Life, The Universe, And Everything

[dano]

So guys and girls. We should all go back to believing in a bunch of imaginary stuff, that bronze age sheep herders made up, otherwise we will be in danger of turning into Homo sapiens. God help us if we start believing (That!)

 

We must believe that God has singled us out for his lovin, even though he is about ready to stand by and let a couple of billion of us, (If not all of us) perish from one or several, of about 10 methods of extinction. (And don't say he wont, cause it's already started, and as far as I can see, the sign is on the door of heaven, (OUT TO LUNCH)

 

The most ominous method, in my mind is global warming and the radical change in the weather and all of the fragile ecosystems, causing starvation, disease, and dislocation, of billions of us, but don't worry, if that doesn't work, there are many more waiting in the wings, like the big rock method, that did in our friends the dinos.

 

So you filthy immoral "non believers of pagan mythology," put your brains back to sleep and contemplate the wonder, in the logic, and reason, of "The Ransom," and the Garden of Eden, and the story of Job, and Noah, and...............

[dano]

Buddy!

As articulate as you are about some things, you are incredibly naive about others.

 

You could benefit from a course in "Common Sense 101"

[dano]

Isn't rescuing Christianity from all of the folks who have misused it, and misrepresented it, a little like dressing up a pig?

[dano]

......and OH!

 

Just in case you thought that all of us immoral animals, who are infected by non belief in imaginary stuff, didn't notice your dressing down, of your language a bit today, so that even, antique people like me, who are in their waning years could at least comprehend a smidgen of your holy writ, thanks.

[Grandpa Harley]

Dano, what was it like on the Crimea?

[Grandpa Harley]

As to separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Christian practice... Not even Communism or National Socialism advocated mass slaughter, but it was done for expedience... In Christian theology, killing people to 'save them' is there from the OT all the way to the end of Revelation. Missionary work is not for the benefit of anyone but the church, the 'good' works being ancillary to the getting more flesh on the pews of the lord... often the good works are conditional of getting more flesh on the pews of the lord. Paul himself advocated the idea of being all things to all men to preach... thus Paul was advocating being something one is not... Deception and suppression are a leitmotif of the Pauline epistles...

 

The inception of the church within the creed was Constantine trying to avoid having to kill too many people (of all of the Emperors I read of, including Marcus Aurellius, Constantine the Great was a man who used violence as a tool, and pretty surgical one at that...) Eusebeus came up with the goods, having the outline of a creed that would harmonise the largest sects, while rendering the strict adherence to them heretical, and rendered heretical the smaller secs and the one's that wanted power of the church to reside in Jerusalem (the Bishops of the line of James the Just, who actually had a hereditary claim in terms of extant documents) So, Eusebius, being one of the few men of the 700 or so 'Bishops' in the room proceeded to select documents that fitted his Tarsean/Montheist/Marcionist view, while casting out documents that didn't fit what he aimed to achieve. By the time he had finished, 200 of the Bishops had gone, never to be seen again, a lot of documents were burned, and Tarsean/Montheist/Marcionist were correct and heretical at the same time. And THAT was the religion that Constantine declared legal. After that if you didn't accept the Creed, then you weren't a Universal Christian and were thus not a member of an authorised cult... Roman Christianity, Mithraic/Pagan, or Jew... and could be arrested, your property going to the cultus that closest matched your heresy. After that, much of what was Mithraic (Constantine's religion of choice as leader of warriors) became appropriated by the Roman Church... Xmas, the day of choice for the Sabbath, much og the iconography that isn't Egyptian is Mithraic (solar discs behing the heads of 'saints' et al...it's more obvious in the EO than in the Roman Church, but it's in both...) Then we have pretty much a bloody status quo from Theodosius until Martin Luther...

[dano]

Dano, what was it like on the Crimea?

 

 

I wouldn't know.

 

I worshiped Captain Marvel, Batman, and spider man, at the time!

 

I was a polytheist!  

[Grandpa Harley]

Stan Lee and Steve Ditko were around in the period 1853 – 1856? I was just asking since I was too old to join in

[BuddyFerris]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

 

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

 

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

While I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables? Serious question.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

 

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

 

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

EB,

A further thought on the same post. I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, but it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables? Serious question. Having removed the absolutes of an external standard, what was put in its' place?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

 

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

 

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

While I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables? Serious question.

Buddy

 

None, per se, however, they used the works of Martin Luther and The Roman Catholic Church, and they weren't violating their (ML & RCC) principles either...

 

It's hard to violate a universal Atheist principle since there aren't any. I don't know many Atheists who sanction blood shed (I know many atheist vegans) It certainly violates every humanist principle I know.

[Evolution_beyond]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

 

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

 

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

EB,

A further thought on the same post. I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, but it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables? Serious question. Having removed the absolutes of an external standard, what was put in its' place?

Buddy

 

Hi Buddy

 

You are assuming that atheism=moral relativism

 

While moral relativism is a philosophy that seems to need the absence of God, it does not follow that every atheist is a moral relativist. It is possible to hold the view that there are ethical principles that should be adhered to by everybody and also not believe in God. Some morals make a lot of sense because they make life more pleasant for everybody. It is possible to lift this philosophy of live and let live into something of a moral absolute - not because God demands it but because it is logical to do so if you wish to strive for a happier world.

 

Atheism simply means that someone does not believe that God exists. It doesn't necessarily imply anything else. Therefore it was the twisted worldviews and politics of those communists and nazis that are to blame, not atheism.

[BuddyFerris]

As to separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Christian practice... Not even Communism or National Socialism advocated mass slaughter, but it was done for expedience...

Grandpa,

Am I understanding you correctly. You make 30+ million murders sound like an accident. Oops, I killed another one; oops, I killed another one. Communism doesn't advocate mass slaughter? Both communists and Nazis not only advocated but conducted mass slaughter. Unless you want to rewrite history, those decisions were made in every case by bodies of leaders in agreement; those murders were committed by knowledgeable people implementing understood policy. The methods were laid out by logisticians, statisticians, engineers, managers, and commanders of troops; the plans were the work of hundreds with assistance from thousands before the first oven was lit or before the first train departed for the gulag.

 

Your only defense is that these people did not represent communism, but rather that they abused the power and position their advocacy of communism had gained for them. Got the guts to agree?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Point me to where it says in the writings of Marx or Lenin or the Communist Manifesto that mass slaughter is a necessity... otherwise you're talking nonsense...

 

I can pull comments from Popes who were de facto controlling the known world that killing for god was fine.

[Grandpa Harley]

I'll save you one... Stalin - 'The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic'

[Ouroboros]

A further thought on the same post. I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, but it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables? Serious question. Having removed the absolutes of an external standard, what was put in its' place?

They violated the fundamental moral code of decency and respect for life that has evolved through time into the fabric of society. You know Christianity does not have a patent on morality.

 

The world consists only of 1/3 Christians, and would you agree on that if Christianity is the requirement for morality, then the other 2/3:s would be on constant war, rape, disrespect, hate and murders? Why do we not see it then? Why do we see the country with one of the highest number of Christians started two head on wars the last couple of years, and the second one based on complete lies from the leader who claims to be Christian? Maybe because Christianity does not provide the answer to what morality and ethics really are. But you have to look for the answer somewhere else.

 

The whole "do to others, what you want them do to you" isn't a description of morality. The true description of morality is the basic core of decency, independence and freedom and it is "Do not do to others, what you do not want them do to you." It's the minimalist view of morality, and on top of that you can add any altruistic ideas you want, but the basis for morality is survival of oneself it it requires that you play along in the larger game.

 

I have a lot more to say about this, but I have not time. Later Dude.

[Mankey]

Point me to where it says in the writings of Marx or Lenin or the Communist Manifesto that mass slaughter is a necessity... otherwise you're talking nonsense...

 

I can pull comments from Popes who were de facto controlling the known world that killing for god was fine.

Baptist ministers, and other protestant ministers had ugly opinions about native Americans when America was expanding west....if I remember correctly....

 

Which ten commands? Even scripture advocates slaughtering heathens.

 

Buddy can cry about Christianity being misused , and misrepresented......but my point is that God is not available for interviews when scripture is being interpreted. So much for absolute objective moral standards from God. God is a moral relativist anyways.....The Christian religion is faulty equipment.

[BuddyFerris]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

While I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables?

None, per se, however, they used the works of Martin Luther and The Roman Catholic Church, and they weren't violating their (ML & RCC) principles either...

It's hard to violate a universal Atheist principle since there aren't any. I don't know many Atheists who sanction blood shed (I know many atheist vegans) It certainly violates every humanist principle I know.

 

Grandpa, I may be misunderstanding your point. Hitler's plan to take over the church was documented and was publicly released a few years back; see (Rutger's School of Law - Camden) Journal article here. The Nazis weren't following either Martin Luther or the Catholic church; they were replacing church leadership with party regulars as a further measure of national control. Perhaps from your perspective, that appears not to violate the doctrines of the reformation or of its' predecessor, the Catholic church. Seems to me, that and the murders pretty much violate several of the principles. Did you have something else in mind?

 

This exchange illustrates the difficulty we (you and I) face when we blame the problems of the world on either Christianity or atheism or communism or whatever. It's easy to broadly brush across history and blame all the ills on an ideology which seems to be a common denominator. It's not as helpful as a more honest position might be. Your complaints against Christianity and its' bloody history suggest a uniform corruption and violent practice across the church still today. That's about equal to my using the emphatic statements of a respected historian to slam atheism and secular humanism. A broad brush across history where the atheists are the common denominator among the tyrannical governments of the 20th century. True, if ever so slightly, but not grounds for the ensuing conclusion.

 

Make sense so far?

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

A further thought on the same post. I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, but it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables? Serious question. Having removed the absolutes of an external standard, what was put in its' place?

They violated the fundamental moral code of decency and respect for life that has evolved through time into the fabric of society. You know Christianity does not have a patent on morality.

 

The world consists only of 1/3 Christians, and would you agree on that if Christianity is the requirement for morality, then the other 2/3:s would be on constant war, rape, disrespect, hate and murders? Why do we not see it then? Why do we see the country with one of the highest number of Christians started two head on wars the last couple of years, and the second one based on complete lies from the leader who claims to be Christian? Maybe because Christianity does not provide the answer to what morality and ethics really are. But you have to look for the answer somewhere else.

 

The whole "do to others, what you want them do to you" isn't a description of morality. The true description of morality is the basic core of decency, independence and freedom and it is "Do not do to others, what you do not want them do to you." It's the minimalist view of morality, and on top of that you can add any altruistic ideas you want, but the basis for morality is survival of oneself it it requires that you play along in the larger game.

 

I have a lot more to say about this, but I have not time. Later Dude.

You're right, of course, and quite precise, at least up to a point which we can quibble over later.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Dupe of previous.

[BuddyFerris]

Point me to where it says in the writings of Marx or Lenin or the Communist Manifesto that mass slaughter is a necessity... otherwise you're talking nonsense...

I can pull comments from Popes who were de facto controlling the known world that killing for god was fine.

Baptist ministers, and other protestant ministers had ugly opinions about native Americans when America was expanding west....if I remember correctly....

Which ten commands? Even scripture advocates slaughtering heathens.

Buddy can cry about Christianity being misused , and misrepresented......but my point is that God is not available for interviews when scripture is being interpreted. So much for absolute objective moral standards from God. God is a moral relativist anyways.....The Christian religion is faulty equipment.

Mankey,

There are many accounts and even documents from the Soviet era. From the very top, communist leaders used their position and influence to get rid of their political and ideological opponents. From top to bottom, the communist party left documentation justifying the acts they committed. Records showing court convictions without due process, ordered mass relocations, transportation orders for 'reeducation'; millions taken away, less than 5% of whom survived and returned. Such things are a national shame in Russia. To suggest that a Pope who used his position to get rid of his political enemies was worse, somehow, is interesting but difficult to support as different.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

While I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is not directly responsible for the horrors, it may be the enabling philosophy. The abandonment of moral absolutes frees adherents to create their own morality without reference to any standard. What article of atheism did the National Socialist party violate when the began the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables?

None, per se, however, they used the works of Martin Luther and The Roman Catholic Church, and they weren't violating their (ML & RCC) principles either...

It's hard to violate a universal Atheist principle since there aren't any. I don't know many Atheists who sanction blood shed (I know many atheist vegans) It certainly violates every humanist principle I know.

 

Grandpa, I may be misunderstanding your point. Hitler's plan to take over the church was documented and was publicly released a few years back; see (Rutger's School of Law - Camden) Journal article here. The Nazis weren't following either Martin Luther or the Catholic church; they were replacing church leadership with party regulars as a further measure of national control. Perhaps from your perspective, that appears not to violate the doctrines of the reformation or of its' predecessor, the Catholic church. Seems to me, that and the murders pretty much violate several of the principles. Did you have something else in mind?

 

This exchange illustrates the difficulty we (you and I) face when we blame the problems of the world on either Christianity or atheism or communism or whatever. It's easy to broadly brush across history and blame all the ills on an ideology which seems to be a common denominator. It's not as helpful as a more honest position might be. Your complaints against Christianity and its' bloody history suggest a uniform corruption and violent practice across the church still today. That's about equal to my using the emphatic statements of a respected historian to slam atheism and secular humanism. A broad brush across history where the atheists are the common denominator among the tyrannical governments of the 20th century. True, if ever so slightly, but not grounds for the ensuing conclusion.

 

Make sense so far?

Buddy

The fact that at the time the Nazis had the tacit support of both the Protestant and Roman church IS of interest, not some secret plan that the churches who were supporting Der Fuhrer were entirely unaware of. There are numerous sites (many in German) that make reference to sermons supporting the Reich as a Christian Crusade. But then, neither the Lutheran church, nor the Roman Church have any high ground in the treatment of non-Christians.

 

Basically, you're making assertions that you seen unwilling to support. In effect, you're spouting gibberish.

[Mankey]

Point me to where it says in the writings of Marx or Lenin or the Communist Manifesto that mass slaughter is a necessity... otherwise you're talking nonsense...

I can pull comments from Popes who were de facto controlling the known world that killing for god was fine.

Baptist ministers, and other protestant ministers had ugly opinions about native Americans when America was expanding west....if I remember correctly....

Which ten commands? Even scripture advocates slaughtering heathens.

Buddy can cry about Christianity being misused , and misrepresented......but my point is that God is not available for interviews when scripture is being interpreted. So much for absolute objective moral standards from God. God is a moral relativist anyways.....The Christian religion is faulty equipment.

Mankey,

There are many accounts and even documents from the Soviet era. From the very top, communist leaders used their position and influence to get rid of their political and ideological opponents. From top to bottom, the communist party left documentation justifying the acts they committed. Records showing court convictions without due process, ordered mass relocations, transportation orders for 'reeducation'; millions taken away, less than 5% of whom survived and returned. Such things are a national shame in Russia. To suggest that a Pope who used his position to get rid of his political enemies was worse, somehow, is interesting but difficult to support as different.

Buddy

Communism in and of itself has nothing to do with atheism, or Humanism based on Free Thought. You see old man Humanists can be dynamic as they have no fictional Infallible Tyrant with omnipowers. There is no ancient comic book tied around our necks....unlike the Christian religion is. The bible is the cornerstone of Christianity.

[Ouroboros]

You're right, of course, and quite precise, at least up to a point which we can quibble over later.

Just a quicky... I'm certain it must be my very simplified statement that morality is based on "survival of oneself". (Notice the "based on" too, not completely embedded and founded only on, but it is the starting point, unless you think the pure morality is to kill oneself... then the whole problem with the Christian church should have been solved a long time ago, with no survivors... ) But this is where I have a lot more to explain to you why this is so, and why you probably think that the basic selfishness of survival creates anarchy, relatitivism and egotism, but it doesn't, if someone understand the whole picture. Because there's a lot more to it that meets the eye.

[BuddyFerris]

This exchange illustrates the difficulty we (you and I) face when we blame the problems of the world on either Christianity or atheism or communism or whatever. It's easy to broadly brush across history and blame all the ills on an ideology which seems to be a common denominator. It's not as helpful as a more honest position might be. Your complaints against Christianity and its' bloody history suggest a uniform corruption and violent practice across the church still today. That's about equal to my using the emphatic statements of a respected historian to slam atheism and secular humanism. A broad brush across history where the atheists are the common denominator among the tyrannical governments of the 20th century. True, if ever so slightly, but not grounds for the ensuing conclusion.

 

Make sense so far?

Buddy

The fact that at the time the Nazis had the tacit support of both the Protestant and Roman church IS of interest, not some secret plan that the churches who were supporting Der Fuhrer were entirely unaware of. There are numerous sites (many in German) that make reference to sermons supporting the Reich as a Christian Crusade. But then, neither the Lutheran church, nor the Roman Church have any high ground in the treatment of non-Christians.

 

Basically, you're making assertions that you seen unwilling to support. In effect, you're spouting gibberish.

Grandpa,

You'll enjoy the article here on the most famous 20th century Christian, Adolf Hitler. Note the last lines of comment. The author discusses Hitler's claim and the arguments of some that he was a Christian. One Baptist seminary president at the world convention of Baptists in Berlin in the 30's cautioned against hasty judgment of a leader (Hitler) who had stopped German women from smoking cigarettes and wearing red lipstick in public.

Is it surprising that some churches with opportunistic leaders fell in line with the emerging government? Not all did; many suffered loss from having made that choice, but I notice you didn't mention them.

 

It's worth remembering that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian; 3 million Catholics died in the holocaust. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine, Einstein said: Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...

 

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

 

This is an extraordinary testimony by an agnostic German scientist of Jewish heritage. There were traitors in her ranks, but the church opposed the Nazi movement.

 

Without intending any personal affront, it seems your argument is a bit unbalanced. In conversations here, 'church' is used as though you could point at them all by calling them 'the church', and you choose as representatives of that whole from among the buffoons and rabble and even wicked. Yet you protest when someone does the same in return. True?

Buddy