|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 16, 2009 0:13:55 GMT
Does God bless the USA? God , if anything should be counted as an accomplice to every murder , rape , torture and abuse of children , he should suffer , that all too happy observer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 0:59:06 GMT
Well, I wouldn't say it like that, but yeah.
I just can't get my head around the idea that man and man alone is responsible for evil and suffering. All we are, lowly little creations, are the product of our creator - if God is the source and cause of everything then he must be the source and cause of evil and suffering. It just makes no sense to argue that we 'were' perfect and in and of our own volition made ourselves messed up sinners, with absolutely none of the responsibility falling on the being which made us in the first place!
I also strongly disagree that USA was considered a Christian nation until the 20th century, when things like "In God we Trust" and "One Nation Under God" started slipping in during times of crisis.
How many dozens of quotes from founding fathers need I look up to show that most held religion of any kind with suspicion, if not outright contempt?
The USA as a Christian nation is a recent development, though it probably does truly reflect the majority. Atheists and freethinkers are a minority that remain largely unrepresented in the shadows. But that doesn't mean that that's the way it was 'supposed' to be from the start of the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 7:19:04 GMT
Any society in the Decline stage is like that, ss. It's the nature of human nations that when we run out of threats, we also run out of impetus and we start to fall apart. Every successful civilisation thus ultimately engineers and guarantees its own destruction.
It's part of what the yin-yang symbol is all about: 'Anything that grows too strong contains the seeds of its own destruction'. Very smart people, the ancient Chinese.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 16, 2009 22:53:56 GMT
Does God bless the USA? God , if anything should be counted as an accomplice to every murder , rape , torture and abuse of children , he should suffer , that all too happy observer. Well KT, of course we know you are radical...but you should probably LEAVE the US to a better anti-god philosophy type country where all things will be peachy and creamy. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 17, 2009 0:16:12 GMT
Well, I wouldn't say it like that, but yeah. I just can't get my head around the idea that man and man alone is responsible for evil and suffering. All we are, lowly little creations, are the product of our creator - if God is the source and cause of everything then he must be the source and cause of evil and suffering. It just makes no sense to argue that we 'were' perfect and in and of our own volition made ourselves messed up sinners, with absolutely none of the responsibility falling on the being which made us in the first place! I also strongly disagree that USA was considered a Christian nation until the 20th century, when things like "In God we Trust" and "One Nation Under God" started slipping in during times of crisis. How many dozens of quotes from founding fathers need I look up to show that most held religion of any kind with suspicion, if not outright contempt? The USA as a Christian nation is a recent development, though it probably does truly reflect the majority. Atheists and freethinkers are a minority that remain largely unrepresented in the shadows. But that doesn't mean that that's the way it was 'supposed' to be from the start of the nation. I will address the first statement later....(and grade them,,) ;D Christian Nation...?? depends on your definition...but I think you will be in trouble trying to quote the founding fathers as being "anti-christian" or anti-godly" because there are "volumns" of writtings that show just the opposite...  Elliot has written (profusely so.. ;D) on the fact that history shows that religion has been a dynamic force in the founding and sustaining of states...(even non-christian states)... "Never was a state founded that did not have religion for its basis." (Rousseau) "There never was a state of atheists, You may travel all over the world, and you may find dities without walls, without king, without mint, without theater or gymnasium; but you will nowhere find a city without a God, without prayer, without oracle, without sacrifice. Sooner may a city stand without foundations than a state without belief in the gods. This is the bond of all society and the pillar of all legislation." (Plutarch) "One can not govern without it; otherwise the repose, dignity, and independence of the nation are disturbed at every moment." (Napoleon) "Depend on it, the world can not be held together without morals; nor can morals maintain their station in the human heart without religion, which is the corner-stone of the fabric of human virtue." (Lord Erskine-England's great constitutional lawyer) Even David Hume, skeptic though he was, stated "If you find a people without religion, rest asssured that they do not differ much from the brute beasts." and...concerning religions application to the American commonwealth..... "Banish the Bible from the land, or, what is the same thing, succeed in loosing its hold on the public mind, and my word for it, the experiment of self-government will prove a failure." (Hon. Joseph H. Lumpkin, Chief Justice, State of Georgia) The theocracy in Israel was the "righteous God" abiding in the NATION.... The Theocracy in Christendom is supposed to be the same righteous power (God) abiding in MANKIND. We know what religion is....to say the founding fathers were skeptical of the Christian religion is puzzleing to me... Christ brings to the world the doctrine of the "brotherhood of man" which teaches equality of right on one hand and a sovereign duty to do so on the other... Bet you can't find the word "mankind" being quoted by Socrates or Plato or Aristotle..... America was colonized by Protestan England. If you study the whys and hows, you can even see a "divine hand" in it. When Columbus first came to San Salvador, Martin Luther was only nine year old. The Papal State was still supreme, but revolts were starting. John Huss, Wyclif's English bible...the reformation brought about emancipation and kicked out the big lie of the distinction between the sacred and the secular and gave magistrates the responsibilities and functions as sacred to the state as those of the priests...or.....the separation of church and state...geeze....that sounds familiar... ;D The greatest influx may well have been the Huguenots...when they revoked the "edict of Nantes", about 500,000 were forced to leave the country. Most came to America (esp South Carolina) They advocated free conscience, free speech, and free worship. It continued in the american government. The Virginia Colony...the first established by the English in North America..their first charter prescribe their mode of worship and were "to provide that the true word and service of God be preached, planted, and used, not only in the said colony but also as much as might be among the savages bordering upon them, according to the rites and doctrines of the Church of England." The Jamestown charter was that the colony "under the providence of Almighty God, might tend to the glory of his Divine Majesty in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkeness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God'" The Plymouth colony (13 years later) "to practise the positive part of Church reformation and propogate the gospel in America" The Mayflower Compact.. "In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faithe, etc, having undertaken, for the ------glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith -- and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do, by these presents, solemnly and mutually, In the presence of God and of one another, covenant and bind ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforseaid, and vy virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names, at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini 1620." Every (EVERY) STATE CHARTER starts with acknowledgment in God and divine providence, and they WERE talking about the Christian God..... I could go on......until my fingers fell off...and it would be the same...I think your belief on the issue lacks merit....  |
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 17, 2009 4:10:57 GMT
Does God bless the USA? God , if anything should be counted as an accomplice to every murder , rape , torture and abuse of children , he should suffer , that all too happy observer. Well KT, of course we know you are radical...but you should probably LEAVE the US to a better anti-god philosophy type country where all things will be peachy and creamy. ;D huh? I am pro God , pro human , but anti religion. What I believe ....may sound a bit unfamiliar to you: LOVE , COMPASSION, KINDNESS , NON JUDGMENT , RESPECT. I would think those would ring a bell. I am a zealot Gnostic, I have every right to , and every sort of logic to sustain and maintain my philosophies regarding this. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 17, 2009 8:35:38 GMT
I write profusely on everything, ss! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 17, 2009 11:05:23 GMT
The sceptisism is not on Christianity as such but on the wordly church administration - the various denominations weren't called 'protestants' for nothing!  The 'governing' churches actually purged any deviating or dissenting people - in a way a luxury, of which the poor and thinly populated principality of Brandenburg (later Prussia) profited enormously when the pragmatic (and calvinistic) prince electoral gave the huguenots asylum and religious freedom in his country. A successor of his (Frederic The Great) later said that 'Anyone may be blessed in his own way'... The separation of church and secular administration, or in other words, tolerance, broke a stagnating course and helped scientific and industrial development. |
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 17, 2009 15:35:35 GMT
ss , how about Thomas Jefferson ? he was in no way a Christian , in fact he edited the bible to fit his views , and thought that biblical literalism is on par with madness...
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 17, 2009 20:39:42 GMT
Well KT, of course we know you are radical...but you should probably LEAVE the US to a better anti-god philosophy type country where all things will be peachy and creamy. ;D huh? I am pro God , pro human , but anti religion. What I believe ....may sound a bit unfamiliar to you: LOVE , COMPASSION, KINDNESS , NON JUDGMENT , RESPECT. I would think those would ring a bell. I am a zealot Gnostic, I have every right to , and every sort of logic to sustain and maintain my philosophies regarding this. Llittle tongue-in-cheek there KT... I totally agree that you have every right to believe and/or practise whatever you believe..everyone on this board falls in the same category... And as far as the other listed attributes....totally concur.... The fact that I think you are wrong is not an issue to me...I think Terror is wrong, but I respect his right to disagree with me... always have... I find your statement Pro-God, Pro human, anti-religion to be a bit strange as no-one on this thread ANYWHERE allows me to make such a statement..?? I have told everyone who listens that I don't want to be pigeonholed into a religion per-se...in that Christianity is a belief in the person of Christ...plus and minus nothing....but of course I am immediately labeled as part of the "Christian Religion" I understand that, but would that not make you religious also..especially as you state you are a "Zealous Gnostic"...which is a specific belief system... Edit: I am checking on Jefferson, but I think you are wrong...thought he was more "deist" than main line Christian, but lots of people don't think (as well as me) that everything in the Scripture is to be taken literally...that has no bearing on being a Christian... |
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 17, 2009 21:28:08 GMT
huh? I am pro God , pro human , but anti religion. What I believe ....may sound a bit unfamiliar to you: LOVE , COMPASSION, KINDNESS , NON JUDGMENT , RESPECT. I would think those would ring a bell. I am a zealot Gnostic, I have every right to , and every sort of logic to sustain and maintain my philosophies regarding this. Llittle tongue-in-cheek there KT... I totally agree that you have every right to believe and/or practise whatever you believe..everyone on this board falls in the same category... And as far as the other listed attributes....totally concur.... The fact that I think you are wrong is not an issue to me...I think Terror is wrong, but I respect his right to disagree with me... always have... I find your statement Pro-God, Pro human, anti-religion to be a bit strange as no-one on this thread ANYWHERE allows me to make such a statement..?? I have told everyone who listens that I don't want to be pigeonholed into a religion per-se...in that Christianity is a belief in the person of Christ...plus and minus nothing....but of course I am immediately labeled as part of the "Christian Religion" I understand that, but would that not make you religious also..especially as you state you are a "Zealous Gnostic"...which is a specific belief system... Edit: I am checking on Jefferson, but I think you are wrong...thought he was more "deist" than main line Christian, but lots of people don't think (as well as me) that everything in the Scripture is to be taken literally...that has no bearing on being a Christian... Fair enough, though perhaps my approach looks like nothing else? My GNOSIS, it is specific to me , not orthodox GNOSTICISM. I am all full with it the literal translation of the words occult and gnosis can be applied to my views , though I see them as temporary and not something upon which my life depends. I see those views as living philosophies designed to pull people out of the mire of guilt associated with original sin and such defeatist ideas. On JEFFERSON , he was nearly pagan in his living philosophies. He was dedicated to knowledge , farming , man keeping his hands in the soil of the earth. He also regarded divinity in nature as nature being the penultimate expression of a divine order. He was very much for order and reason , except in his financial affairs , he was a terrible money manager. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 18, 2009 15:25:57 GMT
SS - the reason that we label you as christian is that your views and opinions come accross as very much classically christian (the good kind, not the frothy at the mouth test you with a white hot cross type).
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 18, 2009 17:11:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 20, 2009 0:40:26 GMT
Well, I wouldn't say it like that, but yeah. I just can't get my head around the idea that man and man alone is responsible for evil and suffering. All we are, lowly little creations, are the product of our creator - if God is the source and cause of everything then he must be the source and cause of evil and suffering. It just makes no sense to argue that we 'were' perfect and in and of our own volition made ourselves messed up sinners, with absolutely none of the responsibility falling on the being which made us in the first place! Greater minds that yours and mine have debated this issue Flix. I have no problem with it as I don' consider myself as above reproach on any issue...the denial of the fall and sin does not make it so. The evidence is overwhelming that we are sinners..I find intelligent folks like you and KT very puzzeling in that you can debate/argue a point to the nth degree and yet become very agitated when you DO THINGS that we call sin...you just choose to call it something else.. ...You don't deny that you do it...just that it CAN'T BE SIN, cause you don't believe in sin.. It (to me) is like the double speak Abortionists use...ANY...I MEAN ANY... word but BABY.....fetus, appendage, unwanted cells, womans right, and the list goes on, but they will NEVER, till hell freezes over (if it exists  ) call the "thing" what it is...a BABY... Yet.......if you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged for two (2) murders.....just how does that work..... You reckon that God made them do those things...like he makes you and me do the things we do that are evil, or henious, or just plain wrong.... You can blame Him if you want, but I take the blame for myself.. |
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 20, 2009 1:41:03 GMT
Well, I wouldn't say it like that, but yeah. I just can't get my head around the idea that man and man alone is responsible for evil and suffering. All we are, lowly little creations, are the product of our creator - if God is the source and cause of everything then he must be the source and cause of evil and suffering. It just makes no sense to argue that we 'were' perfect and in and of our own volition made ourselves messed up sinners, with absolutely none of the responsibility falling on the being which made us in the first place! Greater minds that yours and mine have debated this issue Flix. I have no problem with it as I don' consider myself as above reproach on any issue...the denial of the fall and sin does not make it so. The evidence is overwhelming that we are sinners..I find intelligent folks like you and KT very puzzeling in that you can debate/argue a point to the nth degree and yet become very agitated when you DO THINGS that we call sin...you just choose to call it something else.. ...You don't deny that you do it...just that it CAN'T BE SIN, cause you don't believe in sin.. It (to me) is like the double speak Abortionists use...ANY...I MEAN ANY... word but BABY.....fetus, appendage, unwanted cells, womans right, and the list goes on, but they will NEVER, till hell freezes over (if it exists ) call the "thing" what it is...a BABY... Yet.......if you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged for two (2) murders.....just how does that work..... You reckon that God made them do those things...like he makes you and me do the things we do that are evil, or henious, or just plain wrong.... You can blame Him if you want, but I take the blame for myself.. ss , "sin" only comes from two things , ignorance and selfishness. if I am ignorant of the affect of my actions , or I am well aware of the negative consequences of my actions and then proceed along those lines anyway. Either way whatever the case, it is a choice I make , so I do take responsibility for my actions. I think I take responsibility even more so than the orthodox Christian , considering I have no boogey man ala Satan to blame my humanity on . I think you and I may value the same things to some degree, like the human lessons that Christ was trying to impart. I wonder though , why since I don't believe that an identity or an afterlife are necessary should I pine for salvation? I mean why would I have to accept salvation and original sin , if I understand sin to be ignorance and the only salvation from it is to widen the perspective and broaden the empathy in order to be less likely to abuse others and more likely to be less selfish? Why should I accept those things which seem trivial and selfish to me , like eternity and heaven , when I can walk the philosophy , live the perfection through a lifetime without the fear ? Because to me , I can apply those very attributes of Christ , LOVE , COMPASSION , KINDNESS , NON JUdGMENT , etc without having to resort to shame and fear to do so... I choose to do this without eternal reward or fear of eternal damnation ....why not? And perfection ....you think it can't be lived? I submit that perfection is a function of constant evolution by the design of God toward the ultimate goal of LOVE , COMPASSION , etc... Am I not to achieve my aspirations to be loving ? not 100%? It's not as difficult as you might think.. Man widening his perspective, seeing and understanding the views of others and working to alleviate the ills in the hearts of those around him , is the movement to Christ. It is not about sitting on your hands and waiting for a saviour to come back , he already came once and now it is up to man to got to him, by following the simple principles put forth. When you rely only on one person (Jesus) for salvation then you are missing the metaphor of Christ. The truths did indeed come in the form of metaphor, parable and allegory. "We are sinners". You must understand that sin arrives from a limited or ignorant perspective. We are saved from sin by widening our ability to see. We are to see the ultimate cause and effect of our actions regarding sin and ill conduct. The coming of Christ is an expanding of vision. When we are able to shift our perspective/widen our view regarding the pain we cause when we choose to act maliciously, we are able to truly sense joy and pain , expand love through mutual respect forgiveness and understanding. He has already come, that was his part, we are to now apply his message (Love) and come into his consciousness. In this way we are to become worthy. The illusion that has been enforced is literalism rather than truth. Jesus spoke in parable. The semantics and dogma of literalism is a road block, an earthly device to divide and conquer. I am ultimately responsible, I look within for absolution. I am forgiven by being forgiving, healed by displaying kindness to others , and eternal by the love that I give to those who live on when I am gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 20, 2009 9:54:49 GMT
"sin" only comes from two things , ignorance and selfishness.
if I am ignorant of the affect of my actions , or I am well aware of the negative consequences of my actions and then proceed along those lines anyway.
I have a dissenting opinion on the ignorance part - under the law it says 'ignorance doesn't protect from punishment', meaning that while I may ignore a law (as in 'not know it') I will still be held responsible for breaking it.
'Sin' is certainly defineable, and is defined differently in various religions (at least some are) - and nowadays not all sinning is punishable under the (secular) law.
Stealing food from an abundant buffet when starving may not be punishable considering the mitigating circumstances - but it still is theft.
Killing a pagan, heathen or differing believer was once not only not punishable but even thought of as being a good thing earning you points towards salvation - though that was un-christian even then, as 'Thou shall not commit murder' is not limited to 'correct' believers.
Either way whatever the case, it is a choice I make , so I do take responsibility for my actions.
Whether ignorant of the 'rule' or not - yes.
Whether you accept it as or know it to be a sin or not is irrelevant - in the eyes of the 'others' you are a sinner.
In today's secular world that affects you less than in any religious society.
In a secular society you can self-determine (chose) to some extent your moral code - in a religious society this choice is made for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 20, 2009 16:33:18 GMT
Well, I wouldn't say it like that, but yeah. I just can't get my head around the idea that man and man alone is responsible for evil and suffering. All we are, lowly little creations, are the product of our creator - if God is the source and cause of everything then he must be the source and cause of evil and suffering. It just makes no sense to argue that we 'were' perfect and in and of our own volition made ourselves messed up sinners, with absolutely none of the responsibility falling on the being which made us in the first place! Greater minds that yours and mine have debated this issue Flix. I have no problem with it as I don' consider myself as above reproach on any issue...the denial of the fall and sin does not make it so. The evidence is overwhelming that we are sinners..I find intelligent folks like you and KT very puzzeling in that you can debate/argue a point to the nth degree and yet become very agitated when you DO THINGS that we call sin...you just choose to call it something else.. ...You don't deny that you do it...just that it CAN'T BE SIN, cause you don't believe in sin.. It (to me) is like the double speak Abortionists use...ANY...I MEAN ANY... word but BABY.....fetus, appendage, unwanted cells, womans right, and the list goes on, but they will NEVER, till hell freezes over (if it exists ) call the "thing" what it is...a BABY... Yet.......if you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged for two (2) murders.....just how does that work..... In all fairness, that's not the case everywhere where abortion is legal. Nor should it be anywhere where abortion is. At least not during the period where it is (18 weeks in Sweden). Apart from that I agree with your point. It doesn't matter if you claim humans are sinners or simply flawed (I'd say flawed), humans are it. Nor does abortion automatically become right because we call it "fetus" instead of "baby". However, I don't call a fetus a baby because I don't think they're exactly the same thing. They're both human beings, but just like a baby isn't a teenager a fetus isn't a baby. It's different stages in our development and therefore shouldn't be given the same label. That's got nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 20, 2009 18:23:09 GMT
It actually bugs me too when feminists or whoever try to frame the abortion issue as one of women's rights. Mere subterfuge, "look at my left hand while the right does something else." It completely ignores what makes the whole thing an issue - is it ok to sometimes kill human life? It sounds so ugly that way, though, and of course faith-heads are always going to give a resounding "NO!" to that question.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 20, 2009 20:18:17 GMT
"sin" only comes from two things , ignorance and selfishness.
if I am ignorant of the affect of my actions , or I am well aware of the negative consequences of my actions and then proceed along those lines anyway. I have a dissenting opinion on the ignorance part - under the law it says 'ignorance doesn't protect from punishment', meaning that while I may ignore a law (as in 'not know it') I will still be held responsible for breaking it. . I mean ignorance , not of the eventual supposed punishment , but of the actual damage that such an action might create , on a spiritual level. Ignorance of the law is no excuse indeed, I ask the laws of humanity , of higher mindedness , of nature , of LOVE COMPASSION , NON JUDGMENT ...., of what is right and wrong. In many cases the "law" might be considered totally converse to right, and thus breaking such a law would be no sin , only an infraction against societal norms. |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 28, 2009 23:16:01 GMT
It actually bugs me too when feminists or whoever try to frame the abortion issue as one of women's rights. Mere subterfuge, "look at my left hand while the right does something else." It completely ignores what makes the whole thing an issue - is it ok to sometimes kill human life? It sounds so ugly that way, though, and of course faith-heads are always going to give a resounding "NO!" to that question. Finally got back in town to where I can read some of these posts. Am I one ot those "faith-heads" Flix.. ? ;D |
|
.com
) call the "thing" what it is...a BABY...