagues and natural disasters?

I really don't know what you think society needs to do. Oh, let me guess - everyone should become a Christian! And not just ANY Christian, but your specific version of it, the version you, yourself, subscribe to. Right? I'm a big fan of fantasy fiction, and in fantasy fiction, all sorts of evil characters worship evil gods - and I often wonder why. Why would anyone worship an evil god? Then I stop and remember that billions today worship a God that has committed far greater atrocities than any god in fantasy fiction ever has. Question answered.

I don't think I would really want to live in a world where our society is "right with God," because i shudder t think about "Man's inhumanity towards Man" that often results in such societies. Ever turn on the news? Ever see stories out of the Middle East where religion wars with itself almost non-stop? Yeah ...

by polyglide Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:23 am

As usual Shirina you lose the plot every time.

Every state that humans have suffered is as a result of their own actions, they have had choices at every stage in their lives.

Because there has been and is even now unspeakable events regarding violence and ill treatment of others along with deseases etc; does not in any way change the basis of Christianity.

None of these events would have occured had we complied with God's wishes.

You blame God for man's shortcomings instead of man.

Religious wars are as a result of false religions that do not adhere to the teaching of God.

To take just one example of the selfishness of the present human being, when you talk about society etc;

There are thousands of people in the world without clean drinking water which results in many of the diseases you refer to.

The answer would be to have wells which all the advertising for donations say cost a few pounds each to drill.

If each country sent a brigade of their army to do the work the whole lot could be done in a week.

You see Shirina you have lost the plot in a mist of your own making.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:21 pm

As usual Shirina you lose the plot every time.

Unnecessary and rude.

Every state that humans have suffered is as a result of their own actions, they have had choices at every stage in their lives.

True but don't forget all the good we have done as well.

Because there has been and is even now unspeakable events regarding violence and ill treatment of others along with deseases etc; does not in any way change the basis of Christianity.

Yeah, funny that. It always seems to be the believers killing each other off.
Atheists don't go around killing people in the name of atheism.

None of these events would have occured had we complied with God's wishes.

Had we complied with God's wishes we would still be stoning people to death, committing genocide, murdering children, selling our daughters into slavery.

You blame God for man's shortcomings instead of man.

Personally, I blame the 'belief' in God for man's shortcomings.

Religious wars are as a result of false religions that do not adhere to the teaching of God.

The Crusades were a mistake then? All the European wars between France, Britain, Spain and Italy between 1000 and 1800 A.D. were a mistake? Bloody Mary was a mistake? All of these were Christian wars. Catholics and Protestants, Lutherans and Methodists. All Christian, all fighting.

To take just one example of the selfishness of the present human being, when you talk about society etc;
There are thousands of people in the world without clean drinking water which results in many of the diseases you refer to.

I bet that the combined wealth of all the believers and their institutions in the world could get together and solve this problem in a heartbeat. But they don't get together. Instead they separate themselves because of differences in doctrine and dogma. And people are starving and without clean drinking water. Combine all the wealth of the churches, synogogues, mosques, temples, chapels and gospel halls and you have the answer to the problem but because believers are so set on their own personal belief they won't do it. What the hell would they do if they didn't have other religious faiths to fight against. If their faith is so strong, hanging out with each other while doing good work in the name of their respective gods, wouldn't do anything but good would it?

The answer would be to have wells which all the advertising for donations say cost a few pounds each to drill.

The gazillions of dollars hoarded by the various faiths would solve this problem.

If each country sent a brigade of their army to do the work the whole lot could be done in a week.

Better still, help the local people to do it for themselves....

You see Shirina you have lost the plot in a mist of your own making.

Shirina isn't the one believing in invisible superheroes who can wave a universe into existence with his magic wand, mold humans out of dirt, murder the whole world in a flood, kill children for the sin of being first born.....

Shirina isn't the one in the 'mist'.

by Shirina Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:14 pm

Religious wars are as a result of false religions that do not adhere to the teaching of God.

What you basically did here was write an entire post in defense of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

A simple rendition of the fallacy would be:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Scotsman."

Or, in your case:

Person A: "No Christian would wage wars against another religion."
Person B: "I'm a Christian and I fought in the Crusades."
Person A: "Then you're not a true Christian."

I made mention some time ago about how something you said - I believe it was about life elsewhere in the universe - would have gotten you burned at the stake for heresy. They would have seen YOU as the untrue Christian. Such is the relativism of religious belief. Everyone who does not worship as I do, pray as I do, belief as I do is not a true Christian. Therefore, it's painfully easy to look at the Crusaders, the Conquistadors, the Inquisitors, and any other group committing atrocity or waging war in the name of religion and claim they aren't really Christians.

But to an atheist? They're ALL Christians. We just understand that Christians come in different flavors, but they're still all Christians.

by Greatest I am Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:55 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SkZg1ZflpJs

We all suffer from idol worship. Even atheists.

I like this guy's sentiment but he too idol worships what he has read in scriptures, ---- while pointing out to others that they should not do so. He ignores the log in his eye and speaks of the sliver in others eyes.

He is right though that we are all fundamentally tied by our own way of thinking of God.

Regards
DL

by Shirina Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:59 am

We all suffer from idol worship. Even atheists.

Actually, I do not. In fact, I can't even fathom the idea of worship much less practice it. I simply hold NOTHING in such high regard as to regale it with worship. No, not even myself.

I think of American football and how people react when their team wins or loses. Entire cities will celebrate or go into mourning depending on the outcome of a big game. People run around cheering, jumping around, getting drunk, even rioting in some cases, all over a damn sports team that neither they or anyone they know actually plays for. The celebrants did nothing but sit there and watch, waving foam #1 fingers and painting themselves up in their team's colors like a tribal warrior. I've seen people bawl like babies if their team loses. I even saw a video of one angry fan who literally picked up and smashed a $3000 HDTV. I even look at European football (soccer) and just can't understand why riots occur - I mean real riots - over a sporting event. It boggles my mind how anyone can get so emotionally wrapped up in something they're not even really involved in.

I see that kind of strangeness elsewhere too ... such as concerts where girls just scream and scream and scream when their heart throb walks onto the stage (it's one reason why I avoid live concerts).

Now, I can be happy that my team won, I can be excited to see a good musician live in concert, and I can certainly feel a deep and lasting respect and admiration for certain individuals. But worship? That's the extreme side of admiration and I just can't go that far. I'm sure that's one of several reasons why I'm an atheist. Oh, it's not pride. I just don't FEEL it. Then again, I'm a strange puppy and I've often wondered if I've been sent here by some alien race to observe human behavior (I'm being facetious there). The reason is because I just don't seem to get out of life what so many others do, but being on the outside looking in does give me a somewhat unique perspective on why people do what they do. I suppose in that regard I certainly cannot speak for the majority of athiests - perhaps they DO worship something, but I do not. Worship is beyond me.

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:22 pm

I think of American football and how people react when their team wins or loses.

Don't knock it, Shirina. An outlet for all that torment and tumult in the Sports Arena is infinitely preferable to the classic tendency of invading a neighbouring territory.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:37 pm

Neither Mexico nor Canada has been invaded by Americans, so far as I know, in recent memory.

Spoken like a true colonial Brit to attack Americans on their foreign policy as if British foreign policy is any different. Great Britain used to be Great, it's not even Mediocre now.

Truly unbelievable. Take that bloody redwood tree out of your own eye before picking on the speck in the Americans eye.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:42 pm

I'm an atheist and I don't idol worship. There isn't anything on this planet or out in the universe that I would regard so highly that I would feel the need to worship it.

That is actually an erroneous statement. I like shoes....but I wouldn't say that I worship them and I certainly don't need brand name shoes that cost the blooming earth for a little scrap of leather.....oh but I do like pretty shoes....

I love you

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:05 pm

Shirina wrote:[The reason is because I just don't seem to get out of life what so many others do,

As usual, well put.

Good. You have chosen a real thrill and not a foolish artificial lie to live by.

but being on the outside looking in does give me a somewhat unique perspective on why people do what they do. I suppose in that regard I certainly cannot speak for the majority of athiests - perhaps they DO worship something, but I do not. Worship is beyond me.

I too do not call what I think and how I feel about it in the usual meaning of worship. But I am sure you do, sort of.
You are as fundamentally tied to your beliefs as all are. You do have a God but let's define it as your thinking pattern.

I see his monologue as transcending religious Gods or political Gods. God being defined somewhat as the rules we follow for the best life. Your thinking pattern. In that sense we all follow our version of God whatever it is. We all follow our God within.

You may not acknowledge a religious God but may acknowledge a political one. Your God from that POV might be the Democratic God or the Republican one. So to speak.

As to us all being fundamentally locked into our thinking patterns, be we atheists or believers or whatever; that should be obvious to you by simply answering two questions for yourself.

How often, as an adult, have I changed one of my held beliefs?

And.

How often have I seen a believer change his held belief?

I answer these with almost never.

So will you I think.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:13 pm

snowyflake wrote:I'm an atheist and I don't idol worship. There isn't anything on this planet or out in the universe that I would regard so highly that I would feel the need to worship it.

That is actually an erroneous statement. I like shoes....but I wouldn't say that I worship them and I certainly don't need brand name shoes that cost the blooming earth for a little scrap of leather.....oh but I do like pretty shoes....

You have to allow for semantics and the use of symbol like the word God and the definition of worship.

You are fundamental in your thinking the way we all are.

Please have a look at the reply to Shirina and answer those two questions and come on back.

You may not use the word worship and neither do I but we all give our highest regard to our thinking on theology, philosophy religion and politics.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:57 pm

How often, as an adult, have I changed one of my held beliefs?

I used to be a born again Christian in a Baptist church. I was baptised when I was 13 expecting to be visited by the Holy Spirit. When nothing happened I was thoroughly disappointed but not wanting to disappoint the pastor pretended that it happened. You see Rock and Polyglide? That was me 40 years ago. Then, I sort of slid into spiritualism because what churches and other religious institutions do, I find highly distasteful. So I believed in a soul and an afterlife but did not worship at a church or anything. Then for awhile, I was agnostic so as not to offend believers so it was ok to be agnostic because in essence you're sitting on the fence. Then, after a university education, I climbed off the fence and looked back over my lifelong beliefs and decided they were rubbish. Reality is pretty darn good. Life is wonderful and we are lucky to be alive to experience it all. So over my life, I've changed my views quite a lot.

How often have I seen a believer change his held belief?

The rise in atheism suggests that it's happening quite a lot.

As a scientist, you must be willing to change your mind in light of new evidence, otherwise, as you say, you become dogmatic and biased in your views.

But I get your point, GIA. Most people will never change their minds no matter how much reality you throw at them. For them, belief is their comfort blanket that makes death easier. I don't blame them really but it is delusional and I think it stops people from really enjoying and appreciating this life.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:01 pm

You may not use the word worship and neither do I but we all give our highest regard to our thinking on theology, philosophy religion and politics.

No I don't think I'm that vain about my own point of view. I like to hear others pov's because I'm learning something about how people think and I find it fascinating. I like the way some people are very focused in their responses, concise, precise. Some are very good writers. A good turn of phrase impresses me in the same way a lovely painting impresses me. It is an appreciation. I wouldn't call it worship or idolatry.

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:18 pm

snowyflake wrote:Neither Mexico nor Canada has been invaded by Americans, so far as I know, in recent memory.

Spoken like a true colonial Brit to attack Americans on their foreign policy as if British foreign policy is any different. Great Britain used to be Great, it's not even Mediocre now.

Truly unbelievable. Take that bloody redwood tree out of your own eye before picking on the speck in the Americans eye.

When did Football become part of American Foreign Policy, slowflake?

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:18 pm

snowyflake wrote:
How often, as an adult, have I changed one of my held beliefs?

I used to be a born again Christian in a Baptist church. I was baptised when I was 13 expecting to be visited by the Holy Spirit. When nothing happened I was thoroughly disappointed but not wanting to disappoint the pastor pretended that it happened. You see Rock and Polyglide? That was me 40 years ago. Then, I sort of slid into spiritualism because what churches and other religious institutions do, I find highly distasteful. So I believed in a soul and an afterlife but did not worship at a church or anything. Then for awhile, I was agnostic so as not to offend believers so it was ok to be agnostic because in essence you're sitting on the fence. Then, after a university education, I climbed off the fence and looked back over my lifelong beliefs and decided they were rubbish. Reality is pretty darn good. Life is wonderful and we are lucky to be alive to experience it all. So over my life, I've changed my views quite a lot.

How often have I seen a believer change his held belief?

The rise in atheism suggests that it's happening quite a lot.

As a scientist, you must be willing to change your mind in light of new evidence, otherwise, as you say, you become dogmatic and biased in your views.

But I get your point, GIA. Most people will never change their minds no matter how much reality you throw at them. For them, belief is their comfort blanket that makes death easier. I don't blame them really but it is delusional and I think it stops people from really enjoying and appreciating this life.

I agree and they also never find their true internal God.
We should all be trying to improve our internal conscience and throw away our external bibles.
Even Jesus preached writing the laws of God on our hearts.

I do not agree with your "The rise in atheism suggests that it's happening quite a lot. "

I would suggest that they, unlike you who decided to sit on the fence for your social comfort, which is ok BTW, they decided to just not lie.

I was born Catholic and went through the sacraments but I never really believed.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:21 pm

snowyflake wrote:
You may not use the word worship and neither do I but we all give our highest regard to our thinking on theology, philosophy religion and politics.

No I don't think I'm that vain about my own point of view. I like to hear others pov's because I'm learning something about how people think and I find it fascinating. I like the way some people are very focused in their responses, concise, precise. Some are very good writers. A good turn of phrase impresses me in the same way a lovely painting impresses me. It is an appreciation. I wouldn't call it worship or idolatry.

Semantics. It is all your highest regard, respect or whatever.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:22 pm

Don't knock it, Shirina. An outlet for all that torment and tumult in the Sports Arena is infinitely preferable to the classic tendency of invading a neighbouring territory

When did Football become part of American Foreign Policy, snowyflake?

You tell me, OW. You're the one slagging off America and Americans every chance you get without taking a good hard look at your own country and the mess it's in. Why don't you clean up your own yard before taking a pop at your neighbours eh? Very Happy

by snowyflake Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:28 pm

I would suggest that they, unlike you who decided to sit on the fence for your social comfort, which is ok BTW, they decided to just not lie.

Yes, well that's when I decided that atheism is probably correct since nothing in this life has convinced me of spiritual existences after death. We are actually raised to believe in God. Starting with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Children easily buy into make believe so once they are believing in Santa Claus, God is the natural next step in indoctrination.

Semantics. It is all your highest regard, respect or whatever.

No, I don't agree. There isn't anything that warrants my highest regard except my family and a few friends but that is not worship. That is love.

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:29 pm

Physician, heal thyself.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:30 pm

Physician, heal thyself

I can say the same for you, OW. Smile

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:36 pm

I am neither Jewish nor a God, slowflake. Is it perhaps time to get back on topic? What do you think?

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:37 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Don't knock it, Shirina. An outlet for all that torment and tumult in the Sports Arena is infinitely preferable to the classic tendency of invading a neighbouring territory
When did Football become part of American Foreign Policy, snowyflake?

You tell me, OW. You're the one slagging off America and Americans every chance you get without taking a good hard look at your own country and the mess it's in. Why don't you clean up your own yard before taking a pop at your neighbours eh?

He may have cause.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:40 pm

snowyflake wrote:

I would suggest that they, unlike you who decided to sit on the fence for your social comfort, which is ok BTW, they decided to just not lie.

Yes, well that's when I decided that atheism is probably correct since nothing in this life has convinced me of spiritual existences after death. We are actually raised to believe in God. Starting with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Children easily buy into make believe so once they are believing in Santa Claus, God is the natural next step in indoctrination.

Semantics. It is all your highest regard, respect or whatever.

No, I don't agree. There isn't anything that warrants my highest regard except my family and a few friends but that is not worship. That is love.

We were talking ideas and the changing of held issues. Not people.

Regards
DL

by Shirina Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:04 pm

We were talking ideas and the changing of held issues. Not people.

Yes, it does happen, but it takes time. I think people often believe that people suddenly blink a few times and instantly change their minds. That's not how it usually works. It's a slow, methodical process that can sometimes take weeks, months, or even years. The person who planted the seed of doubt may not even be present to see that seed blossom into a changed mind. This is one reason why I never find debates about religion necessarily futile. One simply never knows if something we may say here will not stick over the long term.

I've seen many people in my life change their minds over the years. I think many were never even consciously aware of having actually changed. It just ... happened. There was no active decision, no pounding the table and saying, "I declare ..." It was a painstakingly slow metamorphosis as if one neuron at a time was taking a new course. I look at my mother as a very good example - her metamorphosis was so slow that I wasn't even aware of the changes until the day she excitedly showed me the new car she was going to buy. It was a style of car completely unlike her, and it was then it hit me.

Throughout my high school years, our relationship could be strained. She was politically conservative, very insular and had no friends outside of the family, and was deeply religious. Then, many years later, it was as if I've awoken to find a different person claiming to be my mother, someone politically liberal, very social, and hovering between atheism and agnosticism. When the hell did that happen? It just creeped up on me, but now our relationship is the best it's ever been.

I have no idea what caused this gradual change. I doubt even she really knows. But something (or many somethings) caused it - a forum post, listening to different views, an internet blog, a news story, a sermon at church, political decisions in Washington. Who really knows? And now her behavior is different, even down to the kinds of cars she buys.

It really does take place. People do change, and the likely cause is other people and the influences they have whether sought or unsought. And that, in a nutshell, is why dropping a post on a forum is never a waste of time.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
oftenwrong Sun 3 March 2013 at 18:18
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p180-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#35324

… slowflake?

This is a personal attack unworthy of an adult man. Given your past immoral posts, a personal attack from you is predictable.

by Shirina Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:55 pm

Just so everyone knows ... there's a lot of SHIT going on in my life at the moment and not one single thing is good. You know what that means? It means that I don't have ANY patience for dumbass insults, snipes, and immaturity. I also have no patience with being thin skinned, either. Wow, wouldn't it be nice if BOTH sides stopped doing what they're doing. "Slowflake?" C'mon .... you're WAY better than that.

Enough said.

by Sponsored content