'America For Jesus' Rally

that which man touches, especially on an organized level, he corrupts. it's what we do and who we are, whether or not there is a God.

The problem with religion, even organized religion, is not the religion itself, or the effect it has on the believer (IMO) - rather the problem is within the human heart to begin with. one of the most black-hearted aspects of our nature is the tendency to categorize people into those who are like us, and those who are different - either better than us or less than us.

From their grows the sin - sin IMO whether or not any God said it was - of abusing those whom we deem to be lesser than us. Combine that with faith, no matter how sincerely held or how noble, and people have a tendency to say "your beliefs are not as good as mine, let me fix you"

Now, objectively, SOME beliefs are NOT as good as others, and on the occasion when those beliefs lead to harm or oppression, it is necessary to say "your beliefs are not as good as mine" (even if that is a subjective conclusion) but we OUGHT to only go there with the greatest hesitation, yet too often it's our first thought.

And yes, by the way, I am aware that there are a few religions belief systems that greatly suppress the urge to say "you need to get right and think like I do" but over the course of human history, these are the exceptions, not the rule, and i suspect even those are corrupted into power plays in some instances.

Anyway, the point is that the actual fault, IMO, lies in the human heart - not in the teachings of any faith system however credible or nonsensical. You would think after all these centuries of human history we would have at least learned that the principle - expressed thus in Christianity but likely found in any body of wisdom - "love thy neighbor as thyself" would be the beginning of everything else we might believe. but it seems too few can say this.

Oh and this "align your mindset with God" thing is another retcon. There are numerous references within the bible to asking for things with prayer, and getting them.

I think the vast majority of religious people in this world do pray because they want something in return. Heck, even my parents often tell me, "Be good and pray to God and he will give you what you want!"

Those who think about it on a more intellectual level probably realize that the effort is pointless if the recipient for your prayers is in fact omniscient and omnipotent. He already knows what you want and could have done it for you at any time.

So they have to come up with other reasons for why one would pray to such a diety.

Of course it is possible that God (or the gods) thinks like a human being and craves worship or demands prayer in return for favors... but this makes him seem rather petty, insecure, and irrational.

Yet even in the Bible God is often referred to as wrathful, loving, paternal, etc. They ascribe human emotions to a being who should be quite beyond such things.

not within the context of the Christian God, its not.

in that Context, you have a manifestation of God whom even the hardest skeptic finds flawlessly admirable (as described) no matter what those who claim to follow him have done or said...and you have an all-powerful God who restrains his RIGHT to do with you as he sees fit (as you might have the right to break a clay pot you had made) and grants to you the free agency to accept or reject his sovereignty.

THAT is anything but disturbing. That's admirable by any measure.

Now, the whole business of eternal punishment for saying no - THAT is disturbing (and, may I say, completely inconsistent with the forgoing which leads me to believe it's a bit of bullshit).

But on the point that you reacted to - the idea that the God of the universe only claims sovereignty over the individual who willingly cedes it to him.... that's about the most enlightened and non-disturbing view of God which exists.

it's easy enough to assume that the original audience would not have been able to process the idea of a God who did not feel and react at least on some level in a "human" way.

Think of it as if you were trying to explain calculus to a 4 year old. If you can put it into a context she can relate to, it has no meaning to her. We shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that "Moses" or "Abraham" could grasp some of the concepts that seem obvious to us...and even if the "great thinkers" of any given generation could, the masses wouldn't. (arguably, the masses still don't)

Retcon?

Sure. You can see it that way. Another way to look at it is to re-examine your views in light of additional information and growing wisdom. Some "retcon" themselves right out of faith altogether.

It's not my purpose to convince you or anyone else of the authenticity of what the book says or what I think....I've gotten to where i say very little in the specifics about what i believe.

I'm only discussing REASONABLE ways to reconcile what was written 2,000 and more years ago to what we have learned and understand about the world and the human race in the years since.

But a REASONABLE explanation is NOT and can NEVER be a DEFINITIVE point of view or one which is proven.

Ultimately it still takes some measure of faith.

What is unreasonable in my view is anyone, faithful or skeptic, which seeks to impose their point of view as the only allowable one. Opinions are as varied as the human minds and hearts which consider them.

I can't really disagree with that first sentence; it happens all too often. But the second sentence seems self-contradictory. If people are free to "hold whatever personal spiritual beliefs they wanted," what if that includes the desire to talk with, share with, and spend time with those who hold to the same beliefs? But as soon as they do that, it becomes "organized religion" by definition.

You say that as if the second sentence somehow disproves the first. But since they are not at all contradictory, that neither demonstrates nor tends to demonstrate that the goal of prayer is not to "align your mindset with God".

It's as if I say "the goal of advertisements is to inform people, not to force them to do something" and you say "That is another retcon, because a lot of people who see an advertisement go ahead and buy the product". The one not being a contradiction of the other, it leaves the claim of being a "retcon" totally unsupported.

That's true, I should amend my statement. People have a right to freely associate with whomever they want. Even if its the Klu Klux Klan.

But when it comes to using politics or violence to promote their views or silence the views of others, it crosses a line.

My fear is that the moral majority will gain enough political power to start drowning out minority religious groups (or people with no religion)... like how Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and Christians are treated in Muslim-dominated countries.

I don't mind organized religion per se, but I do mind it when organized religions accumulate enough power to bend society towards their beliefs. That is something I'd fight tooth and nail against.

And, like I keep saying, that worldly power is what organized religion is always licking its lips and rubbing its hands for, that's its end-game, you look at history, and the stories in the friggin' holy books, and that's what religion is for, so I do mind organized religion per se.

Which is fine with me. Between that type of reason, and a fundamentalist, I will gladly choose the former. I have no problem with religion or faith, as long as the practitioner doesn't try to restrict my rights based on his or her religious beliefs.

And, as usual, you are wrong with your categorical statements. You are just as wrong as those who say "All Muslims are evil," and for exactly the same reasons.

You see the world filtered through your anti-religion view just as much as the most intolerant religious fanatics see it filtered through their religious view, and the result is just as distorted. And you, like them, congratulate yourself on having the "right" view, unable to see the myriad obvious counter-examples of your claims.

Robotech Master is honest enough to realize it is not all black and white, and that some religious people "organize" simply for their own convenience, so they can meet together to sing, pray, study whatever holy book they happen to like, or dance naked to the godess. You, however, have to pretend that anyone who does anything like that is "coming for you and your freedom." You have long since let your irrational fear of all religion push you well over the line from rational skepticism to paranoia.

Dancing naked for the godess? Sign me up! Actually, let's amend that to a religion where the godess dances naked for me. Can a strip club ne a church?

Talk to the Bear or the Turkey.

I'd be joining for all the wrong reasons, wouldn't want to take advantage of their religious practices for puerile purposes.

But I didn't say "all Muslims are evil", nor did my statement even slightly resemble "all Christians are evil".

And to say organized religion doesn't, and hasn't thirsted for power, is to ignore history, and again, the fucking bible.

And your little victimhood routine is an attempt to sweep that under the rug.

Yeah, once they're made to behave in a secular society with rule of law.

A theocracy, not so much.

No, not "anyone".
Not even most.
Just enough.
Just enough to fuck things up.

Who cares? Long as they are peaceful and don't break any laws like the occupy crowd does this just a group people exercising their first amendment right to assemble.

The Klan's got a right to assemble, and I got a right, no, a duty, to boo and flip 'em off.


Pat Robertson is as much a dangerous bigot.
Anyone who can't see that is too far gone.

I'm not sure where you're sourcing the view of "the hardest skeptic" from. Personally, I find the notion of any being that desires or claims the right to sovereignty over me to be pretty much the most objectionable thing imaginable.

There are no non-disturbing views of omnipotent dictatorship.

"If God exists, it is necessary to abolish him" - Bakunin.

The implication here is that there is no causal connection between asking the Almighty for something and getting it because if you get it, you have not influenced Him and He was going to give it to you anyway. Correct?

Because while I'm sure you'll inform me that they're mistranslations or some such, such a causal connection is implied by your Holy Book.

No, incorrect.

The implication is that the Bible does not encourage people to pray primarily for that reason, and that there is nothing mechanical about it in any case because God is totally free to refuse, no matter how you pray, no matter how sincere you are, no matter how many people are doing it, and no matter how many other factors you think will "stack the odds in your favour". The Bible encourages us to submit to God, but never, ever teaches or implies that God will submit to man and "do what he is told to do".

Y'know, I really don't think he should eat the glowy stuff they inject into golf balls to make 'em go farther. I think that biting into a golf ball and chewing his way to the chewy center would be a very bad idea, and he should not spend a whole Saturday trying to do it.

It is your argument that IF a being exist who is solely responsible for your existence, not only that he may have constructed you from pre-existing material but even to the point of creating the material necessary (never mind whether you believe this is the case or even possible - just postulated as a thesis) that such a being is, nevertheless, not entitled to assert at least the right to claim sovereignty over you?

I'm not saying that you can't argue that in such an arrangement he should have known you would resent it or whatever - i'm merely speaking of the abstract right to claim that position, irrespective of whether or not you liked it.

(to be clear, my belief is that, assuming there is ANY glimmer of truth to the Biblical teachings, humans were created to be free moral agents and he does not assert personal sovereignty against anyone's will - I'm just asking a "what if")

Dr. Frankenstein, or a regular average everyday bad parent doesn't have that right, why would magical powers change that dynamic?

Absolutely.

A slave who accepts his chains is still a slave, and should be freed.

It is bizarre how so many Christians claim to be against totalitarianism in the worldly political sphere, yet so readily embrace it in the cosmic sphere.

Or me.

No shit? Then what the hell am I paying him for?

the God which they believe exists does not have human flaws.

All religion aside, if you ask me would I rather be ruled by a being who could not by definition EVER be wrong....or had i rather be ruled by the flawed opinions of 50%+1 of my peers - im going to happily choose the former and be better off for it.

if you consider that slavery then so be it.


(note, not trying to convince you such a being exists - but that is who Christians believe him to be)

But that's not your choice, and never has been.

And, I think you know it, which is why you dodged post 54.

But, I won't be mysterious, and get right to it.

HOW exactly can a being never be wrong?
Because it merely says so?

What does it back that up with?
Because it can perform magical feats?

What exactly would separate such a thing from say, General Zod with invisibility potion?

Sorry for stepping into exactly that territory, but....you keep expressing it as an incoherent idea.

I'm supposed to just bite my hand?