Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Baby Steps


Open_Minded

Recommended Posts

You say one thing and do another.

 

Ah, but that is the Christian way.

 

You can do it your own way, if it's done just as "God" says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like to see this thread get back on topic. Particularly as it is more positive and shows optimism for the future rather than hash about Turgonian as though anything he/she says is....

 

1) relevant

2) interesting

3) or NEW!!

 

It is the Coliseum after all..... :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like to see this thread get back on topic. Particularly as it is more positive and shows optimism for the future rather than hash about Turgonian as though anything he/she says is....

 

1) relevant

2) interesting

3) or NEW!!

 

It is the Coliseum after all..... :grin:

 

Wonderful Idea White_Raven... Back to the OP .... Baby Steps towards a more inclusive culture.

 

For years I've been involved in building a small interspiritual/interfaith community in a little white Lutheran church in a small suburb of a metro area. It's not been easy - even if we do live in a more liberal area of the country - the going has been slow.

 

So - I take my rewards where they come from. :)

 

Today - I recieved an invitation to speak at a state wide celebration of Interfaith Awareness. The people involved in planning the event heard about the work we're doing at our little white country church on a hill and invited me to speak about it. Someone is actually interested. :grin:

 

Like I said, "baby steps".....

 

Today is a good day - now I have to plan a 5 minute speach about interfaith awareness and the need for it in our world today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really lucky to live in Seattle. You find all manner of alternative faiths here, even though the rest of Washington is pretty conservative. I live in a part of town that is mostly Asian, and I've got a Buddhist temple within a 2 minute walking radius (I should really get up the courage to visit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really lucky to live in Seattle. You find all manner of alternative faiths here, even though the rest of Washington is pretty conservative. I live in a part of town that is mostly Asian, and I've got a Buddhist temple within a 2 minute walking radius (I should really get up the courage to visit.)

 

Would that be the Seattle Betsuin at 1427 South Main street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I won't say exactly where it is because it's too close to home for comfort posting on the net, but the smell of the incense on some days is just heavenly!

 

I'm just not sure how to approach them, but sometimes I wave to the monks as they are taking care of the flower garden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I won't say exactly where it is because it's too close to home for comfort posting on the net, but the smell of the incense on some days is just heavenly!

 

I'm just not sure how to approach them, but sometimes I wave to the monks as they are taking care of the flower garden.

 

Well I hope it's NOT that one! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a Red State. Despite this, the society seems close to evenly split in terms of conservativism and liberalism. We have fundamentalists here, and their agendas do tend to dominate politically, but socially it's a LOT more open (which is a start).

 

I'm happy to say, due to some interesting state laws (don't know if this can be done in other states), anyone can legally marry a couple. Which is nice as a couple can have very unconventional joinings that aren't marred by the presence of a meaningless stranger who wants to impose his or her own shit to the proceedings. So if you want a Lord of the Rings themed wedding, the person officiating will be as much in character (being a true friend of the family), elf-ears and all, as everyone else involved. And they certainly aren't going to squirm when you tell them what you do or don't want them to say, as they have no delusion of being a representative of a diety.

 

I'd say easily 3/4ths of the weddings I've been to were officiated by a friend or family member. And of the 1/4th that went for 'traditional'....they were usually religious people and therefore happy with the proceedings. One couple however, were definitely NOT religious, but they went for the traditional anyway....and there were plenty of WTF moments, especially when the officiating minister tossed a few judgemental statements into his spiel (the bride was obviously pregnant) that I think, most people opted to just politely overlook (as opposed to ramming flowers up his fucking nose which is what I wanted to do).

 

Overall, I just think it's great that most of the weddings I've been to have been of the non-traditional and nonreligious variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a Red State. Despite this, the society seems close to evenly split in terms of conservativism and liberalism. We have fundamentalists here, and their agendas do tend to dominate politically, but socially it's a LOT more open (which is a start).

 

I'm happy to say, due to some interesting state laws (don't know if this can be done in other states), anyone can legally marry a couple. Which is nice as a couple can have very unconventional joinings that aren't marred by the presence of a meaningless stranger who wants to impose his or her own shit to the proceedings. So if you want a Lord of the Rings themed wedding, the person officiating will be as much in character (being a true friend of the family), elf-ears and all, as everyone else involved. And they certainly aren't going to squirm when you tell them what you do or don't want them to say, as they have no delusion of being a representative of a diety.

 

I'd say easily 3/4ths of the weddings I've been to were officiated by a friend or family member. And of the 1/4th that went for 'traditional'....they were usually religious people and therefore happy with the proceedings. One couple however, were definitely NOT religious, but they went for the traditional anyway....and there were plenty of WTF moments, especially when the officiating minister tossed a few judgemental statements into his spiel (the bride was obviously pregnant) that I think, most people opted to just politely overlook (as opposed to ramming flowers up his fucking nose which is what I wanted to do).

 

Overall, I just think it's great that most of the weddings I've been to have been of the non-traditional and nonreligious variety.

 

I think justice of the peace weddings are legal in all states. I presided over Rameus' wedding, but his specifications were a bit beyond non-traditional. In short I was ordained as a minister of the gospel in Vegas, which his state did honor as credential enough, and he was wed by an openly atheistic clergyman. The next morning I was still drunk, and could barely sign their wedding certificate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really lucky to live in Seattle. You find all manner of alternative faiths here, even though the rest of Washington is pretty conservative. I live in a part of town that is mostly Asian, and I've got a Buddhist temple within a 2 minute walking radius (I should really get up the courage to visit.)

Hi Kurari, I was in Seattle last week and had a great visit. The last time I was there was in '88 and it looked more built up. The guys at the fish place on Pike St. still do their shouting routine when they sling the whole fish. Seems like a neat place to live. My friends who lived nearby liked the area a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jun: The only culture protected by Christians is their own.

 

Me: Maybe so, but that was the culture I was talking about -- I was talking about American (& European) culture.

 

Jun: You are coming over as a Neo-Nazi White-Supremacist, is that what you are?

 

A Neo-Nazi, racist Christian? Didn't think so. Did I pronounce a value judgement on other cultures? I merely stated that I was talking about a country's own culture, which, in America and Europa, is largely a Judeo-Christian culture.

 

Me: And on what basis do you say pedophilia is wrong?

 

Jun: Are you sick?

 

Do you have a basis for morality?

And no, I wasn't saying pedophilia is right.

 

Jun: So does Zeus, and Hercules, and Atlas, and Mythra, and Apollo, and Minerva, and Saturn, and Amun ra, and Sekhmet, and Set, and .....

 

Not true -- the other religions weren't about 'life to the full', but either placating the gods or getting gnostic knowledge.

And if you think Christianity was copied from those, you need to take a look here.

 

Kurari: For myself, I'm happy to discuss Bible knowledge with the younger generations. Especially pointing out and discussing the atrocities, fallacies, and contradictions.

 

You see? The positive impact it has had on culture tends to get underrepresented, which causes younger generations to see the Bible as an obsolete book best left in the dust. All religious presuppositions aside, this is just plain wrong if people are ever to understand their own culture.

 

Kurari: 22:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

It's in chapter 2 (not 22), and you seem to have forgotten verse 32: 'Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.' What is your opinion on self-defence? The Amorites (link) weren't really a peaceful people, so the men had to be dealt with, and leaving the women and children to starve in the desert would have been a lot more cruel.

The Amalekites were similar.

 

Kurari: 25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her

 

So you think that women who grab men's private parts on the streets are a good thing to have in a society?

 

Kurari: Deuteronomy is really quite disgusting. Stealing children of your enemies into slavery, stoning rape victims, cutting off body parts, destroying entirely civilizations...and that's just one book.

 

- You would have left the children to starve in the desert? Or spared the men and let them destroy your society? That's what I call long-term thinking. :3:

- Rape victims were always given the benefit of the doubt and the rapist was often forced to marry his victim.

- Cutting off body parts? Living in an ancient society is hard, isn't it?

- Destroying entire civilizations? And just how civilized were those civilizations? Would you have complained if the Amalekites would have destroyed the Jews instead?

 

Kurari: No, I don't think it's very Christian, nor do I think it's very Athiest, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or really has anything to do with religion. I'm just tired of listening to Christians peddle Jesus as snake oil or a magic bullet when it's pretty obvious He is not helping a great many people with their "darksides."

 

Nope, but He will help those who ask Him, truly believing in Him.

 

Kurari: On what basis do I say pedophilia is wrong? On experience. I've BEEN the victim of a pedophile.

 

You mean it harms people and has destructive effects on someone's inner life. It does. But does that make it evil? Or do you arbitrarily declare it to be so?

Another example would be imprisonment -- it surely harms people and may even destroy them on the inside. Does that mean it's evil?

(Side note -- of course I believe that pedophilia is evil, and I know on what basis I can call it that.)

 

Me: But maybe the Constitution was founded on the Bible, Christianity and Jesus. ;)

 

Kurari: Okaaaay, that was really pretty nonsensical. I don't remember reading in the Bible anywhere Jesus talking about things like setting up and maintaining a Navy, laying down rules for House and Senate, and defining Presidential powers.

 

Do you know what 'worldview' means?

 

ficino: Turgonian, Islam had tremendous power in forming Iraq, no? Does that make it true? You are a master of the irrelevant.

 

Thank you. You, of course superior by far, show great skill in reading posts, although you did miss the fact that I was talking about the impact Christianity has had on American culture, not about its truth. But aside from this superficial mistake (which all humans make sometimes), you undoubtedly did a great job of reading my posts. :3: Well done! I can still learn a lot from you.

 

Clergicide: Actually it did. It was recognizing the detrimental influence of the Christian religion on government that inspired the 1st Amendment.

 

:lmao:Great grasp of history. :lmao:

 

But do take a look here.

 

In fact, the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. And Jefferson’s meaning in context was diametrically opposed to the way the ACLU take it. That is, the Baptists of the day used a metaphor of the church as a ‘garden’, compared to the ‘wilderness’ of the outside world, with a ‘wall’ or hedge separating them. This came from Baptist Roger Williams (1603–1684), founder of Rhode Island, in a sermon called The Garden in the Wilderness (1644), where he said :

 

When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will e’er please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.

 

Here the meaning is very clear: if this protective hedge or wall were broken down, then the wilderness would encroach into the garden and destroy it. So the whole point of the wall was to prevent the government from encroaching on the church, not to expunge the church from society.

 

Open_Minded: Hence the need for a democratic form of government - in which people can vote the religious zealots out of office should they go too far with their imposition of values upon the overall culture. As I said earlier - I'm happy you live in Holland - please stay there. We have enouigh religious zealots in this country. I affirm daily that our democratic form of government gives us all the tools necessary to vote the zealots out of office and take back a government that by design is "of the people, by the people and for the people".

 

May I remind you that Hitler was democratically elected? That happens when people are demo-cratical but not demo-critical.

And may I also remind you what part America played in the Second World War? They imposed their own values on Germany...

 

Open_Minded: You say you support freedom of speech until there is a possibility that Christians may have to give up the exclusive privilege of singing only songs from their tradition even though the population has a minority representation of people from other world religions. That's the problem I have with people like you. Your positions on such things are duplicitous. You say one thing and do another.

 

If they want to sing songs, I don't care. Even at happenings. I never said I would forbid it. In fact, I don't have much of a problem with it, although I would lay the final decision with the one who organizes the particular happening.

 

White_raven23 (and everyone else): I'm a he. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clergicide: Actually it did. It was recognizing the detrimental influence of the Christian religion on government that inspired the 1st Amendment.

 

Great grasp of history.

 

But do take a look here.

 

Apparently you didn't bother to read that Madison document, which is the actual words of a Founding Father on the issue, and not some 'guest writer's' perspective on it.

 

I did take the time to read the mind-numb shash you posted, even though you responded to a historical document with a modern propoganda piece.

 

It is a popular misconception that the First Amendment of the American Constitution prohibits any religious reference in public places. In fact, the word ‘establishment’ had a very clear meaning at the time: the authors intended to prohibit an established church, i.e. an official national church endorsed by the new country of the United States of America, such as the Anglican or Church of England. This was mainly meant to eliminate any chance that non-favoured denominations could be persecuted by the state, but it has also made members of other religions safe from discrimination. So the Constitution prohibits the government from making one church into the official Church of America.

 

It's not a misconception that this clause prohibits religious reference in public places, and the reason is explained in the same paragraph. If you allow one reference in a public place, then you are favoring that denomination. If you want the 10 commandments displayed in court-houses, then you have to have icons from every other religion in the US represented, including the Church of Satan.

 

Do you understand this? No decision will empower any one religion.

 

No Christian has asked for a comparative theology course in public schools to represent all forms of belief. What they are being denied is the right to have only their beliefs heard, at the exclusion of all others. Which IS in violation of the 1st ammendment.

 

This was mainly meant to eliminate any chance that non-favoured denominations could be persecuted by the state

 

Wrong. It was to prevent non-favored denominations from being persecuted by the favored one. Religion persecutes religion. Funny how she fails to admit this, as if any Christian could never bring harm to another.

 

You've got some sound sources here, bub.

 

The whole point of the wall [of separation] was to prevent the government from encroaching on the church, not to expunge the church from society.

 

It was never meant to expunge the church from society. But the flip side of the coin is to prevent the church from encroaching on the government. It's a wall, not a slope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turgonian, I'm going to make this my last off topic response.

 

The Bible: It IS an archaic book that is best left in the dust, and the more I can convince people to drop it there, the better.

Pedophilia: Yes, it's evil. Look it up in the dictionary, it fits all the definitions of evil whether you believe in god or not.

Ancient Civilizations: Best left in the dust as well, religious wars were ludicrious then, they are ludicrious now.

The Founding Fathers: Had enough worldview understand that all our Christians were fleeing CHRISTIAN persecution and had the foresight to understand not to let our most critical founding documents even whisper in any religious direction because of it, lest they recreate England.

 

Treaty of Tripoli © 1796:

 

Art. 11.As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

You can't get much plainer text. The United States of America was NOT founded on Christian Principles, even by those who were Christian themselves. I'm closing my end of the discussion for the sake of the forum and the original topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Clergicide: Apparently you didn't bother to read that Madison document, which is the actual words of a Founding Father on the issue, and not some 'guest writer's' perspective on it.

 

You made me curious as to what Mr Madison actually wrote. If you think Madison is after banning religious references from public places, why did he say the following?

 

Par. 1 -- The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

 

'What is right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator'...and he wants to have religion banned from the public square. Yeah, sounds logical.

 

You wanted me to read par. 7 and 11 especially? 7 is about the church (as a political entity -- not the opinions of its believing members) trying to exercise political power over the state. 11 is the other way around.

It's not as if having religious symbols around, or referring to a certain religious opinion, forces people to believe in that religion.

 

Clergicide: If you want the 10 commandments displayed in court-houses, then you have to have icons from every other religion in the US represented, including the Church of Satan.

 

Do you understand this? No decision will empower any one religion.

 

Does having the Ten Commandments around mean that the state is forcing people to adhere to any specific church or religion? No. It simply honours the foundation of the American civilization. If you don't like that foundation, that's your problem.

 

Clergicide: Wrong. It was to prevent non-favored denominations from being persecuted by the favored one. Religion persecutes religion.

 

Using the political power of what we call the 'state'.

 

Kurari: The Bible: It IS an archaic book that is best left in the dust, and the more I can convince people to drop it there, the better.

 

Ah, another one who doesn't like one of the foundational pillars of the entire Western civilization. Do you also go around convincing people to not read Plato's Republic? He said some pretty undemocratic things in there...

 

Kurari: Pedophilia: Yes, it's evil. Look it up in the dictionary, it fits all the definitions of evil whether you believe in god or not.

 

It may fit the definitions, but the concept of 'evil' becomes meaningless.

 

Kurari: Ancient Civilizations: Best left in the dust as well, religious wars were ludicrious then, they are ludicrious now.

 

It's spelled 'ludicrous', and religious wars is not really the only thing that distinguished ancient civilizations.

Do you fit this definition?

 

Kurari: The Founding Fathers: Had enough worldview understand that all our Christians were fleeing CHRISTIAN persecution and had the foresight to understand not to let our most critical founding documents even whisper in any religious direction because of it, lest they recreate England.

 

I guess Memorial and Remonstrance isn't one of the most critical founding documents, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.