A comment about the Show prior to the Crystal Skulls segment.

[Jabbermocky]

Yes; the substandard-prophecy-espousing minister of a particular sect has caused a lot of consternation in Rapture believers and non-believers alike; but the comments related to Radio Evangelist's predictions (in my opinion) is generating unfounded comments towards Christianity in general (my assumption being that the 'zapped' ones can be of any denomination).

Chris isn't the only one that I've heard make this kind of comment about the supposed "Rapture" last week and I know it was meant for the most-part in fun/irony. However; rather like the other commentaries, I do take umbrage with the generalization of religious groups particularly with regards to regular or fundamentalist Christian groups.

Chris commented along the lines that fundamentalists being "zapped" would be for the betterment of everybody as they are the "cause" of a lot of conflict in the World.

I guess we need to establish what Chris means by fundamentalists. I think of fundamentalist as fundamentally believing the Holy Bible to be literally true. I have no issue with that; a lot of people I hear about believe that their beliefs (or point of view) are literally true -- including MJ12 Documents and Alien Abduction Investigations etc. And as much as you may wish to ridicule or lambaste a person for their beliefs they are (at least in our society) permitted to have them.

As far as I am aware, the preacher in the middle of all of this hoopla is a Christian fundamentalist. Not to say they (the Christian version) are any better than any other religion's fundamentalist--but they (the Christians) are not the ones in the world news for the past few decades. The Rapture, as I understand it, is a Christian invention (my words) and so they would be the ones "zapped".

Now I may not know a lot about human nature but I do know that theism does not like a vacuum, and that we are all pretty well hard-wired to look for a deity of some kind in something; whether it be God, Vishnu, the Devil, God was an Alien (which is my area of study), Global Warming or (militant) atheism -- and Chris, with all due to respect to my Muslim brothers, your new neighbours will quite possibly carry a brand of fundamentalism that will do more than just irritate and annoy you and would not allow you to mock or question it.

The other point I would like to make -- probably preemptively -- is that I do not believe that religion (ergo Christianity -- fundamental or otherwise) per se can be entirely blamed as a common instigator of conflict in the World. I think it is often used as an excuse by those among us who relish conflict or who will stop at nothing for the acquisition of power. In fact I would go as far as to say that the danger may actually rest more with the non-religious.

In recent history those most responsible for the countless millions of unnecessary deaths -- for their own aggrandizement and empowerment -- happen to be renowned for their atheism or rejection of (mainstream) religion. Unless it suited them to manipulate it Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not religious at all but vehemently anti-religion (more murder), and as a group their decisions probably killed more people than all other wars before or since. The additional millions killed in the period immediately preceding theirs (WWI) was a political struggle played out between empires -- mostly of the same religion. Previous to that, another murderous leader would be Napoleon -- over 2 million soles killed due to his campaigns. To avoid accepting the Pope (Pius VII) as his overlord, he crowned himself Emperor. My own view is that like the others I mentioned he was probably an atheist too.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

And as much as you may wish to ridicule or lambaste a person for their beliefs they are (at least in our society) permitted to have them.

Agreed, however belief in some doctrine or system is a lame excuse for attempting the forced colonization of others to your way of thinking, or believing. To each their own, I say, but I contend that rigid, fundamentalist thinking is brittle and outmoded. If you want to believe that you could have been "raptured" up into the heavens last May 21st, that's your personal process and I'm not amused if you are disappointed it did not come to pass. Belief (for the most part) is a tenuous journey down a slippery slope and gravity will ultimately prevail. However, its not the downward slide that enlightens you to a more objective process of understanding--its the sudden stop with a rapturous flash that illuminates you at the end.
Or something like that.... *smile*

 

[wbrojab]

I agree with you Chris; I'm just so darned long-winded about these things. I guess my point was -- most succinctly -- that if those fundamentalists Christians 'were' taken up as they had probably hoped for; we would still have enough fundamentalists go around from all the non-Christian and equally bigoted sects to keep the trouble rolling on the planet -- and that wouldn't include the even more troublesome anti-religious bigots.

 

[Xylo]

The other point I would like to make -- probably preemptively -- is that I do not believe that religion (ergo Christianity -- fundamental or otherwise) per se can be entirely blamed as a common instigator of conflict in the World. I think it is often used as an excuse by those among us who relish conflict or who will stop at nothing for the acquisition of power. In fact I would go as far as to say that the danger may actually rest more with the non-religious.

In recent history those most responsible for the countless millions of unnecessary deaths -- for their own aggrandizement and empowerment -- happen to be renowned for their atheism or rejection of (mainstream) religion. Unless it suited them to manipulate it Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not religious at all but vehemently anti-religion (more murder), and as a group their decisions probably killed more people than all other wars before or since. The additional millions killed in the period immediately preceding theirs (WWI) was a political struggle played out between empires -- mostly of the same religion. Previous to that, another murderous leader would be Napoleon -- over 2 million soles killed due to his campaigns. To avoid accepting the Pope (Pius VII) as his overlord, he crowned himself Emperor. My own view is that like the others I mentioned he was probably an atheist too.

While I agree with you, for the most part, the use of religion to create a common enemy, perceived or otherwise, is a common thread in some of the conflicts which you mention.

The non-belief in a religion or a deity does not necessarily exclude the use of those religious beliefs as a tool to motivate and bind together-to make common cause, to wit solidarity, amongst those that do believe in that religion. And to use that common cause to create much harm.

Further, to say that Hitler was vehemently anti religious is selectively excluding his fascination with christian and jewish relics, as well as any other relics which he believed could further his cause and bestow upon himself great power. Facts that are well known by those that do any serious reading about the man. Nor can we forget Hitler's relationship with the vatican which was demonstrated with the Nazi/Vatican recognizing of Croatia and the creation of the Ustaše- which was devoted to persecution of Muslims, Jews and Gypsies...to create a religious purity within the Balkan geographical area.

So to say that Hitler was "vehemently anti-religion" is, in my humble opinion, completely false according to his deeds, to the deeds of those that followed him, and to the acquisitions that he attempted to make.

 

[Jabbermocky]

Nor can we forget Hitler's relationship with the vatican which was demonstrated with the Nazi/Vatican recognizing of Croatia and the creation of the Ustaše- which was devoted to persecution of Muslims, Jews and Gypsies...to create a religious purity within the Balkan geographical area.

So to say that Hitler was "vehemently anti-religion" is, in my humble opinion, completely false according to his deeds, to the deeds of those that followed him, and to the acquisitions that he attempted to make.

...and there I was claiming to being long-winded when I was obviously not verbose enough. I was generalizing on the behaviour of such irreligious despots (Hitler among them) toward organized religion. I also qualified the statement with "...unless it suited them..." but all you have to do is Google "Hitler and Islam" and you'll find it suited Hitler quite well to consider Muslims a useful 'race': As Hitler said in December 1942, "I consider only the Muslims to be reliable...I see no danger in the establishment of purely Muslim units."

...and being a Freemason I am quite aware of the Nazis and their murderous rampages and theft of relics and torturous extraction of others groups' mysteries.

"Completely false" is a little strong, don't you think? Not very nice. Try "completely erroneous" next time--much more palatable--less possibility of me construing to mean 'liar'.

The non-belief in a religion or a deity does not necessarily exclude the use of those religious beliefs as a tool to motivate and bind together-to make common cause, to wit solidarity, amongst those that do believe in that religion. And to use that common cause to create much harm.

I couldn't have put that better though. Completely agree.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Now I may not know a lot about human nature but I do know that theism does not like a vacuum, and that we are all pretty well hard-wired to look for a deity of some kind in something; whether it be God, Vishnu, the Devil, God was an Alien (which is my area of study), Global Warming or (militant) atheism

How is global warming a religion?

 

[Jabbermocky]

How is global warming a religion?

Personal opinion really. I'm a denier of the "human" caused global warming theory. I see it as a self (humanity)-hate or a new-age doom and gloom movement -- with religion-like undertones. My sceptisicism toward "flavour of the month" movements in genral makes me see them as an opportunity for the self-important to stand out under a new banner to rally others towards. Man; that does make it sound like a religion -- I must be onto something I also see that deniers, like myself, are often seen as heretical (particularly by mainstream science) in the same manner that mainstream religion does with those who don't tow their line.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Personal opinion really. I'm a denier of the "human" caused global warming theory. I see it as a self (humanity)-hate or a new-age doom and gloom movement -- with religion-like undertones. My sceptisicism toward "flavour of the month" movements in genral makes me see them as an opportunity for the self-important to stand out under a new banner to rally others towards. Man; that does make it sound like a religion -- I must be onto something I also see that deniers, like myself, are often seen as heretical (particularly by mainstream science) in the same manner that mainstream religion does with those who don't tow their line.

That's an interesting take on the topic. Where do you get your information on global warming?
The reason it seems heretical to mainstream science is because it goes against the data that has been collected on the subject.

 

[Jabbermocky]

I admit it! I'm a Moncktonite. Woe is me. The Science and Public Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html) has me in their ranks (grasp).

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I admit it! I'm a Moncktonite. Woe is me. The Science and Public Institute (www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org) has me in their ranks (grasp).

Okay, thanks. That paints a clear picture of how your opinion is formed.

 

[Xylo]

...and there I was claiming to being long-winded when I was obviously not verbose enough. I was generalizing on the behaviour of such irreligious despots (Hitler among them) toward organized religion. I also qualified the statement with "...unless it suited them..." but all you have to do is Google "Hitler and Islam" and you'll find it suited Hitler quite well to consider Muslims a useful 'race': As Hitler said in December 1942, "I consider only the Muslims to be reliable...I see no danger in the establishment of purely Muslim units."

...and being a Freemason I am quite aware of the Nazis and their murderous rampages and theft of relics and torturous extraction of others groups' mysteries.

"Completely false" is a little strong, don't you think? Not very nice. Try "completely erroneous" next time--much more palatable--less possibility of me construing to mean 'liar'.

My apologies if you took that personally. To me though, the rash generalization that Hitler was "ir-religious" comes from those who read only the words and overlook the deeds. It's a common fallacy perpetuated by modern history books which overlook some of Hitler's odd tendencies as just obscure footnotes. Sometimes I do word my statements bluntly on this subject, but I assure you that it was not meant as an attack towards you, your person, nor your personal beliefs.