The New "Tolerance"
I recently read a book called The New Tolerance. I forget who the authors were. Although it is written from a Christian perspective, it really can be related to any part of society. The basic gist of the book is this - A new cultural movement is sweeping through America's schools, media, and government. Under the guise of "Tolerance", it is changing the way people think about everything. It is so prevalent, that many people don't even realize that it exists.
It is basically a changing of the definition of tolerance, in which it changes from a respecting of anothers opinions, to being forced to wholeheartedly agree with everything everyone says, or risk being labeled "intolerant" which can put one at a wide range of disadvantages, especially being considered liable in court (anyone notice a lot of people suing because they were "offended"?). As a result, any declaration of absolute moral values, absolute ANYTHING is treated surprising intolerantly. Any comments, observations etc.?
Like any philosophy, it gets silly when taken to extremes. So it even applies to itself.
As a result, any declaration of absolute moral values, absolute ANYTHING is treated surprising intolerantly.
How are you supposed to respond to someone whose sole argument against your position is "my moral code says so, and you must live by my code"?
Like any philosophy, it gets silly when taken to extremes. So it even applies to itself.
How are you supposed to respond to someone whose sole argument against your position is "my moral code says so, and you must live by my code"?
My general response is to end the conversation ASAP, discount their opinion, lose respect for them and avoid them in the future. You will get nowhere.
Any comments, observations etc.?
My observation is that it's the new "intelligent design".
Christianity (and let's not kid ourselves about "applicable anywhere", that's what we're talking about here) used to enjoy a free ride as the unofficial official religion in the US through the 1950s and 1960s...and that's no longer true.
There's a big difference between "being persecuted" and losing the leverage of being the default religion in the culture.
...treading lightly because I'm new.....
Every day I find myself being asked to "tolerate" things that go against my upbringing and life experiences. Some I can, some I can't, some I won't.
Adversity does not build character it reveals it.
Corporate speak calls it "embracing cultural diversity". I'm instructed to "celebrate diversity", every day.
If they hire a cannibal, I'm not allowed to say I don't approve of cannibalism.
Of course, I don't care what Mama don't allow, so I'm in trouble anyhow.:rolleyes:
Every day I find myself being asked to "tolerate" things that go against my upbringing and life experiences. Some I can, some I can't, some I won't.
When you put "tolerate" in quotes, what do you mean?
Ew, I unfortunately have to agree that this is happening. I think of myself as pretty damn tolerant, but there are some things I will never, ever agree with. Does it make me 'intolerant' to not agree with white supremacists? Most people would say no. Does it make me intolerant to not agree with arch-republican grandmothers who are against just about everything I believe in? Some would say yes. Does it make me intolerant to go beat up that grandmother for her views? Absolutely. But to disagree with or be opposed to her opinions, and still not actually do anything about it, that is the essence of what tolerance is, living with what you don't agree with.
What is funny is how it is ok to intolerant of some things. You mention white supremacists.
I am fine with them. They have a right to feel the way they do and utilize their freedom of speech.
On another board I called a young man a tyrant for wanting to enact laws against white supremacy and I spoke out against the laws in Europe that suppress certain political parties from having rallies or from white groups from having concerts. They have become Fascists to try to avoid Nazis, it is hilarious!
Half the board jumped on me. I found it funny... then quoted several Holocaust survivors from a tour I saw twice (once in Central Florida and once at FSU with different survivors)... "the first sign of this plague (Nazis/Fascism) will be the removal of freedoms... to divide us".
The new "tolerance" is selective... it is about what is cute and cuddly, what feels good.
TJ said it very clearly, freedom of speech is the freedom to hear unpleasant speech. Every time I am offended and think "OMG that is WRONG" part of me feels good, it means America is still a little healthy, still with us... for now.
What is sad is how seldom that happens.
True all. it takes it to EXTREME EXTREMES in the book, but if you filter that out, it can still be an enlightening read. It's tone (THIS COULD BE YOU!!!) could use some work hovever.
Which really is kind of what I said at the end there... Tolerance really is living with and accepting, however grudgingly, what you don't agree with.
On a bit of a side note: What gets me is that, even though Asia is much more conservative in general than the US, people are more tolerant, though less accepting. In the States there's very little middle-of-the-road left, most everyone is either liberal or conservative, with a lot of people polarizing to radical levels. Most issues (abortion, gay rights, intelligent design, etc) are very love-'em-or-hate-'em issues, with few people saying "Yeah, okay, there are gay people, great for them, if I'm not gay it's not really my business" or whatever. It's all very accept-lovingly-or-reject-completely. Asians, on the whole, are very good about tolerating things they disagree with.
Does it make me 'intolerant' to not agree with white supremacists?
Believe it or not, there is a suprising increase in students who are actually
attempting to avoid saying that the Nazis were morally wrong! Especially on the college levels, if the subject is brought up you will hear comments like "Of course I don't like what they did, but who is to say that they were morally wrong?" it's a little scary.
See... that is not tolerance. What are you tolerating if you don't have an opinion, a mind, at all?
Tolerance if a verb... those morons are not doing anything at all.
"Tolerance" in its current P.C. incarnation is a disease. It's a blanket term that essentially means "you have to like everything religious people are against, because religious people are evil and want to take away your fun." It has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of the word.
By the dictionary definition of "tolerance," I'm the epitome of the word. I don't try to force anything on anyone. However, because I hold certain beliefs, I am branded "intolerant", regardless of what I actually do.
It's okay, the pendulum will swing back again. I will be an old man when it happens though. I wish I had paid more attention when I was a kid. I didn't realize I was witnessing the end of common sense in the world. Maybe my grandkids' generation will revitalize it. We have to wait for the current middle-aged vapor-brains to die off though. Maybe the stress of trying to organize antiwar rallies, topple the tobacco industry, stuff envelopes for the Rainbow Coalition, and get all the Kwaanza shopping on time done will speed things along.
By the dictionary definition of "tolerance," I'm the epitome of the word. I don't try to force anything on anyone. However, because I hold certain beliefs, I am branded "intolerant", regardless of what I actually do.
Unfortunately, you are getting blowback from the people who actually
do do things. Take gay marriage, for example. The only people it could possibly affect are the people it will help, but huge swaths of people rise up and scream that it should be illegal. It was part of the Republican
campaign strategy to get people to think that gay marriage would somehow affect them. My view of tolerance would be: If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. People who complain that they are being persecuted because gays can marry in Massachusetts are being extremely disingenuous.
It was part of the Republican campaign strategy to get people to think that gay marriage would somehow affect them. My view of tolerance would be: If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. People who complain that they are being persecuted because gays can marry in Massachusetts are being extremely disingenuous.
Republican-bashing... Can't this go any other way? That's a cheap shot. Personally, I don't think gay marraige has any
immediate effect on me. But allowing it would definitely make legislators more ... bold. You know, something like:
"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."
Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.
"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."
My 16 year-old son thinks legalizing gay marriage will pave the way for people to marry their cars.
He's a Republican. :blush:
Republican-bashing... Can't this go any other way? That's a cheap shot. Personally, I don't think gay marraige has any immediate effect on me. But allowing it would definitely make legislators more ... bold. You know, something like:
"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."
Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.
No, I did not get your point.
Gay marriage is about two people who are in love, not about anyone else or
anything else. Fighting it was just selfish and mean spirited, nothing else,
at all.
It had nothing to do with partisan politics, it had to do with bigotry.
No, I did not get your point.
Gay marriage is about two people who are in love, not about anyone else or anything else. Fighting it was just selfish and mean spirited, nothing else, at all.
It had nothing to do with partisan politics, it had to do with bigotry.
I may sound biased. Hell, I probably am. But the USA was based in Christian values. I think that if you try to take them away, everything else falls apart. Like I said before, I'm not Christian. But it was a foundation that worked, and I think that if you try to rip it out and replace it, we're going down.
If you live together for seven years (at least in Pennsylvania) you're married. You can just live together if you're gay. I don't know anything about what it's like to be in a gay relationship, and I don't pretend to. But I think that that's enough. We can't please everyone, after all.
Incorrect... the US is based on the separation of Chuch and state.
Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; -Benjamin Franklin
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
John Adams April 27,1797
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison fourth president and father of the Constitution
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
The words "one nation under God" were not added to the Pledge of allegiance until 1953
None of the 85 Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution reference God, the Bible, religion or Christianity.
The words "in God we trust were not consistently added to all money until the 1950s after the McCarthy Era
James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly
Jesus even said it:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." -Thomas Paine
Also, in the Middle Ages the Church performed same sex marriage.
No where in the bible is homosexuality a sin. So, what is the issue. If it is no worse than wearing a cotton/poly shirt (which I am sure many wear on their wedding day), another abomination, what is the problem?
Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.
No. When you're making a slippery slope argument, the different items should be on the same slope. Do you seriously think that religious tradition is the only reason we don't kill off old people? Things that were once taboo should be legalized if the taboo isn't based on something real.
I may sound biased. Hell, I probably am. But the USA was based in Christian values. I think that if you try to take them away, everything else falls apart.
Please tell me how many of the Ten Commandments have equivalent US laws. Please tell me how many Levitican laws have equivalent US laws. Please tell me how many of Jesus' outright orders are enforced by US law. And then please tell me what precisely you mean by "the USA was based in Christian values".
Republican-bashing... Can't this go any other way? That's a cheap shot. Personally, I don't think gay marraige has any immediate effect on me. But allowing it would definitely make legislators more ... bold. You know, something like:
"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."
Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.
And on the converse, there were people who thought the world would come to an end when they had to sit at the same lunch counter with people who had different color skin.
Was this a symbol of liberalism? Yes. Was it wrong? No.
You also seem to confuse the giving of rights with the taking of rights (in this case the right of someone over 60 to live).
I grew up studying WWII Germany, and the one thing I believe I have come to understand is that noone loses by giving people more freedom. It is only when we try to carve out exceptions for one group or another and say that they are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms that we risk the rights that have been given to us. We are all minorities, subject to the tyranny of the majority. Only there is no true majority, only a host of minorities who can be banded together in fear or hatred to deny other groups their rights.
We can call it security, tradition, God's will, or just the 'right way', but in the end we really cannot come up with any reason beyond that it makes us 'uncomfortable'.
:rant:
Sorry about the rant. "My Own Native Land" and "I Wanna Love You Forever" were playing on my MP3 player, and there is nothing more dangerous than listening to emotional ballads when writing about politics. I am, however, serious about the point. The Bible teaches us to 'cast our bread upon the waters'. The same holds true of our freedoms.
UG thinks I disagree with the idea of America sharing it's concept of democracy with the world. In reality, I only believe that America cannot force it's concept of democracy on people who are unwilling to reach for it themselves or share it with their fellow citizens.
We have a group of people who want to realize the dream of having their union recognized and be treated with the same dignity as other citizens.
We have other groups who feel that by granting this, what they have will somehow be diluted, as if freedom is a zero sum game where ones freedom can only be measured by what someone else doesn't have.
I have seen some people on this board (UG) measure the strength of an argument by taking the most extreme people who believe in a position and hold them up as an example. So I will now perform the amazing first-time-on-the-Cellar double straw man manuever.
If you had to choose between Fred Phelps and Rosie O'Donnell, whose hand would you rather walk up and shake?
If you had to choose between Fred Phelps and Rosie O'Donnell, whose hand would you rather walk up and shake?
Rosie's a gun-grabber. But Phelps is an asshole. Rosie wouldn't let me keep my guns to defend myself from Phelps...it's a no-win.
Rosie's a gun-grabber. But Phelps is an asshole. Rosie wouldn't let me keep my guns to defend myself from Phelps...it's a no-win.
You need a gun to defend yourself from that creep?! Sheesh, I could fend him off with a penknife and a rubber band.
I have come to understand is that noone loses by giving people more freedom. It is only when we try to carve out exceptions for one group or another and say that they are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms that we risk the rights that have been given to us. We are all minorities, subject to the tyranny of the majority. Only there is no true majority, only a host of minorities who can be banded together in fear or hatred to deny other groups their rights.
This is some good stuff.
You need a gun to defend yourself from that creep?! Sheesh, I could fend him off with a penknife and a rubber band.
No, but it saves time and effort. He has
never shown up at a demonstration he's scheduled when it was announced that there would be counterdemonstrators from the Pink Pistols.
Actualy it's not Phelps personally that's a genuine threat, but the people who listen to him and either take him seriously or use him as an excuse for their own behavior...including his extended family.
By the way, I strenuously resist the "do you
need a weapon to defend yourself" question...it's used by gun-grabbers to get you on to a slippery slope; "well, you haven't proven you really
need a weapon so we're going to balance your needs against society's need to make sure only criminals are armed, etc....". It's a right, and I refuse to be required to prove I "have a need" to exercise my rights.
That was beautiful. *snif*
But the USA was based in Christian values.
I disagree with this and agree that the US was based on the separation of Church and State.
But..for the sake of arguement, lets say you are correct. Then on WHOSE Christian values was the USA based?
The fundamentalists?
The gay Christians?
The Christians who believe that abortion is NOT a sin?
The Seventh Day Adventists?
The Baptists?
The Methodists?
The Catholics?
The Creationists?
The Evolutionists?
Your beliefs?
Mine?
WHO has the 'correct' beliefs that, without which, this nation will fall apart?
[SIZE="1"][now that sentence truly butchers all rules of grammar..lol][/SIZE]
But I think you get my point. Our foundation is NOT about a certain set of religious beliefs. However, everything we do that removes a piece of another human being's right to "the pursuit of happiness" does chip away at our foundation.
Stormie
I have, somewhere, statements that our founding fathers based the structure of the US on ancient Babylonian, Greek and Native American Governments, Philosophies and Ideals as much as & among anything else... I hope to find it soon and share it.
The Babylonian document is facinating... I studied it in Humanities in college, I just can't remember the name.
Ironically, the Ten Commandments are not mentioned at all.
Tolerance. To "tolerate" something means that you can still despise it, if I remember my English properly.
I don't think that's what the "tolerance" advocates really have in mind.
I'm all for tolerence, just so long as I'm not forced to tolerate abject stupidity.
Ditto for that false diversity crap.
It is basically a changing of the definition of tolerance, in which it changes from a respecting of anothers opinions, to being forced to wholeheartedly agree with everything everyone says, or risk being labeled "intolerant"
This sounds eerily similar to how one cannot discuss any issues which resonate with a specific racial group or groups without being labelled racist.
Actually, most of the stupid stuff associated with racisim is a result of the idea of "bad words", like the DC guy fired for saying "niggardly", or Tony Snow's "tar baby" thing. I don't recall much stuff that was actually issue related.
This reminds me of the new definitions of "persecution" or "oppression" as relates to how Christians are whining about being the victims of a "Culture War" - a "War" which actually consists solely of other people trying to defend themselves from having Christianity crammed down their throats. So, yes, it is a "War" - but the Christians are the agressors, as usual, not the other way around.
Focusing on race/religion/etc keeps us from addressing the real issues. We have problems with the real issues.
How can Christians be the aggressors when society is becoming less religious as a whole, and the standards that Christianity represents are disappearing from public life almost as fast as you can name them? Who's defending what?
the standards that Christianity represents
Claims to represent, or actually represents?
Who's defending what?
Good question.
Christians don't "own" the "good guys" position on everything.
Tolerance. To "tolerate" something means that you can still despise it, if I remember my English properly.
Exactly. But what do you then do with that despite? To go back to gay marriage, there is no reason to ban it
except despising gays, so people who work for that ban are acting on that despite, and are therefore moving into intolerance.
Christianity represents good values. There are some who call themselves Christians who don't display the attributes that back up their claim. They ruin it for everyone else.
Christians don't own any position -- we're just normal people. God owns the good guy's position on everything. That doesn't have anything to do with the government. Government can't make someone righteous by enacting laws. Likewise, having a manger scene in the town square does not interfere with your right to do whatever you want. There is no freedom from religion. There's only freedom from having the government tell you what you must worship. In fact, the government can even follow religious precepts, as long as they're not preventing you from worshiping or not as you choose. For example, if you don't want to put your hand on a bible in court, you no longer have to. That doesn't mean that there can't be a bible in the courtroom. Grow up. (not you, flint, i'm just venting)
There's no ban on gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would require a restating of the law to newly include same sex unions, in most cases. Not being willing to add protection to the law is not the same as removing protection from the law.
That said, marry your toaster oven, for all I care.
For example, if you don't want to put your hand on a bible in court, you no longer have to.
But, at one time,
you did have to, and
that's what we are moving away from, as a society. That is not an
attack on Christianity, it's just a suggestion that Christianity "mind it's own business" - a
huge difference.
That said, marry your toaster oven, for all I care.
Are you familiar with Zappa's Church Of Appliantology (from Joe's Garage)?
How can Christians be the aggressors when society is becoming less religious as a whole, and the standards that Christianity represents are disappearing from public life almost as fast as you can name them?
Agressors don't always win. ;)
There's no ban on gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would require a restating of the law to newly include same sex unions, in most cases. Not being willing to add protection to the law is not the same as removing protection from the law.
I disagree, except in the most semantic of interpretations, but even in that case anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments belie that point. Not to mention the related issue of explicitly banning adoption by gays.
That said, marry your toaster oven, for all I care.
Well, toasters can't consent, but minus the hyperbole - exactly.
Likewise, having a manger scene in the town square does not interfere with your right to do whatever you want.
...
For example, if you don't want to put your hand on a bible in court, you no longer have to. That doesn't mean that there can't be a bible in the courtroom. Grow up. (not you, flint, i'm just venting)
Also,
not having a manger scene on government property, and
not having a Bible in the courtroom don't interfere in anyone's worship.
Correct. The problem isn't "OMG they're taking bibles out of courtrooms, how will we know if anyone's telling the truth now?!" The problem is, "Why are they after the bible all of a sudden?"
And that question can be boiled down to "we've had special treatment for so long, why can't we keep it?"
Incorrect... the US is based on the separation of Chuch and state.
Not really, the Constitution was written with that idea in mind and you can call it the "basis" of the US.
In reality, though, from the 1776 kick off until a third of the way through the 20th century the federal government wasn't running the show.
Politics was local and the state politicians and even those sent to Washington, answered to the power base back home. Today the power and the money, or because of the money, flow down from the federal level.
Anyway, back in the day, the local politicians were predominately Christian, as were their constituents is most areas. Their thinking, their actions and their rules were based on Christian precepts. Helps keep the locals comfortable .....and in line.
I'm not saying these people in power were good Christians, only that they used it to rally support and control the population. If you question their power they'd beat you down as a heretic.
So you see, this country actually was, built on Christian principles, although they were often distorted beyond recognition. ;)
I guess that is why two governors were threatened with removal from office during the first years of the US for keeping prayer at the beginning of federal court?
:thepain: I don't think so Bruce.
I thought the founding fathers were against one dominate religion controlling the country. People were given the freedom to worship how they will.I don't know of anyother time in american history, besides today and the puritain times where the US governments used fear of the wrath of god to keep people in line.
I don't know though. I only know what I think and don't have any facts to prove otherwise. ( at this moment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_stateFounded by religious leaders...
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
[url]http://candst.tripod.com/toc.htm[/url
http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/jefferson_quotes.pdf?docID=761
When you put "tolerate" in quotes, what do you mean?
Apologies for taking long to reply.
When I put "tolerate" as far as I tolerate things I mean that I am a woman working in construction. I take care of 2 disabled people and I am the sole support. I would prefer to work all day and not have someone hand a Playboy magazine across a backhoe to another and say something raw, I would prefer not to hear F this or F that or worse expletives (every other word as a form of communication), but I work in that environment so I tolerate it or walk away. I'm not there to judge, I just would prefer to not be around certain things each day. Also since I'm a woman I'm given a lot of jobs that the younger and newer men refuse to do. I also tolerate that. It's a paycheck, nothing more.
As far as tolerating things pertaining to my religion as I belive this post implies? I feel there is a time and place for everything. Work is for work, but that doesn't mean I have to leave my principals at the door. I can take them with me, I'm just not going to impune anyone with my beliefs. If I don't like what's going on? I can leave, tolerate it or say my peace and look for work elsewhere. For now? I'm staying put, it's not intolerable.
Does that 'splain it to you? :)
Apologies for taking long to reply.
When I put "tolerate" as far as I tolerate things I mean that I am a woman working in construction. I take care of 2 disabled people and I am the sole support. I would prefer to work all day and not have someone hand a Playboy magazine across a backhoe to another and say something raw, I would prefer not to hear F this or F that or worse expletives (every other word as a form of communication), but I work in that environment so I tolerate it or walk away. I'm not there to judge, I just would prefer to not be around certain things each day. Also since I'm a woman I'm given a lot of jobs that the younger and newer men refuse to do. I also tolerate that. It's a paycheck, nothing more.
As far as tolerating things pertaining to my religion as I belive this post implies? I feel there is a time and place for everything. Work is for work, but that doesn't mean I have to leave my principals at the door. I can take them with me, I'm just not going to impune anyone with my beliefs. If I don't like what's going on? I can leave, tolerate it or say my peace and look for work elsewhere. For now? I'm staying put, it's not intolerable.
Does that 'splain it to you? :)
That is called a hostile work environment and is not EEOC compliant.
They need someone to 'splain that to them.
"we've had special treatment for so long, why can't we keep it?"
Exactly! Removing preferential treatment from common use, no matter how ingrained, does not constitue an "attack" against the affected parties. Actually all they are being expected to do is to maintain their composure and get along with everybody, on a level playing field. If anyone has a problem with that, then
they are the problem.
Want to quit being "persecuted" by non-Christians? Then
stop trying to write
your book into laws that people will have to follow - regardless of whether they read your book or not. Simple. The "war" will be over when Christianity gets off of the warpath.
If your philosophy can't survive and thrive on it's own, without bullying it's way into a special "good 'ol boys club" status, then maybe, perhaps, there's a reason for that, a reason that can't be so easily
blamed on outside forces?
Removing preferential treatment from common use, no matter how ingrained, does not constitue an "attack" against the affected parties.
We need you to go explain that the the Iraqi Sunnis. :-)
If it's something that was a fundamental part of the founding of the country, it can hardly be considered some evil "extra" appendage that we can now, blessedly, be rid of.
You talk like this is a matter of finally putting those wacky xtians in their place. It's not. It's a matter of trying to preserve the things that presumably made this country a good place to come to from 1776 till the Iraq war.
Christians are outnumbered now, and that's just the way it is. However, one of the good things about the so-called browning of America is that Mexicans are by and large Christian. What a conundrum for the libs -- penis envy for secular Europe clashing with their infatuation for any culture that has dark skinned people in it.
it can hardly be considered some evil "extra" appendage that we can now, blessedly, be rid of
This is the same deceptive phrasing of the issue that I've been talking about. Expecting you to be able to get along nicely with others, without forcing your beliefs on unwilling people, does not, under any circumstances, equate to "getting rid of you" . . .
Just mind your own business and leave everybody else alone. Simple.
There is no "National Religion" - no matter how much spin you apply.
Exactly, but that's not the same as there not being any religious expression allowed.
It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse. They're not worried that anyone is going to force religion down their throats. They want people to have to hide their Christianity unless they're within the walls of a church. Once that happens, can the persecution that you so snidely dismiss be far behind?
It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse.
Would you care to identify this group of "antichristians"? I've never heard of them, nor of their plans.
Exactly, but that's not the same as there not being any religious expression allowed.
Allowed in what context?
It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse.
Could you give your definition of "public discourse"? Is it something other than "official government functions"?
Could you give your definition of "public discourse"?
Excellent point...there's a huge space between "I'm not allowed to mention my religion in public" and using public resources to promote a religion. Unfortunately that huge space includes a slippery slope...and a slope that spans a huge space is by necessity shallow and thus difficult to see.
God owns the good guy's position on everything.
*Which* God? Jehovah? If so, then to whom or what do we attribute *my* goodness? I'm not a follower of Jehovah/Jesus/Casper the Holy Ghost.
People *choose* which way to be. The reasons for their choices are immaterial. If one wishes to attribute goodness to God or badness to Satan, great, but you own those choices, and have no right to foist them on others.
When I'm good, I'm good. When I'm bad, I'm bad, with only myself to thank or blame. Either way, I'm not telling someone else how to live as long they aren't hurting others.
And it harm none, do as ye will...do unto others as you would have them do unto you...what goes around comes around...
Do I need to go on?
It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse. They're not worried that anyone is going to force religion down their throats. They want people to have to hide their Christianity unless they're within the walls of a church. Once that happens, can the persecution that you so snidely dismiss be far behind?
So you just ignore whatever anybody says and launch into a pre-packaged talking point? If I disagree with you about what
my intentions are then you can call me a
liar, because you're, what, a
mind-reader?! Don't put words in
my mouth, don't force
your religion upon me if
I don't want it, and
don't try to re-write history, establishing
your religion as a National Religion that
I have to comply with. Believe whatever
you want to believe and leave
me alone. Period.
I know, I understand that your religion is inherently expansionist, but, sorry, if you expand into
my life, then you can fuck off.
I don't read your book! Leave me out of it!
I'm sorry, I can't be "nice" about this. I
want to have a civil conversation, but I can't sit back and let you try to protray the
agressors as the
persecuted. I don't buy it.
The "good ol' boys club" is coming to an end. Deal with it.
You don't get special treatment. The "good ol' boys club" is coming to an end. Deal with it.
Hence, their paranoia and accusations of a ban on religion(s) despite no evidence to support them. Can you blame them for being so frightened by it? The self-confirmation they've received from the state for so long might actually, someday, go away and view everyone as equals regardless of their religion. No person would feel recognized or supported more than any other based upon what or where they worship. Walking into a court room and knowing that laws, not religion, form the basis of judgement could prove an uneasy experience for those who are used to seeing people swearing on a bible or those that had the hopes of the ten commandments hanging above the judge. Paying with cash that lacks an advertisement for Christianity might feel a bit strange, too. Think that snack machine will take new, heathen money?
Yep, having to rely on faith, alone, sure would be difficult after all these years of government backing. I'd probably panic, too. But, for now, god and government still hold hands under the covers when no one is looking.
Someday, people might realize that a theocracy holds nations back instead of giving them the supposed advantage of godly recognition. You'd think world events, today, might at least drop a hint.
But....secular humanism represents good values, too! : )
secular humanism
...like Zappa's Church of American Secular Humanism? (C.A.S.H.)
I often wonder if I should have been a Christian. After all, never having to take responsbility for one's actions is a pretty cool thing, right?
"I screwed up. I'm sorry, Jesus." Bing! All better! Go to Heaven, do not pass Hell, collect a golden harp.
I'm sorry...it makes *no* sense, and has probably caused more ills than any other single cause/institution.
I don't understand what the anger's about. There's no good old boys club. When you tell people that they can't talk about God except in the places that YOU think we should talk in, you can expect resistance. You people sound like the old Soviet guard: "This guy is religious. He's dangerous to society. We can't let his fairy tales come into contact with our pure secular way of thinking." Get a grip. Faith is part of the human condition, and atheist societies fail every time.
No one can make you pray if you don't want to. No one can set up a state religion under our constitution. But if you think that the instant someone enters government service, they must keep their faith a secret or share every secular view you do, you're nuts. No matter how many bold italics you use, you can never convince me that you're for anything less than the abolition of Christianity outside of private residences and churches.
Is that the wacko notion it appears to be? I guess you'll have to judge for yourself. But I can't come up with a single court decision or local public drama that hasn't ended with the non-Christian side winning. Kids can't have prayer groups in school. Crosses have to be removed from roadside memorials. If you share your faith, you're treading dangerously close to harassment charges -- almost like you're mentally raping someone for introducing to them the idea that there might be an ultimate truth in the universe. Religious figures are, in 99% of movies, TV shows, and other entertainment, objects of mockery. That is, unless they represent a religion other than Christianity. I'm not sure where you feel this horriby invasive religious interference is coming from.
Yet, if you look crossways at someone and they happen to be gay, you're open to lawsuits and worse. If you put a manger scene in front of your business, the ACLU will be there, trying to find a way to make you take it down.
Don't waste your breath telling me that Christianity is infringing on your rights. You're full of shit.
Elspode, that's nothing close to what Christianity's about, any more than paganism is about worshiping Satan.
No matter how many bold italics you use, you can never convince me that you're for anything less than the abolition of Christianity outside of private residences and churches.
Wow. So . . . you
are a mind-reader?! Am I understanding this correctly?! Did you, or did you not, just say that no matter how much I try to explain my point-of-view, you will continue to totally ignore everything I say, and continue to believe that you know more about
my own thoughts than
I myself do?!
Is that the wacko notion it appears to be?
You tell me, man. That's the craziest fucking thing I've ever heard.
I can't come up with a single court decision or local public drama that hasn't ended with the non-Christian side winning.
Google: "all of recorded history from the dawn of time up until now" and you might get a few pro-religious hits. So, the thing is, you don't believe in
balance - you want
your side to continue to be the overbearingly dominant force, and we should all just roll over and go along with that? Hey, did I mention before: fuck you! (If that's what you believe)
Don't waste your breath telling me that Christianity is infringing on your rights.
Guess what:
I never said that! What words will you put in my mouth next?
You're right...it is a gross oversimplification on my part. However, last time I checked, no Jesus, no Heaven, right? And last time I checked, Christians are *required* to spread the word of Jesus so that everyone will have a chance to be saved, yes? That's why you get so many more Christians knocking on your door on Saturday morning than you do Pagans.
Accepting Jesus is often described as "giving yourself over to Jesus", or "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior". What if you don't think you really need one, because you are responsible for your own actions? What are my sins? Whatever they are, when I've identified them, I've tried to atone, on my terms, between myself and the offended party(ies).
I own my actions, my sins, my good deeds. So why am I then given this supposed "free will", when my only possible choices are to accept Jesus or reject him? According to everything I've ever read or experienced, I could be an absolute *saint* of a man my entire life, but if I didn't buy Jesus/Jehovah, I'm a lost soul.
Stacked deck, if you ask me. Doesn't really jive with field observations. :)
I love the teachings of Jesus. I live by them.
I just don't think Christianity has anything to do with them.
But if you think that the instant someone enters government service, they must keep their faith a secret or share every secular view you do, you're nuts.
Who is the last politician who kept his faith a secret?
No matter how many bold italics you use, you can never convince me that you're for anything less than the abolition of Christianity outside of private residences and churches.
So we can divide the entire world into three buckets:
A) Official government functions
B) Private residences
C) Churches
And if Christians can no longer have preferential treatment in A, they will only be able to practice in B and C?
If you put a manger scene in front of your business, the ACLU will be there, trying to find a way to make you take it down.
Your business? I doubt it. Consumers maybe (just as Christian consumers complain about "Happy Holidays"), but not the ACLU. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.
When you tell people that they can't talk about God except in the places that YOU think we should talk in, you can expect resistance.
I've yet to find any discussion suggesting prayer, worship, or anything related to someone's private religious practices should be limited. If you cite something, I'm sure we'd all like to discuss it.
Kids can't have prayer groups in school.
Untrue. Children can organize whatever prayer group they like. They still have a weekly prayer group at my high school that has run uninterrupted or unchallenged since I was attending. Schools sponsoring their own prayer groups, however...
Crosses have to be removed from roadside memorials.
Because leaving items alongside the road on federal property is consider littering and
some of them are growing large enough to become a danger to drivers if they hit them...? Who knew that constructing something alongside the road without permission might be illegal?
If you share your faith, you're treading dangerously close to harassment charges -- almost like you're mentally raping someone for introducing to them the idea that there might be an ultimate truth in the universe.
Nonsense. Stop being afraid. There are no laws against verbal discussion unless you threaten someone with physical violence, nor have there been any court cases that ruled against anyone other than the government for "pushing" a religion on someone.
Religious figures are, in 99% of movies, TV shows, and other entertainment, objects of mockery. That is, unless they represent a religion other than Christianity.
There might be a reason for that.
Yet, if you look crossways at someone and they happen to be gay, you're open to lawsuits and worse. If you put a manger scene in front of your business, the ACLU will be there, trying to find a way to make you take it down.
Find the articles. Show us. I've never heard of anyone being asking to remove a religious display from their private property unless it was in violation of an HOA agreement they ackowledged when they moved into the neighborhood.
Don't waste your breath telling me that Christianity is infringing on your rights. You're full of shit.
Good to see you're right on something.
However, last time I checked, no Jesus, no Heaven, right?
Aw, crap! I thought it was "
know Jesus,
know heaven"!
I love the teachings of Jesus. I live by them.
I just don't think Christianity has anything to do with them.
My poor in-laws get so confuses by "I'm a follower of Christ but not a christian".
Since when are kids not allowed to have prayer groups in school?
It can't be a requirement, but they can organize all the prayer groups they like.
The crazy McCarthy God rhetoric just needs to get off of our Money and the pledge and out of all government functions and land... other than that, individuals are free to worship per the 1st amendment.
I love the teachings of Jesus. I live by them.
I just don't think Christianity has anything to do with them.
I'm with you Flint. Except I use the phrase - "Organized Christianity", meaning churches that interpret and decide which parts they'll abide by and which ones they'll discard. Then add in a little personal agenda (and every church has an agenda of some sort or they'd all be one big happy Christian family).
Stormie
Religion is the politics of faith, nothing more.
I use the phrase - "Organized Christianity"
The word Chistianity itself works just fine, for me. I don't think there is any distinction to be made. If you conciously decide to call yourself a Christian then that means only one thing: you subscribe to that institution.
Some might say that some Christians are basically good people who love Jesus, and don't deserve to be associated with the undesirable elements of organized religion. Then I ask: why call yourself a Christian? What is accomplished by defining yourself as a Christian?
Calling yourself a Christian is a vote, a strength-by-numbers vote, for the nutjobs and theocrats who selfishly abuse and distort the teachings of Jesus. What would be wrong with simply following Jesus, and
not having to call yourself something?
Eek. Too many replies to respond to. We have each other's opinions, and they are miles apart, so we'll just remain in our ignert little corners, I guess.
I am with you, however, on the sad state of "the church" as an organization. It's corrupt as it can be. The problem is, a lot of innocent people are taking the heat for the words of a few. If Phelps says something asinine and hateful, that doesn't mean that Christianity said that thing. Let it be on Phelps' head. It's like saying every black person is a Black Panther, or that the goatse guy speaks for all gay people.
Why associate yourself with the instutution?
Seriously, I don't understand.
Wow, I am surprised at the response here! I expected a LOT more hostility!:)
The problem is, a lot of innocent people are taking the heat for the words of a few. If Phelps says something asinine and hateful, that doesn't mean that Christianity said that thing.
Phelps is a hateful ass, but he's not the problem. Crazy preachers can preach any crap they want, for all I care. Good preachers can preach all they want, and I say good for them. The problem is politicians enacting their religious beliefs into law, whether prescriptive like the newly resurfaced gay marriage ban, or symbolic like religious icons on government property.
Since when are kids not allowed to have prayer groups in school?
It can't be a requirement, but they can organize all the prayer groups they like.
YES!!! I LOVE THAT!!! My school district will not let the bible be
seen on the grounds that it's intolerant! They should really look at this thread to get both sides of the story!
Wow, I am surprised at the response here! I expected a LOT more hostility!:)
Oh, I'm sorry, this is
argument. You're looking for abuse! Room 12, just along the corridor.
:footpyth:
Oh, I'm sorry, this is argument. You're looking for abuse! Room 12, just along the corridor.
:footpyth:
Ha-ha.
YES!!! I LOVE THAT!!! My school district will not let the bible be seen on the grounds that it's intolerant! They should really look at this thread to get both sides of the story!
School administrators are not often good at nuance. They LOVE absolute rules (unless someone figures out a loophole, then they LOVE unwritten rules). The law may be that the school can't organize prayer groups, but a principal or school board will say "no prayer groups", possibly with the idea of discouraging
any student activity not organized by the school - schools are frequently very paranoid about stuff like that. A law may say no weapons in schools, and the school will ban metal compasses and nail clippers. A law may say no drugs in school, and a kid will get expelled for taking an aspirin. There's no "new tolerance" conspiracy for that, they just love to be able to say, "sorry, I have no discretion, it's a zero-tolerance policy."
:thepain: I don't think so Bruce.
I thought the founding fathers were against one dominate religion controlling the country. People were given the freedom to worship how they will.I don't know of anyother time in american history, besides today and the puritain times where the US governments used fear of the wrath of god to keep people in line.
I don't know though. I only know what I think and don't have any facts to prove otherwise. ( at this moment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Try going
here and reading Onyx Cougar's posts #s 21 through 25. There is much truth there to what was actually going on outside the history book view of the early US.;)
PS. Especially her post #23
Strictly speaking you cannot call yourself a Christian just because you follow the teachings of Christ . To be a Christian you have to accept the idea of the Virgin Birth , and you have to accept the idea that Jesus died and rose again . This is the core of Christianity , and if you don't believe that then you are not a Christian .
Strictly speaking you cannot call yourself a Christian just because you follow the teachings of Christ .
I'm glad to hear that, because I can't seem to find anybody that
calls themselves a Christian and actually
does follow the teachings of Christ. Most Christians appear to be violently opposed to the message of Jesus.
Strictly speaking you cannot call yourself a Christian just because you follow the teachings of Christ . To be a Christian you have to accept the idea of the Virgin Birth , and you have to accept the idea that Jesus died and rose again.
Really? Care to name off all the other parts of the bible that you have to take literally in order to call yourself a Christian? Where's that blurry line?
There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân):
Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site [see link below] define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian.
Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. They total about 75% of the North American adult population.
However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons with beliefs like their own. Or they might accept as a "Christian" anyone who has been "born again" regardless of their denomination. They might estimate that about 35% of the North American adult population are real Christians.
Other denominations regard their own members to be the only Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.
Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%.
From
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm1%?
The only real Christians are outlaw bikers? :lol:
Don't waste your breath telling me that Christianity is infringing on your rights. You're full of shit.
You know, for someone who follows a religion based on martyrdom and surviving adversity, you're coming off as somewhat of a whiner. This of all the Christian martyrs who came before you and be thankful that the worst you have to worry about is that you are no longer the most popular kid in class. WWJD? I doubt that he would use "You're full of shit" as one of his arguments for the cause.
But it's not, "a religion based on martyrdom and surviving adversity".
That may be prominent in the history of those following it, especially in the early years, but that is definitely not the basis of Christianity.
You could might say it's been a theme, and even a tool, of many of the organizations calling themselves Christian.
The basis of being a Christian is, "Love thy neighbor as thy self".
I won't argue the horrendous deeds that have been perpetrated on humanity in Jesus name. But he had no part in that, nor do I for one moment believe he would approve. To be a Christian you must follow his edict, I quoted above.:angel:
The basis of being a Christian is, "Love thy neighbor as thy self".
You know, Bruce, coming from you...I believe that. It really is that simple.
Unfortunately, so much fucking smoke and bullshit have been scattered about in the last couple thousand years that most would have you believe that you have to give up your free will (while calling it *having* free will), confess your sins (when you may not even have any) and pour forth the contents of your pockets in order to buy your way into the next life.
Sometimes, I wonder if people even read their own sacred texts.
The more complicated you make it, the more profitable it will be.
Actually it one of Griff's posts, that finally resolved the conflict between my rejection of the church and my belief that Jesus was teaching the right way to live. :smack:
Care to name off all the other parts of the bible that you have to take literally in order to call yourself a Christian? Where's that blurry line?
Kitsune, being mean ill becomes you. Rein back, if you please.:mad:
And for a Readers' Digest listing of the beliefs that make a Christian, have a read of the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, and the Creed of St. Athanasius. The first two are pretty easy to follow, but expect Athanasius to be mystical and esoteric. These set forth the, or a, baseline.
There are faiths I would call Christian that do not profess a Creed as an article of faith or a piece of liturgy, but it seems to me they do not disdain the Creed, either -- the Unitarian Universalists being a case in point.
I like the UU's. They're sort of the Pot Luck of religions. Bring watcha' got, and we'll all share some of it. Works for me.
Actually it one of Griff's posts, that finally resolved the conflict between my rejection of the church and my belief that Jesus was teaching the right way to live. :smack:
Careful with the advertising Mister, I prefer to keep my heresies below the radar screen.;)
I, for one, would like to know which post sparked your epiphany. A PM would suffice. Pretty please?
xoB, I would add "Love the Lord with all your might" to your short list. Loving my neighbor as I love myself is easier to appreciate, in that I know myself and I know my neighbors in a way that I can't know the Lord. Both "commandments" are central to Christianity.
I, for one, would like to know which post sparked your epiphany. A PM would suffice. Pretty please?
I'll see if I can find it when I get a chance
xoB, I would add "Love the Lord with all your might" to your short list. Loving my neighbor as I love myself is easier to appreciate, in that I know myself and I know my neighbors in a way that I can't know the Lord. Both "commandments" are central to Christianity.
I disagree, there are no "commandments" and just one rule, to be a Christian. Everything else is religion. ;)
Kitsune, being mean ill becomes you. Rein back, if you please.:mad:
I'm simply trying to point out that even Christians can't come to an agreement on what it means to "be christian". Some require passages in the bible to be taken literally and followed to the letter, others... not so. I'll accept that it is mostly due to the church(es) rather than the nature of the religion, itself.
"I give you these fifteen--
*CRASH* ...ten, ten commandments!"
How do you think the muslims feel these days. They're being lumped like Christians.;)
And for a Readers' Digest listing of the beliefs that make a Christian, have a read of the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, and the Creed of St. Athanasius. The first two are pretty easy to follow, but expect Athanasius to be mystical and esoteric. These set forth the, or a, baseline.
Nope, that does not "make a Christian". That makes a 5th Century Roman Catholic.
Strictly speaking you cannot call yourself a Christian just because you follow the teachings of Christ . To be a Christian you have to accept the idea of the Virgin Birth , and you have to accept the idea that Jesus died and rose again . This is the core of Christianity , and if you don't believe that then you are not a Christian .
Cite, specifically, where in the Bible it says, exactly, that, please. Or is this made-up like the rapture?
After study for some time I have learned this. The Book and Christ rarely are rarely repeditive... so this must be VERY important.
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Nope, that does not "make a Christian". That makes a 5th Century Roman Catholic.
That would come as a complete surprise to about two million 21st-century US Episcopalians, Tonch. Read over all three Creeds and see how much of each you agree with, either as a nondenominational moral being or as a professed Christian, whichever or whatever you may be.
Note, too, that I never said the Creeds were the be-all and end-all of the Christian faiths. I said they were a base-line. They aren't Scripture; that, shall we say, has a very considerable influence in all this. They are a convenient paraphrasing of the barest essentials -- and as conveniences, mighty handy to Christians.
Episcopalians apparently aren't christian anymore. They voted at their convention to reject a resolution declaring that you can only be saved in the name of Jesus Christ.
Remember that schism that they barely avoided with Robinson's election to Bishop? Here it comes ...
One person cannot tell another that they are or are not a Christian... the hubris is sickening.
One person cannot tell another that they are or are not a Christian... the hubris is sickening.
No, but they can tell you that "ya goin' ta hell!"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
I like the direction they're going.
It is really nice to see someone can at least read... DUH! *bangs head on wall*
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
--Bertrand Russell
Wow. Synchronicity? Kismet? Coincidence?
One person cannot tell another that they are or are not a Christian... the hubris is sickening.
Yes and no. You can't just say "I like people and Jesus sounds like a cool guy, so I'll consider myself a Christian". There are core tenets and beliefs (one of which is virgin birth) that you must absolutely follow. Religion has been watered down into a sort on pablum mush that is easy for the soft-minded hippie generation to swallow. If you want to learn about true Christian beliefs and teachings then some Byzantine era writing would be a good start.
Again, site a specific Biblical reference that shows that as a requirement.
I don't need to cite a specific reference. You cannot reinvent an institution or even make small changes unless you have experience and standing withing the original group. No organization allows people to walk off the street and proclaim "you know, I like the reputation and image your name has but I don't think I want to join you. Therefore I've decided to use your name and claim to be one of you, but I'll do whatever I please". If you like certain aspects of Christianity but you cannot adhear to others then by all means emulate the parts you like, but be honest with what you call yourself.
Adhere to the parts you like? You are making parts up! LOL!
I don't need to cite a specific reference. You cannot reinvent an institution or even make small changes unless you have experience and standing withing the original group.
The original group has been dead for quite a while. All Christians are in a reinvented and changed institution.
Reformation.
There are a bunch of groups considering themselves the true Christian faithful.
There's a bunch of companies that say they're the maker of the best laundry detergent.
Neither are provable.;)
Reformation.
There are a bunch of groups considering themselves the true Christian faithful.
There's a bunch of companies that say they're the maker of the best laundry detergent.
Neither are provable.;)
And just to compound the mischief: they all cleanse. If rightly used. Laundry detergent does not cleanse much if you put it in your pipe and smoke it. ;)
Oh, come on, guys. There is only *one* real and revealed truth of the Living God embodied in his only son, Jesus Christ. Accept Jesus as your personal savior and live forever in Heaven, or reject him and burn for eternity in Hell. That's all anyone needs to know. There's no need for discussion, really. Its the Truth. Yup. The Truth. Yessiree. Pure plain and simple Truth.
Now...send your money to:
Elspode
Grandview, MO 64030
Don't worry about the apparently incomplete address...God will make sure that the cash gets to me. That's one of the perks you get for advertising for Him, you know.
That's one of the perks you get for advertising for Him, you know.
It irks me when I see a Tree & Lawn service or something driving around with a big "Jesus fish" in the advertising on their truck, as if to suggest they are a better shoice for trimming my branches. Why? Because I can "trust them"? Because I will be keeping my money "in the right hands"? I mean, are they suggesting that the owner of the company is a Christian, or every single one of the employees, too? And did he give them a lie detector test? And do I have a guarantee that he didn't just paint that fish on there just to scam me? My gut reaction is not a good one.
Man... you best not spend time here in the Deep South. It will drive you nuts.
Dude, I live in Texas.
And, yes, I am completely nuts.
Then you know... many of the local business here are names stuff like Lord Build Construction (his name is Lord but there is a giant cross and bible quotes on everything they use, my parents use him) God's Plumbing and our other local plumber, though named something else has giant religious murals on all of their panel trucks. My favorite local chicken place hands out tracts with your meal.
All these companies with "Jesus Fishes" and crosses and whatnot on their vans and crap, come across to me as a way for some Christians to have in their mind that they are supporting each other by doing business with these "Christian Companies".
Its basically a given that people will support others like themselves (or who appear to be that way).
Religion, organized, is just a social club, for networking. They prove it, by doing things like this. Show me 10 people who actually agree on matters of religion and I say you have 10 liars, or 10 fools. Either way, they need to feel "a part of something" because their faith is weak. If you really thought you had God on your side, you wouldn't need to use a plumber with a fish on his van.
I think a lot of it, also, it the unspoken (& incorrect) idea that they are more honest than those who don't cover all of their crap with crosses and John 3:16.
An honest man doesn't feel so insecure that he needs a fish on his van to prove it to the world.
Honest, or secure in his/her faith?
:::sigh::: rkzenrage, why do you "hate freedom" ? . . .
What in the hell are you talking about? I love freedom, especially the separation of church and state part. As I stated, our contractor is on of these people. I just don't understand having to advertise, or brow-beat the community, with it.
Whoa! Settle down there, partner! Don't go all "jihad" on me, now!
Mr. Colbert! Stephen! Stop poking the 'rage.
I'm a natural born lever-puller . . .
Don't make me put a Zeemer on ya'!
I'm a natural born lever-puller . . .
Oh.. BTW, that takes a trip to the Caymans.
It's sort of enlightening that two of the United State's most prominent men, both of whom seem reluctant to discuss their personal faith, will be giving a total of about
$60 billion to fight world disease and provide scholarships.
I do not know of the denomination or religious beliefs of either man and have never read or seen any interviews where they discuss their personal relationship with Jesus (or G-d, Buddha, etc). I think that there is a lesson here.
Not all Christians are good, but niether are all Jews. Or Buddhists. Or _insert religion name here_. I think that if your religion teaches peace and virtues, and you are a "member" of that religion and you still go ahead and do immoral stuff, you aren't really part of that religion. Your just using religion as a nice facade for all the naughty stuff you're doing.
I think that if your religion teaches peace and virtues, and you are a "member" of that religion and you still go ahead and do immoral stuff, you aren't really part of that religion.
I'm sure you'll find that every extremist member of any religion will be happy to quote sources from their holy book backing up their violent/immoral actions. They don't even need to take the passages in any other form besides literally in most cases.
Not all Christians are good, but niether are all Jews. Or Buddhists. Or _insert religion name here_. I think that if your religion teaches peace and virtues, and you are a "member" of that religion and you still go ahead and do immoral stuff, you aren't really part of that religion. Your just using religion as a nice facade for all the naughty stuff you're doing.
Buddhism is not a religion. Your logic is faulty, no one is perfect... by your thinking, no one is part of any religion.
Most religions don't require you to be perfect. They require that you try your best. (Or that you repent on your deathbed, whichever comes first.) :right:
The way I view my Christianity is this:
Everyone has sinned, and will sin throughout their life. We do this because we were given free will to choose for ourselves how to live our lives. Along with this free will comes the decision, whether or not to accept that God exists, and he sent Jesus to die for us and give us the chance to redeem ourselves of our ongoing sin. We do this by just accepting that fact. Its not a complicated thing really, you admit, accept, and are forgiven. But if you truly believe it, then you won't have the mindset of "Sweet now I've got a free ticket into Heaven, lets party man! Where the hoes at!?"
The people who really believe feel heartfelt guilt over their sin, and strive to be better people, and set a non-verbal example to the people around them of how to live a decent life, doing the best they can. Real Christians don't think they are perfect, don't try to be perfect, and know that no one is perfect. They just try to live life how it was suppossed to be, without all the hatred.
Thats the doctrine or whatever you want to call it that I subscribe to.
:2cents:
I believe Jesus was a great teacher, and set a good example for others. I don't understand the purpose behind believing that he is "magic" or that there is some contrived scenario involving his death being a poker chip that God cashes in to the karma factory to make bad people turn good again. I don't see the value in that, and I don't understand the origins of that logical pretzel. I don't think it has anything to do with anything Jesus himself ever taught, which should be a "red flag" . . .
I believe Jesus was a great teacher, and set a good example for others. I don't understand the purpose behind believing that he is "magic" or that there is some contrived scenario involving his death being a poker chip that God cashes in to the karma factory to make bad people turn good again. I don't see the value in that, and I don't understand the origins of that logical pretzel. I don't think it has anything to do with anything Jesus himself ever taught, which should be a "red flag" . . .
Er... flint, Jesus repeatedly claims to be God.
He's either nuts, evil, or telling the truth. As CS Lewis put it, Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Not that I buy Christianity, but I just thought I'd put it out there.
And Buhddism isn't a religion? I sure seems like one.
And I wasn't saying people should be perfect, I think that they should try their hardest to resist the temptation to do something that will obviously hurt others. Doesn't mean they won't give in sometimes, doesn't mean they won't be conned into doing something wrong.
I believe Jesus was a great teacher, and set a good example for others. I don't understand the purpose behind believing that he is "magic" or that there is some contrived scenario involving his death being a poker chip that God cashes in to the karma factory to make bad people turn good again. I don't see the value in that, and I don't understand the origins of that logical pretzel. I don't think it has anything to do with anything Jesus himself ever taught, which should be a "red flag" . . .
This will probably sound like nonsense to you, but to me its not about understanding a purpose behind it all, its about feeling.
Reporter: "Mother Theresa, when you pray what do you say to God?"
Mother Theresa: "I do not say anything, I listen" Reporter: "Well as you listen to God, what does he say to you?"
Mother Theresa: "He doesn't say anything, He listens"
Contemporary logic does not apply to feeling, so it can never explain faith.
Er... flint, Jesus repeatedly claims to be God.
That is one interpretation, yes - but not the only one, and . . . please humor me by explaining, specifically, does Jesus say anything about his death having magical qualities to the individual who just believes hard enough?
This will probably sound like nonsense to you, but to me its not about understanding a purpose behind it all, its about feeling.
It sounds perfectly natural, not nonsense at all. I just like to "understand" who
actually came up with the dogma that people follow, out of respect to the teacher whose name it is being tacked on, IE Jesus - the guy who never said any of that stuff. And yes, there are people who would like to manipulate your "feelings" with this contrived dogma. My point is: what does it have to do with
the message that Jesus taught? That, I would think, is the important part, right?
Contemporary logic does not apply to feeling, so it can never explain faith.
I think Jesus would appreciate you applying some logic to the interpretation of his message in it's pure, beautiful form, before all the complex political agendas turned it into a farce. In that case, logic would be your ally. In that case, I think Jesus would appreciate the use of some logic to slice away the garbage that he has been slandered with.
The way I view my Christianity is this:
Everyone has sinned, and will sin throughout their life. ~snip
Yeah but the tricky part is what is a sin and what is not. Ask ten people and you'll get ten answers.
Churches (organized religions) have clerics that are quick to tell you this or that is a sin but they don't agree with each other.
So who decides, God? :smack:
And Buhddism isn't a religion? I sure seems like one.
Buddhism, to me, isnt a religion, because it asks for no faith. It's all logic and facts, all grounded in reality. It doesnt ask you to believe that buddha is some all-powerful being, just that he is a teacher.
Sort of like Jefferson's Jesus, I suppose.
That is one interpretation, yes - but not the only one, and . . . please humor me by explaining, specifically, does Jesus say anything about his death having magical qualities to the individual who just believes hard enough?
No, how could he, he was dead.:right:
And it isn't supposed to be "Magic". "Magic" is deemed evil by the Bible.
And it isn't supposed to be "Magic". "Magic" is deemed evil by the Bible.
Not so ... of the 16 mentions of magic (or magician), none of them describe magic as evil.
And it isn't supposed to be "Magic". "Magic" is deemed evil by the Bible.
Not so ... of the 16 mentions of magic (or magician), none of them describe magic as evil.
Case in point: "religious" people follow entrenched dogmas that have no relation whatsoever to the message they
claim to follow. Magic is evil. Says who? Not Jesus. Not even the book
about Jesus. But any "good Christian" will tell you
magic is evil.
[SIZE="3"]Harry Potter is EVIL!!![/SIZE]
But why? It's got nothing to do with Jesus - so I ask you this:
why tack Jesus' name on this poppycock? To legitimize your own bias? Or is it just out of blindly following along with whatever you are told, not questioning the origin of whatever wacky idea you hear in "church" - beause "church" is a place where everything you hear is true, and if you question it, you're
burning in hell for all eternity!
I can't respect that. What is the purpose of calling yourself a "Christian" if you use you "Christianity" as a cheap crutch for your own half-baked ideas? That is sickeningly disrespectful to Jesus, wouldn't you think? Using his name to push your personal bullshit ideas? using his name to promote shit he has nothing to do with? How could you live with yourself if you claimed to worship this guy, but then you turn around and shit all over him and everything he stood for? Is it just pure fucking stupidity that this isn't glaringly obvious to anybody who has ever read the things that Jesus actually tried to teach us?
I maintain that calling yourself a "Christian" is a useless gesture that is actually harmful to the teachings of Jesus. Why do it? Why join that "special club"? Because it makes you feel good to belong to a group of "better" people? What exactly is the purpose of identifying yourself as a "Christian"? I really wish somebody would explain that.
What exactly is the purpose of identifying yourself as a "Christian"? I really wish somebody would explain that.
So you can get that "faith-based initiative" moolah. Duh. :right:
Great synopsis of the problems of religions, BTW. Philosophy is fine; religion sucks. Christian or otherwise.
Er-Hum.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
That's been pretty much abandoned after Christ, because he was sort of "out with the old, in with the new" with laws, and stuff like that. However if you are a pre-Christ Wiccan amongst Jews, watch your back.
...beause "church" is a place where everything you hear is true, and if you question it, you're burning in hell for all eternity!
Any real Christian church will make you follow only one rule under threat of hell - follow Christ. And most churches I've seen
encourage questioning. Questioning disproves - or proves - objections you may have had of any given religion or belief system. So if you come back to said religion, you come back with a stronger faith. The general attitude to "doubters" is "Oh, he'll come around," not "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!".
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
What's a "witch"? What word did they translate that form? Aren't we attaching a contemporary definition to a translation of a word the meaning of which we have no idea of? By "witch" did they mean a green lady with a pointy hat? Does this refer to all women with a wart on their nose, or do they have to fly on a broomstick, too?
Any real Christian church will make you follow only one rule under threat of hell - follow Christ.
I agree. Any "real" church
theoretically would follow that rule. When you find a "real Christian church" that doesn't attach any garbled dogmatic baggage to the simple message of Jesus, please let me know. I've never seen or heard of one in my entire life.
most churches I've seen encourage questioning
Again, please tell me where this wonderful imaginary church is, where Pastors love it when you argue with them about how to interpret the Bible. That's not how it works. Every church has a fixed outlook, and churchgoers "shop around" to find a church that they "fit in" with.
The general attitude to "doubters" is "Oh, he'll come around," not "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!".
100% wrong. If you question the interpretation of the Bible embraced at your church, then you are not on the right path. You are on the path headed to Hell.
Don't be confused about the inconsistencys in the Christian religion. One article link I posted discribes Christianity and Islam as the biggest threat to peace in the world. I quit with my religion after belonging then realizing there isn't a place for me on such shaky ground.
There are inconsistencys in the Bible and what people say about because many people scribed it. Many interpretaions from the original text and alot of people not researching for themselves. Oh and the political power a religion of this size brings.
There is a bigger picture than ideologies. No wonder followers are called sheep.
I frankly don't want to be a sheep even though I've been called a wolf in sheeps clothing. :) ( online )
I am not confused by prophecy vs divination.So one is supposedly of god one of the devil? pish posh I say. :) To me they are the same action.
As for me I regard The dreams interpretations of Daniel and the prophecys of David to plain ole divination.
A kings greatest men , called wise men can divine but not the meak? I think not. Can great men of their time use theseal of Solomon or the Star of David. A symbol of Protection and warding off of demons exclusively? I think not.
Here is a section of my reference:
Astrologers are referred to in the Book of Daniel (Old Testament) as "wise men". It is prudent to conclude that the magi who were guided by "a star" possessed the skills of astrologer / astronomers. In the days of the ancients, astrology and astronomy were a singular principle science and no king or ruler was without the counsel of the stars. ie:
- The Star of Bethlehem.
the star of david
http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/star.htg/David.gif
http://sciastro.net/portia/articles/thestar.htm
There was Magic too :
Such as Jesus preforming supernatural feats by
changing water into wine
healing the blind.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/divin_bibl.htm
More examples in link page.
It isn't just dogma. It is the way religious history as played out.All of this 'testing the spirits' has to be put away for the church to have total control. This is why the words of the new testement are diminished and our thinking brainwashed so that everything must be evil. Control by fear is the American way. It has to be. We are 90% a Christian country.
One must understand the opression of Paganism.
Celtic or Roman. The taking over of pagan holidays.
( they are on our calendars ...and the sun too btw) was the churches number one goal NOT to save souls but to gain control and power.
As for our present situations. If people DON'T think for themsleves then a persons power individually or collectively is diminished.
....the idea the New Testament was tryint to say.
was this.
'Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.' - 1 John 4:1
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/6240/linsTestingtheSpirits.html
and what went on after those words were scribed was the elimination of Roman paganism ( by the Church and not by gods decree)
Between 1500 and 1900 there were few places where Christianity did not become the official faith by force.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/rhodes/3991/SurvivaloftheRuthless.html
The only thing we have to remember is the chuch is the called 'the great whore' by revelations. is it any wonder after our last two elections.? Can it be any more evident than it is now? People call themselves Christians because they want to feel something. You can get anyone to do anything by evoking emotions. That's my take on it anyway.
I know that was a sucky post. I can't even make sense out of it. The idea is just so big and with a tiny vessel of a brain like mine to contain it.
The church is all about oppression is all I wanted to say. lol
Jesus overturned the corrupt system of his time, and we replaced it with a new corrupt system, with his name on it. No matter how many Jesus' show up to correct things, they turn sour again. If Jesus showed up today, he would smash "Christianity" and replace it with something new - and then this new thing would be twisted and exploited in just the same way.
Read what you want to read, don't let anybody tell you how to understand it, and don't call yourself anything. Joining special clubs won't benefit you in any way other than the completely selfish, superficial, and worldly way that the plumber with a fish on his van hopes to get more business.
plumber with a fish on his van hopes to get more business.
Get with the times.
Real Christians have upgraded to The Praying Calvin decal.
They don't make a "Calvin pissing on the Constitution" decal ???
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The image of jerky, overly-stubborn Christians has become so common that people think that that's all there is. Look at any real church and you will not see an over sized cult, you will see caring people who aren't afraid to not agree with what everyone else says about God, morals, and the world.
I'm not talking about stereotypes, I'm talking about reality. This "real church" you refer to is "the way church should be" - I am talking about the way church is.
I see "caring people who aren't afraid to not agree with what everyone else says about God, morals, and the world" all the time, and strangely they accomplish this without feeling the need to band together as a specific group defined by a system of strictly-defined homogenous beliefs, the flipside of which is eternal damnation.
I went to Methodist church for years, years ago, and personally I found them pretty agreeable. If you're gonna deal with christians, at least try to make sure theyre methodist.
Joining special clubs won't benefit you in any way
No benefits? Joining AAA got me discounts on oil changes...
other than the completely selfish, superficial, and worldly way that the plumber with a fish on his van hopes to get more business.
...Oh, nevermind. Carry on.
In the days of the ancients, astrology and astronomy were a singular principle science and no king or ruler was without the counsel of the stars.
Nancy Reagan. ;)
No benefits? Joining AAA got me discounts on oil changes...
...Oh, nevermind. Carry on.
Don't forget free maps, trip-tix, food & hotel discounts, and free money orders, as well as the life experience of dealing with their terrible service.
That helps you immeasurably, right?
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Obviously I have a problem with that one ...
But I have seen a lot of commentaries that indicate that the original wording of that particular text should be translated "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
Also, the definition of "witch" is somewhat broader now than in the original setting.
The group that I can't figure out are the folks that call themselves Christian Witches. Always seems like they want to be trendy but can't bring themselves to break away from the faith of their parents.
I do know one guy who was an apprentice of a Native American Shaman who was a devout (but unusual) Christian ... he did not call upon that tradition's Gods, he worked with Jesus exclusively. He was probably her best student, over many years of teaching.
... he did not call upon that tradition's Gods, he worked with Jesus exclusively.
Jesus is just charismatic as all get out. There's no denying that he had moxie and chutzpah in spades, baby, in spades. He probably has his own religion.
I went to Methodist church for years, years ago, and personally I found them pretty agreeable. If you're gonna deal with christians, at least try to make sure theyre methodist.
I generally like Methodists as well, but GWB is a Methodist. It is all in how the actual members of your local church operate.
The agreeably of a particular church is a reflection of the agreeably of the people that make up that church's congregation. ;)
The agreeably of a particular church is a reflection of the agreeably of the people that make up that church's congregation. ;)
Which has a greater influence: The congregation on the church or the church on the congregation? The answer I have in my head is what always made me fearful.
Where I grew up, the church reflected the community. They interview and hire a preacher, if he rubs them the wrong way they can him. :D
I went to Methodist church for years, years ago, and personally I found them pretty agreeable. If you're gonna deal with christians, at least try to make sure theyre methodist.
"I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and
Methodists."
What exactly is the purpose of identifying yourself as a "Christian"?
Anyone who claims that encouraging people to be good is not the purpose of religion, is hopeless. If it doesn't have that purpose then you are truly missing the point. If it doesn't have that purpose then what purpose has it? (I know, I know, there are some fabulously contrived and convoluted responses to that - but you have to memorize them by rote, as they make no sense and accomplish nothing)
Anyone who claims that encouraging people to be good is not the purpose of religion, is hopeless. [...]If it doesn't have that purpose then what purpose has it?
It explains how we got in this handbasket?
See many of the theory-of-creation myths, like
this one:
Aztec
The mother of the Aztec creation story was called Coatlique (the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes). She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were square and decapitated).
Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. When she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlique gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever. The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and then scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.
I see no exhortations to "be good".
If the Aztec Gods had names that you could pronouce, The Aztecs probably would have been able to defeat the Conquistadores. By the time you offer a prayer to Lord Feathered Serpent, Quetzacoatl, asking for strength in battle, you've got a Spanish war lance through your navel and out your back.
"Oh, help me questa... questa... quetzacoat... quetzacao... HURK"
Damn, Pie! No wonder they cut peoples hearts out and sacrificed children.:eek:
I don't count "myth" and "religion" as interchangable, at all.
"Myth" is a religion whose adherents aren't standing around you.
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Greek gods, und so weiter are all "myths" to me. Unprovable stories someone made up a long time ago. The only thing that seperates them is that some are more entertaining than others.
I don't count "myth" and "religion" as interchangable, at all.
How do you differentiate them, specifically?
[religion and myth]
How do you differentiate them, specifically?
I think that "religion" is a settled-upon, codified system which defines a set of stated truths, and the accompanying attributes and behaviors which are imperative to that system. Somewhere deep down inside the bureaucratic belly of religion, there are many garbled mythologies which have been assimilated.
Also, we are surrounded by myth which may or may not have anything to do with religion. See: Joseph Campbell.
How does ancient Egyptian "mythology" not meet the criteria of your first description?
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Greek gods, und so weiter are all "myths" to me. Unprovable stories someone made up a long time ago. The only thing that seperates them is that some are more entertaining than others.
Awesome. Mind if I complicate this even more?
How is it that hearing voices in your head is most often considered a mental illness, but
hearing god talk to you is not? If someone is depressed and
cuts themselves to feel better, we diagnose it as a clinical issue, but
we write off people whipping themselves to please Jesus as a basic aspect of a religious sect?
Yeah, I know mental disorders are grounded in deviation from accepted culture and defined as only an issue when detrimental to the individual, but that is a thin line.
The first time I saw people speaking in tongues first hand, I thought they were absolutely insane. After reading more about it, I stand by that opinion.
And some people whip themselves because they get off on it, without any involvement from perceived higher beings.
(I guess I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. )
I think the point is that we write off behavior that would normally be considered crazy as normal or at least sane if they say its religious.
Gotcha.
Yes, but psychological issues are probably the least of religion's faults. How about genocide, war, persecution, murder... The list is long and ever-growing. All done in the name of <insert chosen deity here>.
Religion is usually a red herring... usually the base reason is jack.
The base reason is control -- the ability to get the unwashed masses to do what you want them to do or else.
Some of it is "for their own good", a codification of social laws and constructs. Mostly it is for the benefit of the elite.
How does ancient Egyptian "mythology" not meet the criteria of your first description?
I'm not an expert in anciant Egyptian culture, but
if the Egyptian mythology was used in the manner I described, then it
does qualify as a religion.
I think the question would be: why
is it called "mythology"
??? Because the monotheistic religions put that label on it, to classify it as something beneath them?
We're just talking about
words here. I think "mythology" is the thing that "religion" is usually based on.
I know people who hear the voice(s) of (the) God(s). I know people who are seriously mentally ill and experience auditory hallucinations.
They are usually separate groups.
Hey, you promised that was just between us. :o
I just saw a rerun of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison tries to get fired for being gay, then they won't fire him no matter how hard he tries. I think the speach at the end is very close to the point of what's happening now. We arn't being told to tolerate everything no matter what, we are being told to accept everything no matter what.
![http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/star.htg/David.gif]("http://www.aloha.net/%7Ejohnboy/star.htg/David.gif"){kind=link}