Religion

[stonehart]

 

[trainedobserver]

The monstrous horror of inhuman war gods spawned from the imaginations of land grabbing men. The doctrine of the scorched Earth. It is truly disturbing to contemplate these things in the context of the Christian mythos that obfuscates what the text plainly says about the alleged commands and actions of the tribal god Yahweh.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Another thing is if you take a good old American Christian - rewind til he was a kid, kidnap drug and remove to saudi arabia, have him adopted by local family.......wait some years and hey presto! someone claiming the koran is the final word of god and the rest be damned. There is so much influence from older people in the making of 'new recruits' to a religion.
I think no kid should be told what book to believe but be left to decide which religion IF ANY, they choose to follow, not just the one your daddy did.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Another thing is if you take a good old American Christian - rewind til he was a kid, kidnap drug and remove to saudi arabia, have him adopted by local family.......wait some years and hey presto! someone claiming the koran is the final word of god and the rest be damned. There is so much influence from older people in the making of 'new recruits' to a religion.
I think no kid should be told what book to believe but be left to decide which religion IF ANY, they choose to follow, not just the one your daddy did.

 

[Jabbermocky]

The problem here is that "perceptions" are like A-holes, everybody has one. When you start from the perception "it's all bunk and the entire Bible is fiction and mind control," then that's what you will most likely come up with. When you start from "It's a conspiracy and people are being told a lie," then that's more than likely what you will come up with. If you start with actual skepticism, such as 'Maybe, we don't have the correct tools to understand this stuff and maybe we should open up the doors of perception by studying the Bible and the effects of those believers experiencing religion.' Or; maybe even experimenting with practicing the lifestyle of everyday Christians, other religions, that we so quickly deprecate, and compare our interpretation and information with actual events. I think we get stuck sometimes with trying to use selected parts of religious documents. We throw away good messages from people like Graham and Sharpton and Tutu and call them fools and fanatics because some smirking "atheist" says it's not possible. I think that as long as we have people with a "vested" interest in debunking instead of real tolerance and a vested interest in nuts and bolts religion instead of just following the message where it leads, we will always have this argument. Maybe someday we will have indisputable contact with "God" or a cosmic intelligence. Until then I don't think anybody will ever be totally convinced of anything. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[trainedobserver]

Maybe someday we will have indisputable contact with "God" or a cosmic intelligence. Until then I don't think anybody will ever be totally convinced of anything. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Well, there is nothing to prevent anyone from dispassionately judging the actions and commands of the character of Yahweh that is contained in the Bible and similar texts. Belief or non-belief in the reality of the character is irrelevant to the exercise. Would you not agree?

 

[Jabbermocky]

I was being facetious and parodying one of the above posters' words elsewhere in the forum. I just find the poisonous pan-anti-religious vitriol from (what I describe as) militant atheists simply sickening .. words fail me (so I borrowed someone else's). Personally I do not care if you are Jew, Christian, Arab, black, white, blue, green, or purple with pink spots, the anti-religious dogma and hatred is simply that sickening.

 

[trainedobserver]

I was being facetious and parodying one of the above posters' words elsewhere in the forum. I just find the poisonous pan-anti-religious vitriol from (what I describe as) militant atheists simply sickening .. words fail me (so I borrowed someone else's). Personally I do not care if you are Jew, Christian, Arab, black, white, blue, green, or purple with pink spots, the anti-religious dogma and hatred is simply that sickening.

Do you find any of that in the video Genocide and the flood - God is not good - with William Lane Craig - Part 2 that was posted above? I do not.

 

[Jabbermocky]

What is the source of this image? I only ask as at least three of the persons on it are well-known 'Brothers' of mine. In our fraternity a belief in a 'supreme being' -- a "Great Architect of the Universe" -- if you will, is required. Now; the Roman Catholic Church -- that happens to have a dislike to our institution does so because it considers those Christians within our fraternity to be "Deists" -- not atheists. The Pope of the day (and I assume most since) frown at our welcoming into our fold members of all religions, faiths, denominations as long as they are not athiests. I would suggest that that some of the above-pictured "atheists" are more likely to have been deists or agnostics -- if not of their announced or perceived religion.

 

[Bob Watson]

I went to the zoo today and a donkey spoke the word of GOD! any one beleve me? GOOD! thats what the bible says happened.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

What is the source of this image? I only ask as at least three of the persons on it are well-known 'Brothers' of mine. In our fraternity a belief in a 'supreme being' -- a "Great Architect of the Universe" -- if you will, is required. Now; the Roman Catholic Church -- that happens to have a dislike to our institution does so because it considers those Christians within our fraternity to be "Deists" -- not atheists. The Pope of the day (and I assume most since) frown at our welcoming into our fold members of all religions, faiths, denominations as long as they are not athiests. I would suggest that that some of the above-pictured "atheists" are more likely to have been deists or agnostics -- if not of their announced or perceived religion.

Would you respect them any less if you found out they didn't believe in a god?

 

[Jabbermocky]

answer my question first, maybe...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I can't answer the question because I didn't post or create the image. I'm also pretty sure that some of the people in that image were theists in one way or another. However, for fun, let's say the image is correct, would you respect them any less?

 

[Id33]

I've come to the conclusion that most of our religions are man/alien-made for the following reasons:

1. Religious books are far too confusing. We've been debating their meaning for thousands of years so, if a god meant for us to attain salvation in our lifetimes, why are these religious books so confusing and convoluted? It seems clear to me that there has always been a group of people that knew the meaning of and how to interpret these books, yet they also used religion to stir people into religio-patriotic devotion.
2. Why would a god entrust a religious book to be in the hands of a few questionable organizations for thousands of years at a time. I know better than to trust organizations over a long period of time so I think that a god would know that too. Let those organizations indulge in things like genocides, slavery, pedophilia, etc and you actually have a situation where many will reject a teaching because of who is bearing it. It makes more sense to me that God would communicate to man through dreams and visions.
3. There seems to me to be a genetic purity element in western religion, specifically Judaism.
   1. Pork is forbidden in most of western religion, yet we find that pigs are the most compatible animals for transplants and viruses cross from pigs to humans more easily than any other animal.
   2. And at least some element of the Exodus involves the ancient Hebrews purging the diseased from their community in the Sinai before founding their new nation.
   3. Noah's flood seems clearly to be punishment for the mixing of "daughters of men" with "sons of God".

It seems to me that Shamanism and Buddhism are probably the few spiritually oriented religions left on the planet.

 

[Jabbermocky]

I can't answer the question because I didn't post or create the image. I'm also pretty sure that some of the people in that image were theists in one way or another. However, for fun, let's say the image is correct, would you respect them any less?

Firstly, I respect all of those shown in the image -- as far as I know them as people. However; it is harder to answer your question with regards to those who were Freemasons. I think it would have been against their good conscience, to have entered the Craft as an atheist, take oaths that invoke the name of God (as we do) and then to have stayed with the fraternity -- unless they had been deceitful with the organization, upon entering. You then have to ask yourself how respectful should you be of someone who not only deceives a group he has chosen to join (as he would have declared a belief in a supreme being) but continues to live and behave as if he was not an atheist. Reverse that situation -- someone is a believer but joins a group for atheists and pretends not to be religious, do they get your 'full' respect?
In the subject situation, I would very much doubt deceit occurred. I am going to assume, and I think correctly, that in this respect the image is incorrect -- and unless there is verifiable sources -- where these historical figures personally claimed to be atheists, I will consider the image to be ill-researched and erroneous. Junk history, basically.
An misconception by the collagist perhaps? A few of those individuals shown were also members of the congregation of the Church of England. As the Monarch of England was the head of that church, and the fact that these individuals also happened to be the head-revolutionaries in the 13 colonies, they may have become disillusioned with their church. Perhaps someone, in error, has confused their leaving of their church with leaving their faith.
If a Mason does find himself of a mind that he has lost 'his' particular faith and has become an atheist, I would expect him to do what we call a "demit" -- which is a request to leave the fraternity. That's all. It would be respected; we wouldn't want him to carry on against his beliefs -- that would be against ours. I had a Brother, who after the death of his wife, chose to rejoin the church of his youth (RC) and he was given an ultimatum by his priest to leave Masonry or he would not be able to rejoin the church. He took his demit (as we say). Sure, like any family, there were some of us who were insulted by his leaving in such a manner after having been with us for so long, some who were angry with the church to give such an ultimatum, but there were none who lost respect for him, it was what he believed in after all.
My concern is. That in the same way that some Christian zealots call me scum because I am a Freemason -- which has happened -- that many atheists today consider all of Christendom in much the same way. In my case, for instance, because of the words, behaviours and acts of the Roman Catholic and the Bible-thumping Baptists churches towards my group or me and my beliefs (such as they are), does not mean I should attack them or their religion in such unrelenting and unfeeling terms as I have read above -- I am more Christian than that. I do question them (Christians -- who for the most part wouldn't consider me to be so), there's nothing wrong with questioning others', or stating your own, beliefs; but slinging these angry, poison arrows at religious people (and more specifically Christians) because of 'their' beliefs in a particular book or a heaven or a god appears to be no better than dogmatic proselytizing reversed.
I have not watched any of the videos listed, so in my earlier comments of this vein, I was addressing the posters' messages I have read. The terms used and what appears to be utter hatred by some, toward Christians (in particular), their chosen book of faith (the Bible in particular) and the cherry-picking the bad stuff and offering it as representative of the whole by others, is no better than the zealots who, I think, these posters are 'actually' at odds with.
My final thought (for now) on the subject of the 'angry' atheist movement -- as I see it -- is that it believes that it can, indeed, proselytize Christians into becoming atheists. My warning would be, careful of what you wish for. I think humanity is hard-wired for religious thought -- that's why it is so easy for zealots to conjure up thousands to do their dirty-work. If I am right, there are plenty of other religions out there that are growing and looking for converts (I think I may have poorly hidden my subject there). You may find yourself jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

 

[trainedobserver]

My final thought (for now) on the subject of the 'angry' atheist movement -- as I see it -- is that it believes that it can, indeed, proselytize Christians into becoming atheists. My warning would be, careful of what you wish for. I think humanity is hard-wired for religious thought -- that's why it is so easy for zealots to conjure up thousands to do their dirty-work. If I am right, there are plenty of other religions out there that are growing and looking for converts (I think I may have poorly hidden my subject there). You may find yourself jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

I have to say that is completely nonsensical. Don't encourage people to abandon their irrational fantasy based belief systems that originate from the worship of ancient nomadic tribal gods because they might adopt one that is more blood-thirsty, repressive, and land grabbing? Honestly?

The answer is an education (to dispel ignorance) that encourages doubt (to do away with unthinking devotion), questioning (to discover how the world really works), and free-thought, not the adopting of another faith-based belief system where the inhuman demands of alleged non-human supernatural beings are seen as having priority over reason and common sense.

 

[Jabbermocky]

Not nonsensical at all. Those, who I describe as militant atheists (and that's who I am addressing) believing that badgerring and bullying people out of what they consider others' "belief systems that originate from the worship of ancient nomadic tribal gods" will 'enlighten them' into atheistic non-belief, is irrattional. I was saying from my 'belief' that we are hard-wired to 'believe' will not see a permanent state of atheism -- just a void waiting to be filled by the next bunch of zealots. I am simply saying the old chestnut, "better the devil you know".

Education to what, to agree with you? Sounds kinda fascist to me. Here's another way of looking at it. We often on these boards read of all of the concern with the Alunminati and other NWO stuff. John Lennon wrote a song that is the anthem of peace and love -- imagine no heaven, imagine there's no countries, nothing to kill or die for, no religion too
...new world order, one world government.... I'm sure that's not what he pictured or meant -- but could be the result.

 

[tyder001]

I call it a circle jerk! You are correct Jabberwocky. First the "evidence" didn't support the required data so cursing and spitting and splatteing the wall with silly images became the norm. I have noticed on this forum that folks are praised when they present what the hearer agrees with. Yet, when it disagrees then simply resort to name calling and cussing. Even a host was bitch slapped around with no hint of anger by the defenders of justice. I'm not a religious fundi. I don't think it much matters if you are Christian or Jew or Atheist or Muslim. But, I do think it matters how you treat others. I honestly like some of the posters here who absolutely deny and even find some of the things I believe or consider to be hogwash. But, the lack of intellectual honesty here is bad. Yep, that's the word. Bad.

 

[Kim323]

Jabbermocky, I enjoyed reading your post, and your narrative is your own, your thoughts are your own, they are heartfelt and genuine, and above all, they are correct as to the tone, and that's a euphemism indeed, of a few members here on this thread and elsewhere. I'm probably telling you things you already know, but I just saw you get beat up in two ways: 1. a sheer onslaught of vindictiveness 2. another method used by a few here, too; I call it coyness. A example is the exchange above: 1. you responded with a genuine observation on an image, albeit pretty innocuous compared to some, but that nevertheless WAS inflammatory, was meant to incite 2. someone responded, "Would you respect them any the less if........." That, of course, is a purposeful evasion, meant to be coy and, believe me, pretentiously deep 3. you responded, having, I think, caught #2 at his game, and frustrated a bit, replied, well, could you answer my question? 4. the same poster responded with a disclaimer that he didn't post or create the image. True enough, it was lifted from who knows where by the original poster of the image, because that particular member's stock and trade and patented method is to mine the net for such stuff 5. you have "lost" the round, because the coy poster asks you the same question about respect for men WHO ARE CALLED IDIOTS in the image. 6. You responded with a very heartfelt post, turning what some enjoy as a gotta win situation into something genuine and accurate. Good for you.

Your last post above, Jabbermocky, is very, very, and sadly so, true as to tone.

May I point out something? Go back to page one of this thread and count who "contributes" the most posts to it. You will come up with the number two.

I responded to this particular post with the tone you spoke of because it was not begun by one of those two.

See some more posts of the same nature. You will see that one of the two will start a post with this stuff, purposely inflammatory, tolerated because it's that sacred word here: "data," in some people's views. The true nature of it is purposely ignored. You will see that the same two compete to mine the net with stuff to post to the thread quickly one after another.

I stay out of those threads, and again, replied to this one only because it was begun by someone who was trying, from the heart, to express something, but you see what it turned into.

This is the direct result of the bruising battles on the so-called Jesus threads, which you might enjoy reading. Two posters have come here and started other threads to lick their wounds, and begin threads for the same purpose and do what I described above.

The irony is that some posters here who decry religion in just the very terms that you describe so correctly and accurately, are inside themselves the most religious people you will ever meet. I've discussed this in threads having to do with abduction, psychology, the state of the UFO and abduction "fields," intelligent extraterrestrials, and so on, without naming any names but who seem from my perspective and in my opinion, to accept their personal experiences and sightings, their beliefs in other intelligently inhabited worlds, and so on, as perfectly rational, as scientific. The anthropomorphized beings who visit abductees, who pilot the craft in the unexplained sighting "just a few weeks ago," are just a primitive/proto example of the "religious" spark in all humanity, decry it as they will. We all have that spark, and as I've made clear in my posts on other threads, that spark is nothing to be ashamed of.

You may disagree with some of what I've written here, Jabbermocky, and that's fine. I just felt very bad for you. I, for one, admire how you held your ground. Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

Education to what, to agree with you? Sounds kinda fascist to me.

Yes, education is a fascist plot Jabbermocky. Sheesh. What is the point?