Matthew 6:5

Dutch Uncle said:
That's one view point. In the days before books, radio, television and the internet, people spent a lot more time sitting around the campfire talking.....about 200,000 years worth of talking.

Like you and I, they pondered the meaning of existence. Depending upon the region of the world they lived, a consensus developed. All tribes/cultures have "origin" stories. For some reason, at least in the US, only the Christian origin story is ridiculed. Atheists don't ridicule other religions and cultures for some reason, which I find curious.

That said, as human tech advanced, those stories were eventually written down. For Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons, Moses (either a person or a small group of people) wrote down the first five books of what evolved into the Bible. Regardless of the writings used, the written beliefs became the cultural norm for human societies for over a thousand years before radio.

Before the printing press was invented in the 15th century, a tribe or village might only have one book. If they did, in Western Society that book was a Bible, usually held the the local priest. Very few villagers had the time to become literate because they were too busy trying to stay alive. After Guttenberg, lots of books were printed, but the best seller remained the Bible.

Less than a hundred years after the mass printing of the Bible, Martin Luther published his Ninety-five Theses and a slow explosion of various ideas followed, including literacy of the population. Yes, the rich learned to read first and the poor last, but literacy spread.

Back to your point: I disagree. Yes, powerful assholes seek to dominate other people. They'll use whatever tools are available including, as Marx wrote, the opium of the people. No tool is evil, wrong, bad or even good, right. It's just a tool. It's how it's used that matters. Yes, evil people have misused religion just like evil people have misused other tools and forms of power. Your claim that religion is only like Marx claimed is wrong since it's much more than a tool of evil as evidenced by the good people have done with it.
Click to expand...

Then you claimed I said all religion was evil like Marx claimed
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I never lied about you Evince.

What does "tainted" cost me, Evince?
Click to expand...

I just proved your lies again


You are a Terrible human being


No better than trump


Want this to be over?


Admit what the facts clearly prove you did


You have destroyed your reputation all becayuse you can’t admit you made a mistake
 
evince said:
I just proved your lies again
You are a Terrible human being

No better than trump
Want this to be over?
Admit what the facts clearly prove you did
You have destroyed your reputation all becayuse you can’t admit you made a mistake
Click to expand...
I never lied about you Evince.

Why do you think I'm a terrible person? Should I be killed or simply crippled for life? Maybe just a broken arm or nose?

Aww, comparing me to Trump is pretty low. He's a fucking moron and all sane people know it.

Want what to be over? Is something happening of which I am unaware?

I never lied about you Evince.

Why should my reputation matter? Do I get more points for a good one versus a bad one? What are your thoughts on the subject?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed, at least not from what I've seen either, overall.

I judge posters on their ability to communicate a rational point of view. Evince has repeatedly proved she is too emotional and too focused upon her own POVs to consider modifying her beliefs with new information.

You are different. You are rational enough to attempt actual communication with others even when they disagree with you...up to a point as noted by your long list of thread-bans. :p

Nonetheless, you are rational and willing to communicate regardless if we disagree on the margins. Evince has only one point of unchanging view and refuses to let go of it. Hopefully, my posts come off as more like yours and less like hers. :D
Click to expand...

I have always liked Evince. She is a lot smarter and insightful than most rightys give her credit for, but she can have an acerbic writing style when riled up.

I also appreciate your contributions to the board. You seem to have a keen mind and wide ranging interests.

I have very few active posters on my thread ban list. I only ban overt racists, obvious sock puppets, and the morally corrupt who intentionally practice libel & character defamation. It is my contribution to improving the interwebs.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I have always liked Evince. She is a lot smarter and insightful than most rightys give her credit for, but she can have an acerbic writing style when riled up.

I also appreciate your contributions to the board. You seem to have a keen mind and wide ranging interests.

I have very few active posters on my thread ban list. I only ban overt racists, obvious sock puppets, and the morally corrupt who intentionally practice libel & character defamation. It is my contribution to improving the interwebs.
Click to expand...

Ted Kaczynski, Ted Bundy and Eric Rudolph were all above average in intelligence. We can agree to disagree on her "style". :)

Thanks. Likewise. There's a lot of bullshit on this forum, but it's people like you who make it worthwhile panning through it.

From what I've seen, sock puppets aren't thread banned because they use a VPN and, therefore, their identity can only be verified by DHS or the NSA not the JPP staff. Ergo, IMHO, it's a counter-productive action since one can't claim the moral high ground if one is wallowing in the same sty with the rest of them.
 
Cypress said:
I have always liked Evince. She is a lot smarter and insightful than most rightys give her credit for, but she can have an acerbic writing style when riled up.

I also appreciate your contributions to the board. You seem to have a keen mind and wide ranging interests.

I have very few active posters on my thread ban list. I only ban overt racists, obvious sock puppets, and the morally corrupt who intentionally practice libel & character defamation. It is my contribution to improving the interwebs.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Cypress. I was going to write about the same thing, but you did it better. Plus you have a longer history with Evince.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, religion and faith are obviously a human expression to find meaning in life.

I generally feel like reason and belief can exist side by side.

As for religion having to adapt to modern knowlege and science, that has been an expectation of Christianity since the early days of the Apostolic Church Fathers. Saint Augustine was explicitly clear that the bible was allegorical and that biblical allegory was provisional -- the bible would always need to be reinterpreted in light of current knowlege and the extant state of natural philosophy.

It is a feature of modern Christianity, and specifically Protestant fundamentalism, that the bible is inerrant, that it is literally true, and that it is the sole source of theological truth.
Click to expand...

The early Jew hatin fathers.
The only way that the Bible is inerrant is if it is approached with the strict literal hermeneutic. Augustine and company needed the promotion of the allegorical interpretation in order to fit the Old Testament into their preconceived philosophical prejudice. Obviously the people of the book needed to be the “church” and the Church needed to become the “people of the book.” There was no room for gentile inequality for these early gentile believers.


Blessings
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The far LW propensity to condemn Christianity over all other religions can be understood from a few different POVs. Examples:

1) First step to mandatory atheism just like Stalin and Mao attempted to impose.

2) First step to replacing one religion with another be it Islam or Atheism. Time until someone posts "Atheism is not a religion. It's disbelief." 10...9...8.....

3) First steps toward a "Modern America" where all Americans can live out their dreams...as long as you don't step out of line or criticize those who know better than you do.
Click to expand...

They condemn it because of the phonies, and those that seek to undermine keeping politics and religion separate. When people give my faith shit it's hard to argue with it because so many out there have sullied it's graces.

7a841909b8909c87dd089f0a9c289999.jpg
 
Charoite said:
They condemn it because of the phonies, and those that seek to undermine keeping politics and religion separate. When people give my faith shit it's hard to argue with it because so many out there have sullied it's graces.

7a841909b8909c87dd089f0a9c289999.jpg
Click to expand...

Agreed. Senator Barry Goldwater said essentially the same thing in his 1981 speech to Congress: TO BE CONSERVATIVE (pdf page 57)


James Madison, once wrote that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Well, Madison certainly recognized that humans are not angels. He realized that they tend to group together in narrow interest groups, which he called factions. And he wrote extensively in the federalist papers about how the Constitution should protect us from the abuses of various factions.

Madison saw this as the great paradox of our system: How do you control the basic freedoms?

Madison wrote:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
​

And in a well-constructed representative government like ours, Madison said, one of our greatest strengths is our ability to "break and control the violence of faction."

What he said is that the aim of the framers of the Constitution was to allow freedom of religion and freedom of speech for everyone, not just those who follow one religious faction.

Madison said:

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion has occasionally divided mankind . . . and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppose each other than to cooperate for the common good.
​

Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage of Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?

Our political process involves a constant give and take, a continuous series of trade-offs. From this system of compromise, we get legislation that reflects input from many sectors of our society and addresses many needs and interests.

Obviously, not everyone can be pleased, but at least all sides are considered.

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ. Or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls his supreme being.

But, like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.
The religious factors that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their positions 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on any particular moral issue, they cajole, they complain, they threaten you with loss of money or votes or both.

In the past couple years. I have seen many news items that referred to the moral majority, pro-life and other religious groups as "the new right," and the "new conservatism," Well, I have spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the "old conservatism." And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics.

The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top