I think you have a valid criticism of the protesters: but not buying into corporatism does not mean you have to live like the Amish.
Something as simple as paying the extra 10% and buying from the local grocery instead of the big chain is a good start. Wearing shoes made by a small company instead of nike works too.
Don't shop at walmart. Don't eat at McDonalds. (Incidientally: I have seen what a McDonalds hamburger looks like after sitting out for 2 years: exactly the same as it does in the restaraunt. As my health-food-nut friend says: "If the germs won't eat it, why would you?").
You'll be healthier, happier, and have a lot more money.
Errr... I would really like to hear you come up with specific historical examples and justifications for alying that at Christianities feet.
I'm serious. Put up or shut up. I want to know when Christians, as Christians, killed 10 million people. The actions of a secular organization in a Christian country don't count. When did Christians do it?
When I post, I use specific examples. If you can't come up with a specific example to back up your contention, you have no point.
Yes: corporatism can be a bad thing. And yes, I think that a revolt against it was what the WTO Riots were largely about. You see, I believe that humans are intensely valuable. I believe that we are far more valuable than money, far more valuable than can ever be defined by "McWorld".
And so, it troubles me when I see the world turning to a dominant consumerism. When I see morals, ethics, and everything else replaced in public debate by "It's the economy, stupid". When I see the interests of anyone or anything subjected to the heartless, amoral desires of big business.
And there is a solution to this guys. It's called "break the cycle". We, as individuals (hopefully) interested in the worth of man beyond his pocket book, need to step out of consumerism.
What does this mean? Well, for starters, pay off your credit cards. And your car. And your house. That's right: be debt free. (I'm not, but I'm working on it as fast as my overpaid fingers can get me there). And don't think you always need the latest toy. Buy quality instead of the cheapest thing you can get that will look good. Trade in your plastic steak and frozen cake for a vegetable garden. Live small, think large.
Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with money or possessions. They are necessary, and it would be folly to eliminate them. But they are a dangerous servant and a terrible master. When we are dominated by our pocketbooks, we become moral wretches of the worst sort. We will do anything to maintain our illusory life-styles. Or, as the Book put it: "the love of Money is the source of much evil."
I wasn't commenting on why it spread. Although I could make a decent argument that the rapid technological advance that spread western civ was driven by Christian influence.
The point is a value judgement between different cultures. People are fond of criticizing Christians record: well, I am asking that you put that into historical context. That you compare the "atrocities" which you lay at Christianities feet (unjustly in many cases; fairly in some) to those occuring in non-Christian cultures.
As for the First Amendment, don't forget that "Freedom of Religion" is also "Freedom FROM Religion".
err... Actually, the First Amendment uses neither term. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
In other words, congress cannot establish a national church (as most European countries still have) and cannot prevent you from freely performing your religious duties. Conspicuously absent is anything that says you have the right to infringe on my otherwise legal religious duties or obligations because you happen to find them annoying.
In fact, things that might not otherwise be legal (e.g. using Peyote or giving children wine) have been found legal when they have a genuine religious purpose.
Like many people, you are sadly underinformed on the laws you live under.
Well, I must admit that I don't take it very seriously. I don't really have time for politics in any form -- I have too many more important things to do. But being an anarchist is a convenient way to keep the pro-lifers off my back.
Okay... Try this: God does not experience cause and effect. He can experience the whole of creation simultaneously -- he is outside of time. Just as we can look over a whole city (from an airplane) and see everything going on, he can look over the whole earth, for all of time, at one time and see what's going on.
Saying "what took God so long to create the universe" is absurd: it's like asking "why didn't you make that painting the size of the whole planet". The answer is that God made the world the rightsize for God's purposes.
But the Bible is not the work of one man, as secularists are so fond of pointing out. On top of that, it has been found to be useful by millions, maybe billions, of people.
Look: as evidenced by this thread, Christians often take a lot of flack for what we believe. Do you think there would still be so many Christians if we didn't find some kind of evidence for it? And, frankly, since you have apparently not done the lab work, have not tried the experiment of faith, you have no right to an opinion. Just as the physicists at the beginning of the 20th century who knew relativity was false without studying it had no right to an opinion.
Small wonder that the gospels detail so many prophesies being fulfilled - how better to justify their claim that Christ was the Messiah? Small wonder too that, as the gospel writers didn't get to compare notes very often, that the various gospels differ and contradict themselves so much.
If men made up the gospel, then why doesn't it make more sense? Why not go the Gnostic route and live free, or the pharisee route and live under a bunch of rules? Where did this idea called grace come from? And why didn't Jesus fulfill prophecies in simple, obvious ways? Why didn't they make up a warrior, not a victim?
And why does Christianity change lives? You may not have seen it, but I have. It changes people, from the inside out. Sometimes it takes years, but once someone makes a decision for Christ, they are never the same.
The gospels idiosyncracies are the best evidence for their truth.
Amphigory, I apologize for lumping you in with them (in some of my previous posts), but things have been seriously bad lately. I can't pretend I'm as religious as my brother (I was an altar boy, but that was long ago), but I do still take my faith seriously.
Actually, it's "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar, and unto God that which is God's". But close enough.
The thing is that there is a moral concensus. What differentiates religions from each other is not their moralities for the most part. Thing is that most people have a heck of a time doing what they know is right.
I love you too man. Can we be friends if I promise not to tell you that I go to church? And I won't bother you with any pesky details about the nature of the universe or pray for you or anything like that. I promise.
I just want you to be comfortable and snuggle together. Here's some nice warm sugar water to sooth your nerves. Would you like some cotton candy with that?
Christians would do well to put aside their bibles and pick up some real history books, and learn just what it is that they are involved in. There is very little good in there.
You might do well to pick up some real history books yourself.
Prior to Christian influence, people were commonly killed by exposure. Or being fed alive to lions. The poor were commonly regarded as nothing but a liability.
You complain about how much evil has been done since Christianity? Well how much was done before it?! You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that, prior to Christianity, the world was a happy place.
So, let me ask you this: is the culture that grew out of Christianity, the United States is the epitome of it, better or worse than the average world culture? Be specific please. And if you want to point out some of the evils done in Western culture, please point out how other cultures were better.
I think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
Interesting. One of the accepted reasons that Christianity was able to grow so quickly in the 1st, second, and third centuries was their care for the poor. They saved babies who were exposed to the elements (by pagans). They visited prisoners and helped them. They accepted slaves as members.
The Catholic Church collected (and distributed) alms for the poor on a regular basis throughout the middle ages.
Granted, there have been some unsavory episodes in Christian history, but your hypothesis is just plain not founded in fact.
Well, I have to admit that I'm an anarchist, and am therefore outside the system altogether:). I think you have a valid point about Christian Politics -- frankly, I think that all politics is pretty corrupt.
The problem is that Christian politics perpetually places you in a position that C.S. Lewis aptly termed "Christianity And". In our society, that would be "Christianity and Pro-Life". Or "Christianity and Family Values". Or (I have even heard from leading lights in the Christian Right) "Christianity and Tax Reform".
The problem is that it usually ends up becoming "Pro-Life and Christianity" after a while. And God won't tolerate second place. Does that mean Christians shouldn't vote their conscience? No. But I think that organizations like the Christian Coalition have missed the boat. Remember: Christian domination of government gave us a compeltely corrupted church in the middle ages, and it could happen again.
On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly call the Democrats Christian either. Politics isn't about ethics: It's about power.
So I shouldn't think about the universe but just blindly accept things? Fuck you, and fuck your god. I will never bow to anything that tells me not to think, and I'll gladly go to hell to support this. I hate you fucking christians so much.
Well, I guess you could suppose that "Love your God" referred to coitus, but somehow I doubt that was the intent.
So: where exactly did I tell you not to think? This is a beautiful example of people reacting not to what I said, but to what they think, through their superior knowledge of my doctrinal positions, I must have meant. Contemplating apparent paradox's can be great fun, and certainly qualifies as "thining about the universe".
God doesn't like an intellectual slacker any better than he likes any other kind of slacker. --C.S. Lewis
BTW, I love you too, but it's just not that way. Have you ever considered counseling? You sound seriously screwed up.
disclaimer: When I was young, I went to a Pentacostal Bible camp where they told me that I was going to hell for liking Van Halen (Pre- Sammy, of course) and that homosexuals weren't real people. My subsequent views of organized religion take all of that into account.
I'm sorry. I can sympathize with that, and have seen the same kind of insanity myself on far too many occasions. It's people seeking a new legalism. Rather than trusting in God, they want to find a set of rules that they can obey. These rules fall far short of the Biblical rules:
Love the lord thy God with all your heart. Love your neighbour as yourself.
These are way more simple than the typical long list of "thou shalt nots" that people construct. Read the second chapter of the book of Collosians for the biblical view on these types of approaches.
One of my pet theories is that complexity of belief is evidence of its mistakenness. That is that, if once grasped, a belief does not boil down to a few sentences upon which you expostulate for all time, then it is probably false. That's not doctrine though: just an idea.
On the other hand, maybe you could accept organized religion on the basis of your experience with Pentecostals. After all, I would hardly call most Pentecostal churches "organized" *grin*
Well, first, let me observe that available evidence suggests that parts of the New Testament were written as early as 45 AD. Only 10 years or so after the death of Christ. Available evidence also suggests that the Gospel According to John, as well as his epistles, were in fact written by the apostle John. That is, the "disciple who Jesus loved".
But that really doesn't matter. Your objection seems to be that the Bible only portrays what I believe about God. In the context of the post I was replying too, that was (and is) perfectly appropriate. Specifically, he said he didn't see how an apparently intelligent person could believe in a "boogeyman" (shouldn't that be "bogeyman"). I replied that the problem wasn't me, it was his perception of God.
And shared my perception.
The evidence of the truth of the Bible lies in my life and the life of others who have given their life to God through Christ. We've got Albert Schweizer, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and (what the hell) Don Knuth. Would you really like me to name some well known atheists from the twentieth century?
yeah, all this bleating about jesus really belongs in an article about movie reviews This mis-matched moderation on posts that have anything to do with Christianity is extremely common. Take a look at articles I've written to see a/lot/ of it. It seems that moderators don't moderate based on anything but whether it confirms their biases. Which may be human, but its hardly objective.
The thing is that secular humanist posts don't get the same treatment. Even posts trashing Christianity and CHristians with the basest slanders (see my posts in the last "hellmouth" article for examples of this) don't get downchecked.
I'm not asking you to take my word for it: even in articles like "Onward Christian Geeks" or "Jesux is a bad pun" (which were both explicitly anti-Christian) defending posts were downchecked as "off-topic". When are they on-topic?
Bottom line is that many Slashdot moderators have become the new inquisition, while supposing they are somehow defending themselves from the old Inquisition which they know nothing about.
Or, to allude to animal farm, the pigs are being pigs.
how someone, who appears to be very literate and well read, who appears to actually _research_ topic he/she posts on, and who generally conveys a sense of intelligence in their writing (NO, I'm NOT talking about Katz) could continue to profess belief in an omnipitant, omniscient, supernatural boogyman.
Uhh... Thanks... I think.
May I make an observation? You note that I research teh topic I post on and conveigh a sense of intelligence in my writing. You are correct on both counts. I am a computer engineer working on a theology degree -- i guess that makes me qualified.
Maybe the contradiction lies in your characterization of God as a "boogyman" -- and I honestly believe that, if you took the time to research (as I have) you would find that he is far more than a boogyman.
Read about Jesus. And remember that this is God. Not half of God, or part of God, but God's own revelation of himself to mankind. Or at least so I believe. You might be surprised at what you find.
Slashdot Mirror
Something as simple as paying the extra 10% and buying from the local grocery instead of the big chain is a good start. Wearing shoes made by a small company instead of nike works too.
Don't shop at walmart. Don't eat at McDonalds. (Incidientally: I have seen what a McDonalds hamburger looks like after sitting out for 2 years: exactly the same as it does in the restaraunt. As my health-food-nut friend says: "If the germs won't eat it, why would you?").
You'll be healthier, happier, and have a lot more money.
And I do not deny you the right to walk away. But you may not deny me the right to speak. Are we agreed then?
I'm serious. Put up or shut up. I want to know when Christians, as Christians, killed 10 million people. The actions of a secular organization in a Christian country don't count. When did Christians do it?
When I post, I use specific examples. If you can't come up with a specific example to back up your contention, you have no point.
Yes: corporatism can be a bad thing. And yes, I think that a revolt against it was what the WTO Riots were largely about. You see, I believe that humans are intensely valuable. I believe that we are far more valuable than money, far more valuable than can ever be defined by "McWorld".
And so, it troubles me when I see the world turning to a dominant consumerism. When I see morals, ethics, and everything else replaced in public debate by "It's the economy, stupid". When I see the interests of anyone or anything subjected to the heartless, amoral desires of big business.
And there is a solution to this guys. It's called "break the cycle". We, as individuals (hopefully) interested in the worth of man beyond his pocket book, need to step out of consumerism.
What does this mean? Well, for starters, pay off your credit cards. And your car. And your house. That's right: be debt free. (I'm not, but I'm working on it as fast as my overpaid fingers can get me there). And don't think you always need the latest toy. Buy quality instead of the cheapest thing you can get that will look good. Trade in your plastic steak and frozen cake for a vegetable garden. Live small, think large.
Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with money or possessions. They are necessary, and it would be folly to eliminate them. But they are a dangerous servant and a terrible master. When we are dominated by our pocketbooks, we become moral wretches of the worst sort. We will do anything to maintain our illusory life-styles. Or, as the Book put it: "the love of Money is the source of much evil."
In other words, don't be an idiot.
The point is a value judgement between different cultures. People are fond of criticizing Christians record: well, I am asking that you put that into historical context. That you compare the "atrocities" which you lay at Christianities feet (unjustly in many cases; fairly in some) to those occuring in non-Christian cultures.
In other words, congress cannot establish a national church (as most European countries still have) and cannot prevent you from freely performing your religious duties. Conspicuously absent is anything that says you have the right to infringe on my otherwise legal religious duties or obligations because you happen to find them annoying.
In fact, things that might not otherwise be legal (e.g. using Peyote or giving children wine) have been found legal when they have a genuine religious purpose.
Like many people, you are sadly underinformed on the laws you live under.
<Dive for cover!>
Saying "what took God so long to create the universe" is absurd: it's like asking "why didn't you make that painting the size of the whole planet". The answer is that God made the world the rightsize for God's purposes.
Look: as evidenced by this thread, Christians often take a lot of flack for what we believe. Do you think there would still be so many Christians if we didn't find some kind of evidence for it? And, frankly, since you have apparently not done the lab work, have not tried the experiment of faith, you have no right to an opinion. Just as the physicists at the beginning of the 20th century who knew relativity was false without studying it had no right to an opinion.
And why does Christianity change lives? You may not have seen it, but I have. It changes people, from the inside out. Sometimes it takes years, but once someone makes a decision for Christ, they are never the same.
The gospels idiosyncracies are the best evidence for their truth.
The thing is that there is a moral concensus. What differentiates religions from each other is not their moralities for the most part. Thing is that most people have a heck of a time doing what they know is right.
But that's why we Christians sing Amazing Grace.
*boik*
I just want you to be comfortable and snuggle together. Here's some nice warm sugar water to sooth your nerves. Would you like some cotton candy with that?
Love,
Patrick
Prior to Christian influence, people were commonly killed by exposure. Or being fed alive to lions. The poor were commonly regarded as nothing but a liability.
You complain about how much evil has been done since Christianity? Well how much was done before it?! You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that, prior to Christianity, the world was a happy place.
So, let me ask you this: is the culture that grew out of Christianity, the United States is the epitome of it, better or worse than the average world culture? Be specific please. And if you want to point out some of the evils done in Western culture, please point out how other cultures were better.
I think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
The Catholic Church collected (and distributed) alms for the poor on a regular basis throughout the middle ages.
Granted, there have been some unsavory episodes in Christian history, but your hypothesis is just plain not founded in fact.
The problem is that Christian politics perpetually places you in a position that C.S. Lewis aptly termed "Christianity And". In our society, that would be "Christianity and Pro-Life". Or "Christianity and Family Values". Or (I have even heard from leading lights in the Christian Right) "Christianity and Tax Reform".
The problem is that it usually ends up becoming "Pro-Life and Christianity" after a while. And God won't tolerate second place. Does that mean Christians shouldn't vote their conscience? No. But I think that organizations like the Christian Coalition have missed the boat. Remember: Christian domination of government gave us a compeltely corrupted church in the middle ages, and it could happen again.
On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly call the Democrats Christian either. Politics isn't about ethics: It's about power.
So: where exactly did I tell you not to think? This is a beautiful example of people reacting not to what I said, but to what they think, through their superior knowledge of my doctrinal positions, I must have meant. Contemplating apparent paradox's can be great fun, and certainly qualifies as "thining about the universe".
BTW, I love you too, but it's just not that way. Have you ever considered counseling? You sound seriously screwed up.
One of my pet theories is that complexity of belief is evidence of its mistakenness. That is that, if once grasped, a belief does not boil down to a few sentences upon which you expostulate for all time, then it is probably false. That's not doctrine though: just an idea.
On the other hand, maybe you could accept organized religion on the basis of your experience with Pentecostals. After all, I would hardly call most Pentecostal churches "organized" *grin*
But that really doesn't matter. Your objection seems to be that the Bible only portrays what I believe about God. In the context of the post I was replying too, that was (and is) perfectly appropriate. Specifically, he said he didn't see how an apparently intelligent person could believe in a "boogeyman" (shouldn't that be "bogeyman"). I replied that the problem wasn't me, it was his perception of God.
And shared my perception.
The evidence of the truth of the Bible lies in my life and the life of others who have given their life to God through Christ. We've got Albert Schweizer, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and (what the hell) Don Knuth. Would you really like me to name some well known atheists from the twentieth century?
May I make an observation? You note that I research teh topic I post on and conveigh a sense of intelligence in my writing. You are correct on both counts. I am a computer engineer working on a theology degree -- i guess that makes me qualified.
Maybe the contradiction lies in your characterization of God as a "boogyman" -- and I honestly believe that, if you took the time to research (as I have) you would find that he is far more than a boogyman.
Read about Jesus. And remember that this is God. Not half of God, or part of God, but God's own revelation of himself to mankind. Or at least so I believe. You might be surprised at what you find.