Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[Grandpa Harley]

GrandpaHarley expects his personal future to be bleak.

every indication my personal fate will be singularly bleak. I have no fear of that, simply acceptance that, one day, everything I ever was will have been taken by the ravages of dementia, finally I shall lie in an unremembered grave. but I'm pretty optimistic about the species...

[Grandpa Harley]

Look here Gramps, I have very selfish reasons for being kind to Buddy. He went and purchased “Life Itself†by Robert Rosen. He is bright enough and he is unlikely to be steeped in the machine metaphor that so dominates biology at the moment.

 

I need help. And I am desperate. Any that I can find that can help me understand this work is going to get special treatment from me.

 

I need your help too Gramps.

 

 

Cool... I'm allowed an opinion, last time I've checked, unless someone died and made you the boss 'o' me and I missed the damn MEMO!

[BuddyFerris]

- Japedo brought up the 'baby as parasite' illustration. Although by biological definition of a parasite (phylogenetically unrelated) a baby doesn't qualify, still it's a strong metaphor and hints at an uncommon mindset. I'd like to hear more of her thoughts that lead her to that position.

Again, as I stated before a zygote or embryo isn't a 'baby'. It has a potential of becoming one. The mother has free right to not want her body to host the embryo. For the entire gestational process she puts strain on her physical and mental being at risk. (Depending on the person of course.) While some will find this a most joyous occasion, others breakdown and can't /don't want to do it. Who are we to judge anyone about their personal choice and bodies?

 

The mother is a host to another life, I'm sorry if that terminology is uncomfortable for you. The Zygote, Embryo, Fetus is 100% Dependant on it's mother. It gets all of it's nutrients, from the mother. The mother must make conscious choices of what she eats, drinks and does for the entire duration of caring the fetus. The mother's body is working over time supporting more then just herself. I'm a mother of 4 kids, (one set of twins). Being pregnant isn't easy, nor should it be forced upon anyone.

Dear Japedo,

Thank you for adding your thoughts. I don't object to your wording or the metaphor, but I'm a little surprised to hear them from a woman, and a mother. It's true what you say, of course. The thing is 100% dependent up through birth and beyond. Not only is the physical process through birth demanding, but the work and responsibility continue for years. A child doesn't establish any real independence for another decade or so. I agree wholeheartedly; being pregnant isn't easy, nor are the effects necessarily temporary. Apart from raising a kid for the next 20 years, it's physically demanding and brings some permanent physical and psychological changes. It should not be forced upon anyone.

 

Let me soften what's been said of my position on life from conception. It's just my position; if you ask me to make the decision, that's what I'm stuck with. I wouldn't ask my wife or anyone else to abide by my conscience rather than their own. You're in a better place than I to describe what's involved. As father of one, all it cost me was gray hair (and college costs). My wife and I would gladly have had a dozen like the one we got, but weren't able. Then again, we'd probably sing a different tune if we had four.

 

That said, I almost envy you the 4 (only almost; I couldn't possibly keep up with kids full time again.) My personal opinion is that kids are better than adults on most points of measurement. If you can catch them pre-adolescent, they're delightful at least 4 out of 7 days. I have many poignant memories of my daughter at 5 & 6 that warm my heart. If you don't mind, how old are the 4?

Thanks again,

Buddy

[Legion]

Cool... I'm allowed an opinion, last time I've checked, unless someone died and made you the boss 'o' me and I missed the damn MEMO!

I'm no boss Gramps. And I often value your opinion. More often than not in fact.

[Rime]

I couldn't remember the title. My wife, being a Catholic, tunes into EWTN on a regular basis. That had to do with how he came to Christianity after trying to create his own religion. Not that stuff by G.K. is necessarily bad, but this particular apologetic was too full of misrepresentation to keep his title of "Apostle of Common Sense." But that's just my opinion.

 

Wait a minute, it was called "Orthodoxy." She told me on the way home tonight.

 

Like some of the others I don't harbor animosity toward someone because of their beliefs, but their attitude. And unless you're one of these really dense Jenga players who think knocking out all the blocks of unbelief should bring me around, I won't mind discussing beliefs.

[Grandpa Harley]

Cool... I'm allowed an opinion, last time I've checked, unless someone died and made you the boss 'o' me and I missed the damn MEMO!

I'm no boss Gramps. And I often value your opinion. More often than not in fact.

 

Then you kiss the ass you want to kiss and rip new holes in the ass I want to... just make sure your head isn't in my line of fire.

[BuddyFerris]

Did I hear my name?

 

Not quite how I would put it. I believe humans are capable of improvement, but we may also take terrible steps backwards as is evidenced by the rise of religious fundamentalism. How much further would we be if the Church had not suppressed knowledge, persecuted philosophers, and turned the clock of progress back into darkness - time and time again?

 

I don't have any delusions that man is capable of finding perfection in government or in their existence. I do not believe that to be a realistic expectation. This comes back to my perfectionism points I brought up that we never got back to discuss together. Perfection is something that does not exist anywhere, and should not be the standard by which success if gauged. Christianity is perfectionist and consequently leads to pessimism in man's efforts in striving for ideals. Ideals should serve as goals, but the failure to achieve them 100% is not the measure of the value of the successes gained.

 

I believe ideals are goals, Christians believe ideals are reality beyond the ether-regions of space and we stand damned for not achieving them. My belief allows for hope in man's efforts, which is the best approach since so far there is no God out there with his sleeves rolled up doing the work of building housing for anyone. Christian beliefs judge all of man’s efforts as used menstrual rags and condemn them to hell for failure to achieve perfection.

 

So no, I don't see a linear progression to be realistic. But I do judge the value of humanity in its belief in ideals to try their utmost to live by, and their ability to forgive in shortcomings. That forgiveness comes from a human heart, and therefore has greater value than from some mostly intangible personified ideal. Christians believe man is not capable of perfection. I deny that should be the measure of success. Christians turn to a God to save them from imperfection. I turn to man to make his most sincere best effort. And that is the standard on which to judge success. Perfection does not exist. Integrity and sincerity do. That approach is both healthy and realisitic. Pefectionsim is not and is ultimatly pessimisitic.

Antlerman,

Perfectionists are a pain. We agree. Perfectionism as a lifestyle is a disappointment; nothing is ever good enough. I suppose we might attribute our cultural reaching for perfection to the influence of Christianity. I share your concerns regarding fundamentalism. As you warn, we probably have already taken terrible steps backwards with the current rise of religious fundamentalism in the Islamic world. Welcome to the 21st century.

You make a good point suggesting that we should consider humanity's progress in light of its' ideals. Adding forgiveness is commendable, particularly as you describe it being a heart issue rather than a legal issue. I'm not likely to disagree with you on anything there. Tell me what you see in the centuries so far, though. It doesn't appear to me as though religious fundamentalism brought the last century's wars, or the wars and slavery of the century before that.

 

So what were the 20th century's great contributions? Capitalism, Fascism, Communism. And the 19th's? Industrialism, Socialism, Nationalism. Great steps forward in idealism and ever increasing inequities in reality. Three centuries since the Enlightenment! Repression, starvation, and slaughter seem to continue unabated. Is Christianity the problem?

 

As you say, ideals are goals. A century of emerging feminism has brought us much improvement in fair treatment. Half a century of racial activism has given us improvement in equal opportunity and freedom. We now address hunger and famine as a global community through the UN and other global organizations. Much remains to be done both locally and globally. Tell me how you expect things to go. I'm genuinely curious.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

I couldn't remember the title. My wife, being a Catholic, tunes into EWTN on a regular basis. That had to do with how he came to Christianity after trying to create his own religion. Not that stuff by G.K. is necessarily bad, but this particular apologetic was too full of misrepresentation to keep his title of "Apostle of Common Sense." But that's just my opinion.

 

Wait a minute, it was called "Orthodoxy." She told me on the way home tonight.

 

Like some of the others I don't harbor animosity toward someone because of their beliefs, but their attitude. And unless you're one of these really dense Jenga players who think knocking out all the blocks of unbelief should bring me around, I won't mind discussing beliefs.

Rime,

Ah ha. I remember having his small book by that title some years ago. It must not have impressed me greatly as I don't remember a thing from it; could well have been over my head at the time; probably early 70's (my mid-20's). I think I remember picking it up because C.S. Lewis spoke so highly of Chesterton. Perhaps it was more profound for the generation in which it was written.

 

I would appreciate exchanging thoughts on belief with you; I'm rather direct, I'm told, but I mean no harm, and the others here will keep me in line. They're a thoughtful group, serious minded and compelling conversationalists; it's not immediately obvious in every case, but it's there.

 

I'm curious how issues are handled within the context of one belief or another; it seems many folks look at the same baseline information and draw different conclusions; seems worth a talk. The alternative is to point at each other with zero understanding having forfeited whatever useful perspective that might have been achieved. A broadened understanding is the goal, not persuasion to another's view (no Jenga).

 

There are several issues on the table, or feel free to toss your own topic out there. GrandpaHarley started the thread but has left it open for our wandering around.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm not so sure vile and repugnant is an accurate representation for Buddy or several of my friends and the folks over at FSTDT. Most of them understand the dangers of being a fundamentalist with the insane reasoning of someone who threw out their common sense to make themselves holier vessels.

 

Just to address this... I didn't say that they were 'vile and repugnant', I am saying they represent something vile and repugnant. To come as a member of the faithful, to what is essentially an online support group is akin to the aforementioned Smirnoff salesman at an AA meeting, or a guy pulling dice out at a Compulsive Gambler's support group... it's not welcome.

 

If this was a 'kick your spiritual journey' type place then I'd doubtless find certain people wholly acceptable, even entertaining. However, here, they are worthy only of suspicion, since they believe what they're spreading is 'right' or the 'only truth', and for everyone who's washed up on the shore of Dave's Island, it wasn't right or true at all, in fact it was a damaging as alcoholism, or any other addiction.

 

Individuals my be fine people. I know of one believing Nazi who save a quarter of a million Chinese. It doesn't make Nazism acceptable or right... and one of my oldest friends is an Anglican Priest. Doesn't mean I'd welcome him here...

 

So,IMV, this is Dave's Cafe Americain, and the Christians are the unwelcome Nazis of our own small Casablanca...

[Japedo]

but I'm a little surprised to hear them from a woman, and a mother.

--------------------------------

 

That said, I almost envy you the 4 (only almost; I couldn't possibly keep up with kids full time again.) My personal opinion is that kids are better than adults on most points of measurement. If you can catch them pre-adolescent, they're delightful at least 4 out of 7 days. I have many poignant memories of my daughter at 5 & 6 that warm my heart. If you don't mind, how old are the 4?

 

 

 

 

I don't mind at all. 18, 17,17 and 16......... and before anyone asks. Yes I am Crazy..

 

 

Buddy,

 

I think you'll find many mothers are pro-choice. The welfare (both state of mind and physically) of my existing child comes before any might be potential child. Why would I encourage any of my kids to become parents if they got pregnant or got someone pregnant? So far, thankfully I haven't had to deal with that. I would not hesitate about giving them the option to have an abortion and then set up a family when they are ready in their life to take care of and support a child if that situation were to ever arrive.

 

As I have told them since they were around 10 years old. If they are responsible and old enough to have sex, they take all the risks and responsibility along with it. If they should get pregnant or get someone pregnant, it's their responsibility 100%. Neither me or their father will assist them in raising their child if that child comes to be from irresponsibility. That so far as seemed to be a great enough deterrent for them to think about things before they happen. I know perhaps that sounds harsh but, kids think twice about things if they know up front you're not there to bail them out I find. The same consequence goes for if they were to ever get arrested.

[Rime]

Grandpa Harley, I see my mistake about that. I can see your point, nearly everyone here has some pretty deep stripes for not mindlessly getting in line, and that's one of the reasons why this place is here. I can see that in nearly every post on the main page. And I can understand your point of view, even if I'm not as diligent about it.

 

I've known a number of Christians who have done their beliefs a credit (generally they're regarded as sissy, LIEberal FALSE Christians) and I'm always trying to maintain that distinction.

[BuddyFerris]

I'm not so sure vile and repugnant is an accurate representation for Buddy or several of my friends and the folks over at FSTDT. Most of them understand the dangers of being a fundamentalist with the insane reasoning of someone who threw out their common sense to make themselves holier vessels.

 

Just to address this... I didn't say that they were 'vile and repugnant', I am saying they represent something vile and repugnant. To come as a member of the faithful, to what is essentially an online support group is akin to the aforementioned Smirnoff salesman at an AA meeting, or a guy pulling dice out at a Compulsive Gambler's support group... it's not welcome.

 

If this was a 'kick your spiritual journey' type place then I'd doubtless find certain people wholly acceptable, even entertaining. However, here, they are worthy only of suspicion, since they believe what they're spreading is 'right' or the 'only truth', and for everyone who's washed up on the shore of Dave's Island, it wasn't right or true at all, in fact it was a damaging as alcoholism, or any other addiction.

 

Individuals my be fine people. I know of one believing Nazi who save a quarter of a million Chinese. It doesn't make Nazism acceptable or right... and one of my oldest friends is an Anglican Priest. Doesn't mean I'd welcome him here...

 

So,IMV, this is Dave's Cafe Americain, and the Christians are the unwelcome Nazis of our own small Casablanca...

Good morning GH (afternoon, your time, I guess),

If I sell and anybody buys, fire away.

 

One of the interesting things about mass ideologies is that somebody believed something along the way, and they probably had good reason and good intentions at the time. The public forum is perhaps the best place for that stuff to be vetted by a society. Nobody gets a lick of help from the summary statements of any ideology; e.g., 'God doesn't exist!!' or 'God cares for you!!'. I'm helped by insight into people and their reasons along the way. I can even envision an Ex-C getting a little healing insight from cross-domain exposure. Perhaps the reaction they saw in family was partly fear and not knowing what to say. Maybe it wasn't just irrational and mean spirited. Maybe there's a way forward that is more humane and reasonable.

 

This is Dave's Cafe. If he makes a place for these kinds of discussion, I'm appreciative and will attempt to stay off the grass. If he chooses to restrict the environment to exclude or relocate this stuff, I'm OK.

 

If there's a way to not be your enemy, I'm game.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

but I'm a little surprised to hear them from a woman, and a mother.

--------------------------------

 

That said, I almost envy you the 4 (only almost; I couldn't possibly keep up with kids full time again.) My personal opinion is that kids are better than adults on most points of measurement. If you can catch them pre-adolescent, they're delightful at least 4 out of 7 days. I have many poignant memories of my daughter at 5 & 6 that warm my heart. If you don't mind, how old are the 4?

 

 

 

 

I don't mind at all. 18, 17,17 and 16......... and before anyone asks. Yes I am Crazy..

 

 

Buddy,

 

I think you'll find many mothers are pro-choice. The welfare (both state of mind and physically) of my existing child comes before any might be potential child. Why would I encourage any of my kids to become parents if they got pregnant or got someone pregnant? So far, thankfully I haven't had to deal with that. I would not hesitate about giving them the option to have an abortion and then set up a family when they are ready in their life to take care of and support a child if that situation were to ever arrive.

 

As I have told them since they were around 10 years old. If they are responsible and old enough to have sex, they take all the risks and responsibility along with it. If they should get pregnant or get someone pregnant, it's their responsibility 100%. Neither me or their father will assist them in raising their child if that child comes to be from irresponsibility. That so far as seemed to be a great enough deterrent for them to think about things before they happen. I know perhaps that sounds harsh but, kids think twice about things if they know up front you're not there to bail them out I find. The same consequence goes for if they were to ever get arrested.

Japedo,

You have a lot of clarity for someone with 4 teenagers in the house. I'd expect less thinking and more drooling if it were me. I appreciate your approach on the issues with your children; I've seen it in other families with good results, especially with boys, maybe. A dear friend had 3 sons who were normally rambunctious and needed a clear policy and firm hand; they've grown into fine young men.

 

I cannot visualize a household with 4 teens virtually the same age, all wanting a car, all finishing high school, going to college? What a free for all! My home was a whirlwind with just the one (plus friends) from middle school through the first couple of years of college. She finally took it with her when she moved out for the second half; suddenly it was quiet.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

"Maybe it wasn't just irrational and mean spirited. Maybe there's a way forward that is more humane and reasonable."

 

Have you read any other threads than the ones you've contributed to? A lot of people's stories here you can't spin in anyother way than their family chose an imaginary friend over them and hounded them to near breaking point. Cultic behaviour in the extreme. And, to be brutally frank, 'maybe'ing about when it's other people's pain just enables and justifies the abusers. If someone ends up nearly in a madhouse by the treatment meted out be people who are supposed to love them, then whether is accidental or deliberate, they don't deserve the term 'family' and they don't have any right to mitigation when it's over their Demon God... Maybe a guy has a reason for getting drunk and beating his wife and kids on a regular basis... doesn't mean it's right, or that he shouldn't be thrown in jail. A 'reason' is not and 'excuse' and many times the 'end' over rides 'the intention'...

 

Again, it's back to the abortion discussion. Sitting in judgement of desperate, hurting people is a lot easier than sitting in judgement of Christians who bully and abuse their 'beloved' offspring, it would seem. There was no 'maybe they think they're doing what was for the best' for some girl thrown out by her family, or a woman who can't afford another mouth to feed, or some one (a minority) raped by a stranger or a father, brother or uncle... and in a country where the MAJORITY are Christian, who is having all these abortions... so maybe they are doing it for the 'best' since they're statistically 'Christian'... who can say?

[BuddyFerris]

"Maybe it wasn't just irrational and mean spirited. Maybe there's a way forward that is more humane and reasonable."

 

Have you read any other threads than the ones you've contributed to? A lot of people's stories here you can't spin in anyother way than their family chose an imaginary friend over them and hounded them to near breaking point. Cultic behaviour in the extreme. And, to be brutally frank, 'maybe'ing about when it's other people's pain just enables and justifies the abusers. If someone ends up nearly in a madhouse by the treatment meted out be people who are supposed to love them, then whether is accidental or deliberate, they don't deserve the term 'family' and they don't have any right to mitigation when it's over their Demon God... Maybe a guy has a reason for getting drunk and beating his wife and kids on a regular basis... doesn't mean it's right, or that he shouldn't be thrown in jail. A 'reason' is not and 'excuse' and many times the 'end' over rides 'the intention'...

 

Again, it's back to the abortion discussion. Sitting in judgement of desperate, hurting people is a lot easier than sitting in judgement of Christians who bully and abuse their 'beloved' offspring, it would seem. There was no 'maybe they think they're doing what was for the best' for some girl thrown out by her family, or a woman who can't afford another mouth to feed, or some one (a minority) raped by a stranger or a father, brother or uncle... and in a country where the MAJORITY are Christian, who is having all these abortions... so maybe they are doing it for the 'best' since they're statistically 'Christian'... who can say?

I don't disagree with most of what you say, GH. You needn't read into my statement some excusing of the inexcusable. Having walked with one precious young lady through the horror of her having been abused by an uncle, I'm more strongly inclined than ever toward applying the full weight of the law to such actions. He's in jail; she's doing well. Years will pass. I was looking a bit farther forward. Part of becoming a whole person after abuse is rising above the abuse, recognizing that which was done to you that was not your fault or failure.

 

Abusive treatment of another isn't something to be excused; it has a price in every case. I would hope, though, that with the passing of time and the addition of some understanding, there might be opportunity for apology and reconciliation of families where possible. I'm old enough to know that toward the end of life, stupid choices aren't as worth fighting over as they seemed a few decades earlier. Giving someone a chance to undo some of the stupid things they've done to you is the noble gesture of a great heart.

 

And before you say that they don't deserve the chance, they don't. Nobility is the great man's attire, not his offering.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

It maybe the gesture of nobility, however that's the future. We're talking raw wounds and raised welts now, not some little mary sunshine future when everyone has calmed down, when there may be some point. At the moment, family is as family does... and if they don't behave as family then blood is just rusty water and worth the same as rusty water and it's best to drop em like a hot brick. Forgiveness, even reconciliation, may be possible. However, to say that the victim has to do it is just bullshit. If people had done to me what they've done to their nearest and dearest, I would happily watch maggots devour their flesh in a ditch... although I'd wish no body dead other than as a cursing out. However, I have a mind in which there are far worse things than just dying...

 

And when does 'stupid' become 'evil'?

[Antlerman]

Tell me what you see in the centuries so far, though. It doesn't appear to me as though religious fundamentalism brought the last century's wars, or the wars and slavery of the century before that.

 

So what were the 20th century's great contributions? Capitalism, Fascism, Communism. And the 19th's? Industrialism, Socialism, Nationalism. Great steps forward in idealism and ever increasing inequities in reality. Three centuries since the Enlightenment! Repression, starvation, and slaughter seem to continue unabated. Is Christianity the problem?

I would say there are both great advances and there are set backs. Although I’m not sure I agree that we have made a net sum gain of zero or have moved backwards since the Enlightenment. I would say our awareness of inequities are what is far greater than at any time in the past, not the frequency or intensity of them.

 

Have we made decided advances since the Enlightenment? I would definitely say so. Whereas we were not allowed to even speak openly of atheism without having a wooden cross stuck into our tongues and then burned alive with slow-burning green wood, and today I can type openly in a world-wide public forum about my rejection of a religion's ideas of God.

 

It’s an ideal though not fully realized, can exist because religion is not allowed to be in power. You exclude fundamentalists, but what has the face of religion in power looked like? Does it allow for freedom of ideas?

 

 

As you say, ideals are goals. A century of emerging feminism has brought us much improvement in fair treatment. Half a century of racial activism has given us improvement in equal opportunity and freedom. We now address hunger and famine as a global community through the UN and other global organizations. Much remains to be done both locally and globally. Tell me how you expect things to go. I'm genuinely curious.

Buddy

You’re touching on things I agree with and see the benefits meted to society by separating religion from government into a personal lifestyle preference. How do I expect things to go? Personally, if religion were to loosen the ropes around the neck of God they have holding him to the ground and let Him evolve as any living idea, then God could possibly be beneficial as a symbol of human ideals.

 

However, why religion is so particularly insidious is because like the ideals of socialism, it is latched onto by the greedy and power seeking who twist and distort it into a tool of control and imprisonment of its subjects as with communism. Marx said that socialism was the next natural evolutionary stage after capitalism, but communism was a distorted monster than bypassed natural evolution and created a system of repression instead.

 

If Christianity is a personal faith matter, then how can they bypass a person’s personal evolution and impose a faith system on other’s through governmental control? It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a freakish monster that does not live up to its professed ideals, and is anything but spirituality uplifting for humanity. I'd even venture to say that Christianity itself is the Antichrist. It's anti-human.

 

I see humanism as the natural evolution of personal philosophy in a modern global society. We are all humans. We all of this in common. No one is God. We all are.

 

Enough for now.

[BuddyFerris]

...

You’re touching on things I agree with and see the benefits meted to society by separating religion from government into a personal lifestyle preference. How do I expect things to go? Personally, if religion were to loosen the ropes around the neck of God they have holding him to the ground and let Him evolve as any living idea, then God could possibly be beneficial as a symbol of human ideals.

 

However, why religion is so particularly insidious is because like the ideals of socialism, it is latched onto by the greedy and power seeking who twist and distort it into a tool of control and imprisonment of its subjects as with communism. Marx said that socialism was the next natural evolutionary stage after capitalism, but communism was a distorted monster than bypassed natural evolution and created a system of repression instead.

 

If Christianity is a personal faith matter, then how can they bypass a person’s personal evolution and impose a faith system on other’s through governmental control? It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a freakish monster that does not live up to its professed ideals, and is anything but spirituality uplifting for humanity. I'd even venture to say that Christianity itself is the Antichrist. It's anti-human. ...

Antlerman,

We agree on the insidious nature of religion, and I'm pretty sure legitimate Christianity is a personal faith issue. Religious organizations and institutions, on the other hand, may easily get off track and behave like just another business venture. As you say, the rubric is hijacked and adapted to their ends, serving the greed and selfishness of power players. I've watched 20th century groups do some incredibly effective aid programs, and others fight over nonsense.

 

The Antichrist? Hadn't thought of it in that particular way. Interesting conjecture. I visited briefly with a lady celebrating her 90th birthday yesterday; she recounted for me the years she had spent overseas and in a national church. They were difficult years for her family; church was lifeless and pointless in her memory; it didn't do or recommend doing a single thing in all the years she was there. Just a somewhat necessary institution; you were expected to attend and belong. It represents an entire country's concept of Christianity. You may be right.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... Forgiveness, even reconciliation, may be possible. However, to say that the victim has to do it is just bullshit. If people had done to me what they've done to their nearest and dearest, I would happily watch maggots devour their flesh in a ditch... although I'd wish no body dead other than as a cursing out. However, I have a mind in which there are far worse things than just dying...

 

And when does 'stupid' become 'evil'?

Understandable GH, and probably more common than any other disposition in such circumstances.

I wasn't thinking so much of an obligation on the victim as a method for the victim's getting free and moving on. Having been mistreated leaves us wounded; we'll walk with a limp in that area, either angry or fearful or we'll carry a measure of unwarranted guilt for having contributed to the problem.

 

When we moved back to this area after an absence of 10+ years, I ran across a fellow I'd known. He was still telling the same stories about the same people he hated. Every story had the same punchline, "...and then I told 'em, by damn, ...." I was impressed at how he seemed stuck in the same angry hole for more than a decade. Seemed more like insanity than freedom. I don't know his whole story; there were early years he never talked about which I suspect were unpleasant. His adult life was defined by continuing conflict, a 'pushing a rock up a hill' sort of existence. Virtually every casual conversation would include a tale of conflict and "...then I told 'em, by damn,...". I don't know that he ever resolved any conflict; he seemed to have cut himself off from the world, one person at a time.

 

There are at least a couple of paths for us with which I'm familiar; anger and bitterness forever or forgiveness and understanding followed by moving on. Perhaps I'm overly idealistic.

Buddy

[Antlerman]

...

You’re touching on things I agree with and see the benefits meted to society by separating religion from government into a personal lifestyle preference. How do I expect things to go? Personally, if religion were to loosen the ropes around the neck of God they have holding him to the ground and let Him evolve as any living idea, then God could possibly be beneficial as a symbol of human ideals.

 

However, why religion is so particularly insidious is because like the ideals of socialism, it is latched onto by the greedy and power seeking who twist and distort it into a tool of control and imprisonment of its subjects as with communism. Marx said that socialism was the next natural evolutionary stage after capitalism, but communism was a distorted monster than bypassed natural evolution and created a system of repression instead.

 

If Christianity is a personal faith matter, then how can they bypass a person’s personal evolution and impose a faith system on other’s through governmental control? It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a freakish monster that does not live up to its professed ideals, and is anything but spirituality uplifting for humanity. I'd even venture to say that Christianity itself is the Antichrist. It's anti-human. ...

Antlerman,

We agree on the insidious nature of religion, and I'm pretty sure legitimate Christianity is a personal faith issue. Religious organizations and institutions, on the other hand, may easily get off track and behave like just another business venture. As you say, the rubric is hijacked and adapted to their ends, serving the greed and selfishness of power players. I've watched 20th century groups do some incredibly effective aid programs, and others fight over nonsense.

To briefly summarize for the point of focus:

 

I had originally brought up how that Christianity creates a pessimistic world view because it says man is incapable of self-improvement without an outside agent, i.e. God, to give him the insights. In your challenging that you asked me show how man has created any governments free of inequalities and in justices anywhere in history. I countered that perfection is not a realistic standard to judge failure by, or to make a case that an idea such as God therefore is an answer to this false standard.

 

You then point out that in the three centuries following the Enlightenment, that injustice and inequalities have not improved and have gone unabated. I then responded saying that it actually has improved in many regards, not the least of which is taking religion out of the picture, as religion is notoriously bad at repressing human freedom and threatening the increase of knowledge. We agree that faith in Christianity should be a personal matter and not a governmental system. I suggest that humanism is a better suited philosophy for the modern world.

 

So to my original points, though ideals are beneficial, the notion of perfection is a false standard and does more harm than good. Idealism and perfectionism are both unhealthy as it is impossible to attain that which does not exist. Christianity has at its heart a symbol of perfection and the goal is to be perfected. “Whoa is me, oh wretch of a man that I am! Who shall save me?” This by default removes the responsibility from man, and creates as sense of hopelessness to finding answers without turning to the prescribed system of those who dole out religious instruction. It turns over all control to someone else for answers, “lean not to your own understanding”.

 

This is not healthy at all in my opinion. It’s entirely based on a false standard, and using circular reasoning to justify its claimed merits. “We are not perfect, and you can see were not perfect, therefore we need God.” My answer, “Perfection does not exist, therefore we are not perfect. Nothing is.” It’s like the argument that of order and disorder. There’s no such thing as total disorder in the universe, nor is there such a thing as perfect order. It’s all states of more order and less order. In human society, humans have to move it more towards order.

 

So what is the role of Christianity in human society then? What does it offer humanity that no other religion or philosophy is able to?

 

The Antichrist? Hadn't thought of it in that particular way. Interesting conjecture. I visited briefly with a lady celebrating her 90th birthday yesterday; she recounted for me the years she had spent overseas and in a national church. They were difficult years for her family; church was lifeless and pointless in her memory; it didn't do or recommend doing a single thing in all the years she was there. Just a somewhat necessary institution; you were expected to attend and belong. It represents an entire country's concept of Christianity. You may be right.

Buddy

I was thinking more of it’s nature of telling people what the answers are, rather than encouraging them to find the light for themselves. Interesting you should mention as a failure of the church to have not recommended a single thing in all those years. You see, people turn to religion looking for “answers”, where the best help anyone can do is to help someone find the answers for themselves. But that’s why people turn to religion, because they want someone else to tell them how to live. It’s easier than the harder path of forging your own road and being solely responsible for your life. Religion promises answers, and delivers someone else’s answers. Answers are dynamic and fluid, and fit only the moment for only the individual. There is no single answer.

 

Where I see the church being the Antichrist, it’s when they take you off the path of self-discovery into following their rules. At that point, you stop growing and become enslaved to the priests. How many pastors out there do you truly think have the answers for everyone, let alone themselves?

[R. S. Martin]

Yes you are overly idealistic. Before you make one more statement on here you need to read two hundred Testimonies of Former Christians. Not until you have read at least two dozen stories of people who have been utterly rejected by their families for deconversion have you any right to make one more statement about forgiving and moving on. You can start with My Parents Have Shunned Me if you like. Spouses have been divorced, children have been kicked out of their homes and disowned, people have been discriminated against at work, the list goes on. Many of us suffer permanent damage inflicted by abuse justified by religion. But this is not why we deconverted.

 

For some of the extreme frustration we face with Christians on a daily basis, read:

• We Don't Exist
  
• House Divided
  
• Fighting Dirty
  

[BuddyFerris]

...

I was thinking more of it’s nature of telling people what the answers are, rather than encouraging them to find the light for themselves. Interesting you should mention as a failure of the church to have not recommended a single thing in all those years. You see, people turn to religion looking for “answersâ€, where the best help anyone can do is to help someone find the answers for themselves. But that’s why people turn to religion, because they want someone else to tell them how to live. It’s easier than the harder path of forging your own road and being solely responsible for your life. Religion promises answers, and delivers someone else’s answers. Answers are dynamic and fluid, and fit only the moment for only the individual. There is no single answer.

 

Where I see the church being the Antichrist, it’s when they take you off the path of self-discovery into following their rules. At that point, you stop growing and become enslaved to the priests. How many pastors out there do you truly think have the answers for everyone, let alone themselves?

That's a telling point, AM. I've known a number of pastors personally over the years, and they fall into two categories. Those who are humble enough to admit they are still in the process of discovery and those who are still in the process of discovery but are troubled that anyone might notice it. It's an unfortunate cultural dilemma; pastors are expected to know answers for the masses as are doctors and teachers and politicians. We're to the place with literacy and information access now so that patients are almost as insightful as their health care providers, students have as broad an exposure to information as their professors, and pastors are having a hard time keeping up.

 

It may be a useful observation as well in our general disapproval of state approved/sponsored religion. Such an institution does imply that it has the answers for the masses. That's not even biblical. I hadn't seen that with any clarity before; our family never really bought into the 'authority of the institutional church' proposition. Maybe it's my dad's influence; he was a 'make up my own mind' kind of guy about most things.

 

My antique friend's observation about the state church she attended was along the lines that they just didn't do anything. At all. Didn't feed the hungry, just themselves. Didn't house the homeless, though they all lived comfortably themselves. Didn't do squat for the widows or single moms. She was glad to leave when the time came. Can't blame her; there's something insipid about doing nothing in the middle of opportunity. I don't think you can truthfully call that a church.

Buddy

(We should probably differentiate between church, religion, and belief. They kind of get blurred in conversations like these. I don't consider myself religious, I wonder about organizations that call themselves churches but act like businesses, and I wonder what to do with 'believers' who have hope but no faith.)

[Grandpa Harley]

... Forgiveness, even reconciliation, may be possible. However, to say that the victim has to do it is just bullshit. If people had done to me what they've done to their nearest and dearest, I would happily watch maggots devour their flesh in a ditch... although I'd wish no body dead other than as a cursing out. However, I have a mind in which there are far worse things than just dying...

 

And when does 'stupid' become 'evil'?

Understandable GH, and probably more common than any other disposition in such circumstances.

I wasn't thinking so much of an obligation on the victim as a method for the victim's getting free and moving on. Having been mistreated leaves us wounded; we'll walk with a limp in that area, either angry or fearful or we'll carry a measure of unwarranted guilt for having contributed to the problem.

 

When we moved back to this area after an absence of 10+ years, I ran across a fellow I'd known. He was still telling the same stories about the same people he hated. Every story had the same punchline, "...and then I told 'em, by damn, ...." I was impressed at how he seemed stuck in the same angry hole for more than a decade. Seemed more like insanity than freedom. I don't know his whole story; there were early years he never talked about which I suspect were unpleasant. His adult life was defined by continuing conflict, a 'pushing a rock up a hill' sort of existence. Virtually every casual conversation would include a tale of conflict and "...then I told 'em, by damn,...". I don't know that he ever resolved any conflict; he seemed to have cut himself off from the world, one person at a time.

 

There are at least a couple of paths for us with which I'm familiar; anger and bitterness forever or forgiveness and understanding followed by moving on. Perhaps I'm overly idealistic.

Buddy

 

There is a world of difference between holding on to remembered slights (which is wallowing) and not forgiving someone who delivered a personal injury or basically was wantonly cruel. There's one guy who, almost 30 years down the line, I would only cross the road for if he were aflame to get a better view and toast marshmallows. He's left permanent scars on my back, so I figure I don't need to hold any warm feeling for him, but while he's not in my life, I don't care really what he's doing. I'm doing ok. For most people, even if forgivenss isn't in reach, peace may well be. If you think about the SOBs who hurt you every day when it's all in the farflung past, then you have a problem, since they still own you. Hate, in the early stages is understandable, and even healthy, since it places a barrier between you and the abuser that they can't penetrate. But like the monk in the old Buddhist homily, in the end you put them down and get on with it. That isn't 'forgiveness' just getting over it. Granted some folk take more time to get over stuff than others, so much so they die before getting there. It may not be a 'healthy' state of mind, but it's better than being the victim of the abuser still... To get to understand why someone did something doesn't even require you to stop hating them for it. Forgiveness isn't a prerequisite for understanding, or getting on with your life, or stopping hating and bitterness.

 

Do I forgive the guy for what he did? No. Do I understand why he did it? Yes, he was a violent thug, and last I heard that is a current condition. Do I hate him? No. Am I bitter? Not really, I seldom think of him (unless someone starts with the whole 'you have to forgive to move on' myth) Would I be happy if I heard he was dead? Not really. Would I care if he was dead? No, not in the slightest. Would I enjoy his pain? Maybe. Would I help if he was on fire? No...nor would I pour petrol on him... He's gained my eternal apathy. I don't find his continued existence an affront, I don't find the idea of his painful death pleasurable... He's sort of a non-person who I once was acquainted with.

[Sparrow]

... text ...

 

Has anyone noticed that talking to Buddy is like attempting to talk to that Eliza 1970s artificial intelligence experiment? Every sentence is like the HAL computer on dope.

 

Ex-Christian Member: I think you’re belief is rubbish and you’re head is buried deep in your butt! How can you possibly believe in that? Where’s the evidence, you dick?

 

Eliza / Buddy / HAL: I can relate to that. Does it help you to think my head is buried in my butt, or would you like to talk about why you think my belief is rubbish?

 

Ex-Christian Member: You twat! Where’s the evidence?

 

Eliza / Buddy / HAL: Would it help you to talk about the evidence?

 

Ex-Christian Member: Yes! Of course. I’ve been asking you to talk about it for over 60 pages!!

 

Eliza / Buddy / HAL: Does it bother you that you asked me to talk about the evidence for over 60 pages?

 

Ex-Christian Member: Yes it does bother me you idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Eliza / Buddy / HAL: You sound angry. Why are you angry?

 

Ex-Christian Member: Evidence you tool!!!!!!!! Where’s the evidence?

 

Eliza / Buddy / HAL: Would it help you to talk about the evidence?

 

Etc

 

 

Is there actually anyone at home, or has someone hooked up Eliza? Is Buddy actually a human?

 

Spatz

[Vigile]

Spatz, you rule babe. Hilarious.