The Horrors of christianity

You call this a discussion? Personally, in a "discussion" I don't try to dismiss what other say to me by calling a them a "smart ass" and referring to what they say as "shit".

 

:rofl:

Nicely put.. I'd like to add some "evidence" for that mystic component.

You have 2 sides to your brain, the left side likes logic and order, whilst the right side processes the ineffable, "mystical" or creative stuff.

 

[FONT=&quot]See that is the problem, no matter what they felt or believed, they were not acting [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]accordance with the tenets of my church, Christianity. My "Church/Christianity" has no such tenets that allow for murder and persecution. Some of the tenets of my [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"Church/Christianity" are those cit[SIZE=2]ed [SIZE=2][SIZE=2]S[/SIZE]criptures that you find so hard to understand[SIZE=2]/[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]interpret[SIZE=2];[/SIZE]
Continue to love YOUR enemies
You must not murder
You must love your neighbor as yourself
All things, therefore, that YOU want men to do to YOU, YOU also must likewise do to them[/SIZE] [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

They seem rather plain simple and straight forward and not the impossible things to understand you imply they are.

Now tell me, which of these tenents of true Christianity were your so called "christians" following when they committed the horrors you have described?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]I do not say these things did not occur but your historians, like you, think that because someone calls them self a christian then they have to be a Christian. I would think at your age you would have realized that people aren't always what they say they are.

 

I don't have everyone responsible, they are responsible, just as I am responsible for my own vision. Further that we are responsible means that we do not have to settle for less.

It is unlike me? I think love is what we are.

What we do is cultivate preferences simply for the sake of admiration. It does not matter your preference just as an individual human body is insignificant to the march of the species of man. Natures philosophy is to try and try again. Try one way then another. Our own sorting out means nothing in relation to what is or what will be.

My words do not suggest. You find their arrangement to be distasteful in some way.

You say I do not elaborate in love. You say this because you find what I say to be unlovely, undeserving of love. My language on the issue of how we call our experience into being, is technical. What has love got to do with it? Your distinction has not one thing to do with love and every thing to do with the judgment of personal preference.
Self righteous moralizing.

I have said that every body dies. I have not said that every distinct consciousness dies, or has to die. It is not my understanding or perception that the thing that animates us originates in the body. The breath comes and goes.

You say I speak of the harm of the split mind rather than healing of it.
I don't speak of harm but of causes and effects.
I told you, I use words that I know from demonstration fit into dendrite formations and illicit mechanical, predictable responses. Abomination is one such word. You have your panties in a wad for that very reason.

I am whole, not rent. Love is what we are, in every instance.

You mean the love that finds what it wants like you have? What did you say, this was not loves act? What use has joy for want?

You see the symbols and interpret them in a habitual way. Finding no reason in the word god, and having your findings on good be arbitrary, you can come to no other conclusion. You cannot help yourself unless you were actually sincere in trying to appreciate. Every mis- perception may be undone except for the one that you insist on retaining, and you cannot appreciate anything that you insist has no value.

This is another concept that you do not appreciate. The whole defines the parts but the part does not, cannot, define the whole. What would reality compare itself to? You can make comparisons only because of your limited aspect.

You need not value in order to apprehend. You do not need arbitrary valuations to organize your life. I find life useful, redundantly so.

There is too much badmouthing in this thread. Most deadhead statement ever dear! You hear that resounding thunk of an echo? I hope I have enunciated to your tastes, occasionally anyway.

I think still kicking continues to ignore me.

What I have to say on still kicking's subject is much more pedestrian and easier to make out compared to how your questions take us ranging far afield.

 

You don't have to look any thing up, "opinions" are just fine with me, as long as they are internally consistent.

Since, as Jesus pointed out, there are two Christianities, one Jesus approves of and one that does not have his approval, I tend to join these conversations to point out that there is a second group of real Christians that lead meek and mild lives that you seldom hear about that nothing to do with what is be spoken about but are being smeared by being included in the catch-all phrase "Christianity".

Okay, was wondering.
I am also interested in science and religion.
I've always liked the phrase; there is more to heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.
I love science but don't always agree with the extended conclusions they come up with from the real discoveries they have made.

 

[FONT=&quot]I answered with a question, which is a valid way of answering. Doing so can do several thing at the same time. One was the answer to your question, if I never said it then I probably don't believe it and two it gives you the opportunity to show me were I said it and thus show I'm going back on what I've said.
[/FONT]

 

Thanks. You've exactly captured why I call myself a believer. For those who think science has the answers or will have, read Paul Davies, Freeman Dyson, Kenneth Miller, Arthur Eddington, or numerous other distinguished scientists who are similarly impressed with the amazing universe we live in. How did it get that way? The most plausible alternative to some kind of cosmic intelligence is the multiverse, which is equally unsupported by firm empirical evidence. We can suspend judgment pending further evidence, which is likely to arrive after the cows come home. Or we can bet based on reasonable suspicions.

Evolutionary biology provides a similar choice. Stephen Jay Gould has argued at great length that our existence is simply a fluke--that there were innumerable cases where evolution could have taken a different turn, leaving the world and (for all we know) the multiverse without conscious intelligent life forms to contemplate the wonder of it all. But here we are. Aren't we special? I think so. We could say, so what? If it weren't consciousness and intelligence it would be something else. But I find the "fluke" theory more miraculous than the God theory. Why? I'd say intuition. Others might say inherent bias in thinking we're so special. But I'm playing my hunches.

According to atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins: "We are survival machines--robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." But it's at least arguable that we're much more than that--intelligent organisms capable of learning, developing ethics and morals, caring for one another, and contemplating the nature of the cosmos. Dawkins must agree with this, since he's argued that atheism is compatible with morals and meaning in human existence. If so, reductionism is suspect, and emergence is a reasonable thing to bet on.

I find it hard to relate to the either-or dichotomies presented by Stillkicking.
First of all, I don't think of God as being a grand puppeteer of a marionette show, responsible for our every action--or at least the screw-ups. I agree with the Christian theologian Charles Hartshorne that omnipotence is a misunderstood concept that is consistent with the Deity's voluntary decision to allow not only human free will but a degree of indeterminism to the rest of nature. Why would He do this? Since I'm just a fallible human, I really can't say. Physicist Freeman Dyson thinks the universe is founded on the principle of maximum diversity: "the laws of nature and the initial conditions are such as to make the universe as interesting as possible". The downside of this is inevitable tragedy as well as beauty.

As for Christianity, I agree with OWB that not everybody who wears the Christian label is a real Christian. Stillkicking has accurately outlined the sorry history of that. But it's not the result of Jesus. How do I know? I think the Bible provides the basis for saying some meaningful things about Jesus--especially, that He preached a message of peace, love and understanding even for society's rejects. Humans who have searched for Jesus have certainly come up with differing views of what He was about. Mark portrays him as the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, Matthew as a latter day Moses and fulfillment of God's prophecies, Luke as like a compassionate Elijah, John as God's Wisdom embodied in the Logos. Subsequent scholars seeking the "historical Jesus" have other takes: Jesus the Essene, Jesus the Pharisee, Jesus the wandering sage, Jesus the Galilean peasant, Jesus the charismatic healer, Jesus the Jewish Messiah, and yes, Jesus the Savior and Son of God--all of the above, some of the above. I'd say all and more. Does the diversity of views mean that some or all of these sources are lying? I think it's more like the parable of the blind men trying to describe an elephant in terms of the particular appendage each happens to grasp: like a rope (the tail), a snake (the trunk), a tree (the legs) etc. I resolve these issues as best I can on the basis of reason, intuition, experience, judgment, lots of reading, and only after that a leap (hop?) of faith.

And why doesn't God straighten this all out? Maybe, because (S)he's just not that kind of God. Life goes on. It is what it is, operating according to natural laws. I think there's evidence of purpose behind it. Some aren't convinced. Cursing the universe for being what it is and has always been seems futile.

 

Because Still Kicking then goes on the make the illogical conclusion that therefore ;
1) God does not exist
2) If God does exist, he lied
3) God does not exist and Christians know it and use God as an excuse for atrocities.

Those are all illogical conclusions given the data being considered, unless of course you impose the limitations and special definitions that Still Kicking has insisted upon, which in themselves render the entire "debate" erroneous.

erroneous
— adj
based on or containing error; mistaken; incorrect

Now if he wanted to discuss the past atrocities of the church and question how people who profess a belief in the God of the Bible could do such things, fine.

But he made foolish conclusions that are not supported by the evidence he brought to bear.

Don't you know how to recognize bad science and research?

 

thedope:

But not also what we do? You think we have to settle. lol

No, we prefer for joy. :-D

Your words do suggest. As do you, but I don't think you suggest what your words do. I think you suggest love. Your words suggest 'god' lol

No, I said you hold us to circumstance rather than elaborate in love.

Not one thing?! lol I don't know how to moralize. But I know how to mock! Life is a greater tease than I! And love? Love has everything to do with it! :-D

Outside of the body then? LOL

Ah, first things first? But then you said before that - "first do no harm"
I don't care. Causality is boring. I know you think you're a removalist. Logs from eyes, barriers from perception, bugs from windshields, mind from matter, the list goes on, to a point. Try applying yourself not to a problem, nor a solution, but for life! In love! LOL

No. And I won't elaborate why just now. I love my thought, it doesn't have to come first where I come from. :-D

I agree entirely. When I say it is also what we do, does it present some sort of argument as to what we are for you? :-D Does simon say stop? lol

The love that finds it wants to go on finding itself. I said the massacre was not loves act. Joy has no use in asking after its desire. It wants eternity just as all things want to reach their joy.

The supposed misperception is your own. You can't even put words to it! LOL I suppose that sounds a bit rude. I'll try my politeness. God doesn't exist for me, but for you, and because of you in its conception. I don't insist upon its non-existence, as it clearly exists for you. For you to insist upon its existence for me is funny. :-D

The part can and does define the whole, in part. Definition is ongoing.
What wouldn't reality compare itself to? Is there anything else? I can make comparisons not because of my limited aspect, but that I can appreciate no limit to comparison.

Vintage thedope! It would be perfect for your headstone! lol

Queer how you call me dear. I said of this thread. I saw you complaining about it thedope! :-D

Boo fucking hoo. Would you like me to ask him if he'd consider unignoring you for you? You can pay me back by asking OWB to do the same with me. He never got back to me concerning his "fruitage" lol

But not right now. I'm going for a holiday! Love to you and yours, wish the best for you as always....

 

Meagain;

Hmmm, sounds pretty all-inclusive to me.

The use of the word "if" does not differentiate between "different christians" as you surmise. Nothing in the sentence structure or content would imply that.
The word "if" in this instance refers to whether those acts were committed in God's name or not.

One big problem is the structure of the above sentence is horrible and it's a rambling run-on sentence with misplaced and unnecessary punctuation.

and if you hadn't noticed, the above "condition" of the discussion is nothing more than Still Kicking's friggin' conclusion!!!!

 

No, I don't think we have to settle and I say this because many people feel they have no choice.

You are simply full of it my friend, hope that is.
We warm to what we conceive of as pleasant and shy from what we perceive
as unpleasant. Many do not know the difference between pain and joy.
Where do you get the idea that we prefer to joy? As the world stands, we prefer to our arbitrary good.
There has been no fundamental awakening to our joyful purpose of creating good.

I speak my mind. I suggest that the perception of good and bad is a particularly poor way to apprehend phenomena.

Listen carefully, or not.
No description, no condition, no conditioned response.
It is you that insists on condition. I am not holding anyone to anything.

You are not aware that you do moralize. Who is mocked! Love is not a doing.
Love is what we are, the magnanimous intent to be.

No. The breath is not in the body ever. Spirit embraces the body. I have watched both it's coming and going and in these redundancies are grown both time an space.

Where do you get off sister? I am here writing because I am free to do so.
Life overflows. The reason you think me misguided is that you can't help it.
You talk to me about knowledge forever being incomplete, yet you think you had formed a complete understanding in the idea that god, does not exist for you. You do so on the basis that you had perceived what god is or isn't. This is a blind spot for those who insist god does not exist. They invent one to deny.

Love inspires action, but love is not an act.

I don't say it exists for you, I say your claim makes it impossible for you to see it, even if it did.

Is this the reason that you do not know one thing, for itself?

Humm, perfection lies in my words affixed to a stone atop my head. Still you don't need arbitrary judgments to organize your life and you can't seem to imagine a mind without them.

I don't ask for your assistance. I point out the fact in addendum to your statement about parties being reinstated completely to the conversation.
I would bet that waterbrother is not ignoring you or your question.
All my moments are holy.

 

One last post! Hi PB Smith by the way! :-D


thedope:

So I'm hopeful. I get the idea we prefer joy from joy. :-D By fundamental awakening, are you speaking of a shift in our consciousness overall?

Not even yourself? You hold to life. You insist on existence. Your three monkeys chimply resist it. :-D

Doesn't ring true. There is no opposition in love being what we are and what we do. You are rent, but not permanently. lol

Doesn't ring true. You say going over coming, saying breath is never in the body. You are not so hot with words. Warm, warm to them thedope! lol

Fear not my blessed child. I don't insist god doesn't exist for me, as I don't insist it does! lol I have not conceived a god. Have more faith in your "fruitage". ;-D

Knowledge is not complete, even in itself because there is no end to knowing. You are rent, overdue, in thinking knowledge is not always perceived. :-D

Never the twain will meet in your pretty little god-driven machine state?
But it will thedope! It will! LOL

Beauty is more compelling than you know!

My claim amounts to nothing more than that I don't conceive 'god'.

That I appreciate no limit to comparison? The universe is not one thing. It is infinite. Still kicking says we don't know this. Well, I've never had to infer it, but how can we help but do so if we're at all interested? ;-D

The only thing I can't imagine a mind without is a body! lol

I've never understood the ignore function. Ever so glad to be one of your moments. lol


May kiss match to all and tall a good height!

 

Well, as I have pointed out Jesus said to "Continue to love YOUR enemies" (out group) and thus true Christians can not dehumanize the "out group" and remain Christians. (Matthew 5:44)

The problem is people can't see beyond the label. If a person calls them self a Christian and believes it etc., no matter convinced he is that he is right, if he does not conduct himself as a Christian, he is not a Christian.

Jesus pointed out that there would be two groups calling themselves Christian but only one group would he call his followers, the other group he would say he never knew them.

“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness."(Matthew 7:21-23)

 

And you gotta know how much we love to watch your fancy dancing.

 

:seeya: