Once again, is there really a question about this? I could and have written complete essays on the ignorance of the "sheep" of christianity. This is always the area in this debate where I draw the greatest amount of fire, so I'll be clear. When I say ignorance, I mean unwillingness to question the bill of goods they are sold. I mean unwillingness to think for themselves or make up their own minds about what their "good book" even says. Finally and worst of all, I mean unwillingness to even question the moral character of those who claim pious lordship over them.
In all these respects, the mainstream Religious Reich style christian is completely ignorant. What's even worse, they are seemingly proud their ignorance. The quote, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," stands as proof of this reality. I am not the one who made this up, I am merely putting it out for the world to see. Because of their easily led nature, gays remain second class citizens, DUBYA remains office, and the rest of our federal government shakes in their piss soaked boots in fear of retribution from the political power of the Religious Reich.
On servility, let me say two words, Oral Roberts. The fact that he netted over six million dollars in short order after his crocodile tear-filled sermon where he said the "lord" was going to "call him up" if he didn't raise that much cash, can there be any question of servility? While the point could be made, and rightly so, that this incident is more proof of ignorance then servility, the fact that the money came pouring in, and the fact that he actually went over his mark by a few million proves the willing servility of the laity to send their hard-earned money to a charlatan.
Not one of those contributors questioned the fact that death is supposed to be the ultimate good thing for the christian. Going to heaven should be a reason to celebrate, not send cash to prevent from happening. They simply sent their contributions. Wow, don't I wish I could get six million bucks just by going on TV and saying I was going to be taken to heaven if I didn't get it? Yeah, I wish making money was that easy for me.
...in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
At last, the real crux of this biscuit comes. Let's analyze each separately.
Superstition? Is it not the backbone of religion? I offer proof of this by saying one thing: "intelligent design". In the 21st century, for any group to hold on to metaphoric hyperbole as fact is nothing short of superstitious. This is even truer when almost no one in the world of science questions Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Some sciences, such as the latest and greatest science of genetic engineering are firmly built upon the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is a reality. It has been moved from theory to fact as the years have passed between Darwin's time and ours.
Numerous missing links have come into being. The rise of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (MRSA) , the continuously mutating HIV virus, the common cold, and the yet to arrive bird flu all stand as further proof of the reality of evolution. Evolution has gone from theory to reality. Still there are states this country that force teaching of the christian-based "intelligent design". A theory that says the world is no more than five thousand years old, and dinosaurs traveled with Noah on the ark can't be anything but batch of superstitious bullshit.
Bigotry? Do I even have to qualify this? If so, let me say, "homosexuals."
Persecution? See above!
So, here we sit at the dawning of the 21st century, a time that was sold as the pinnacle of high tech society. Yet we remain burdened by the yolk of christian pridefulness, indolence, ignorance, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. We live in a world where science and learning are subverted by the ignorant whims of the Religious Reich and their rabid followers. We live in world where issues of private choice and personal pursuits of happiness are turned into moral issues, yet clearly moral issues are ignored.
Here we are, almost three hundred years since James Madison made this quote, and still, we have not learned. How many more centuries will America and the world have to suffer under the weight of christian pride, indolence, ignorance, servility, superstition, bigotry, and persecution? I shudder to think.
Didn't bother to find out where the quote came from, did you? A quick Google would have shown you that it comes from "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments."
When Madison rails against the "legal establishment" of Chrianity, he means establishing one or a few official state churches and putting the clergy of those sects on the public payroll. Basically, he is saying that doing so will make them as useless and stupid as ... well ... politicians.
Whatever the merit of your views, they are not well served by quote mining Madison.
by
John Pieret (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 4:22:07 PM
Didn't bother to find out where the quote came from, did you? A quick Google would have shown you that it comes from "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments."
Frankly, I don't give a shit where it came from. I was analyzing it from my own perspective; my view of christianity. That is my right here. Whether or not his meaning was the same as mine, my points and meanings were what the article was about, not his. He's dead, and has been for some time.
Are you tryng to say that I am wrong in my assessment of the Religious Reichers that I analyzed as being prideful and slothful? If so, then say it outright. Don't attempt to belittle me for what you see as a failure to understand the nuances of the quote in the first place. Are you trying to say I am wrong about the "ignorance and servility" of the laity, especially Religious Reich laity? If you are, then do so. Don't attempt to make me out to be a fool. Are you trying to say I am wrong about the "superstition, bigotry, and persecution" practiced by both? If so, then say it outright. Don't attempt to make it look like I have no idea how to interpret a quotation.
When Madison rails against the "legal establishment" of [Christianity], he means establishing one or a few official state churches and putting the clergy of those sects on the public payroll. Basically, he is saying that doing so will make them as useless and stupid as ... well ... politicians.
Whatever the merit of your views, they are not well served by quote mining Madison.
If you had bothered to read the entire article before you reponded, you would have noticed the explanation of how I came upon the quote in the first place. Since you obviously missed that part, let me quote it for you again...
"I was in the process of reviewing a Linux distribution known as Slackware. Unlike the other Linux distributions already reviewed, Slackware boots to a command prompt instead of booting directly to its graphical user interface (GUI). For some reason, when Slackware comes to the prompt, it throws little gems of intellectual prowess at you. It was one of these Slackware quotes that brought about this article.
As anyone who has read my stuff knows, I hold a rather dim view of organized religion in general, and christianity in specific. So you could say that when the following quote happened upon my screen, I was taken aback. In a simple batch of words thrown up by an open source, free, UNIX-based operating system, at last I found codification of my ideas about mainstream christianity."
Now, given that I said, "...I hold a rather dim view of organized religion in general...", does it not naturally follow that a quote of the nature of the Madison quote would be more than enough to set my brain blazing? At least I made enough effort to research a bit about Madison before I began writing this article.
When one considers what I was doing when that quote came into my reality, ie, working on a research project completely unrelated to anything of a political or religious nature, as well as the fact that I was setting up Linux on the machine in question, what makes you think I am going to spend the hours upon hours to research every nuance of the quote. Wasn't it enough to be inspired?
For me, it was. I stand by everything I wrote in the article above. The context of the quote means nothing in regards to the article. I didn't want to analyze Madison, I wanted to express the opinion of Pappy McFae. I thought that was fairly obvious. I guess I was mistaken.
When I heard that the article had been promoted to top article, and that I had two comments here, I didn't think for one minute that I'd be defending the article from the contextual nuances of the original quote that brought it to being. I figured I'd be giving hell to someone flaming me for daring to speak my mind about christianity in such a negative way.
Oh well, it's not what I expected, but it was interesting nonetheless.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 4:13:10 AM
it is most difficult to follow a response as perceptive as that of catshark, but one does ones best.
I am reminded of a CSLewis comment; "Christianity should never be a means to an end, but the end itself".
As an atheist I find myself in a position of defending christianity, if only for the same reasons I defend the followers of Islam in the face of the hatred engendered by the actions of a small minority of moslems. That there are a plethora of self serving and dishonest folks who use the faith of others to advance themselves is a point I will not try to deny, that much evil has been perpetrated upon society by these folks is also moot. Yet any indictment of a religion whose followers number a billion or so is basically a poor judgement. Surely one must believe that the vast majority of believers are good and honest folks, some simply guilty of misplaced loyalties in those they follow. Otherwise one is simply showing a lack of belief in the inherent goodness of ones fellow man.
I was given to understand that the author professes to be a libertarian, a political and economic belief system that must ,perforce, believe in the basic goodness of people as it seeks to end all government interference in their actions, including aid to the poor as they feel that, once free of governmental controls, the rich will be conscience driven to donate to the various charities that would replace government assistance. Surely most of those charities would be church sponsored ones?
If this belief is a valid one then how to contrast that with a condemnation of so many fellow humans belief system?
"And there is a lust in man no Charm can tame,
of loudly publishing our neighbors shame;
On Eagles wings immortal scandals fly,
While Virtuous Actions are but boirn and die."
Juvenal
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 6:30:41 PM
...you can refer to me in the first person or second. You don't have to refer to me in the third...ie:
I was given to understand that the author professes to be a libertarian, a political and economic belief system that must ,perforce, believe in the basic goodness of people as it seeks to end all government interference in their actions, including aid to the poor as they feel that, once free of governmental controls, the rich will be conscience driven to donate to the various charities that would replace government assistance. Surely most of those charities would be church sponsored ones?
In other words, it would have been a bit more proper and polite to have said, "I was given to understand you claim to be a libertarian..." This would have at least acknowledged my humanity and existence. Be that as it may, let me answer you in kind.
Yet any indictment of a religion whose followers number a billion or so is basically a poor judgement. Surely one must believe that the vast majority of believers are good and honest folks, some simply guilty of misplaced loyalties in those they follow. Otherwise one is simply showing a lack of belief in the inherent goodness of ones fellow man.
Is it? I think not! While there may exist many truly christian christians in the world, my experiences with christianity, both from within and without, have been anything but pleasant. Also, I don't really buy that there are a billion christians anyway. A couple hundred million, yes, a billion, I really, REALLY doubt that. And even if it were true, the argument that might makes right, or numbers make right is a poor and illogical argument.
Before the advent of the airplane, millions of people thought that flight as in the way birds do it was impossible for us. Sure, hot air balloons existed, but they weren't practical in that they followed the winds. They didn't go in a determined direction. Were these people right? Before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk, the people who said we'd never fly were absolutely right. Afterwards, they were wrong, dead wrong. Just because millions of people didn't think man would ever fly didn't make their thoughts true.
So, the fact that christinity is the biggest religion in the US doesn't mean those who follow it are right. It only means that most people are going to chose the religion of the majority. That doesn't mean anything other than those who made the choice either truly believe in christianity, don't know they are free to make another spiritual choice, or they are lazy.
And besides that, I was clear in speaking about members of the Religious Reich. Let me count the ways..."While the word "indolence" may not cover everyone in the Religious Reich, prideful covers them all very well," "Let's start with one of my personal favorites: Scary Jerry Falwell," "Then there's Pat Robertson. Is he prideful? Oh yes," "I could and have written complete essays on the ignorance of the "sheep" of christianity," "In all these respects, the mainstream Religious Reich style christian is completely ignorant," "Because of their easily led nature, gays remain second class citizens, DUBYA remains office, and the rest of our federal government shakes in their piss soaked boots in fear of retribution from the political power of the Religious Reich," "On servility, let me say two words, Oral Roberts. The fact that he netted over six million dollars in short order after his crocodile tear-filled sermon where he said the "lord" was going to "call him up" if he didn't raise that much cash, can there be any question of servility," and I could continue on, but I think I have made my point. If not, let me make it now!
I have a real problem with christians of the Religious Reich stripe. Whether I am talking about the prideful charlatans who bilk the easily led, or the easily led, I am talking about those Americans who either attempt to use religion as a weapon and a means of mind control, or those who are the willing victims of such. I thought I had made that as clear as a crystal cathedral.
That is what my article was about. If people are going to question it, or try to flame me because of it, I wish they'd at least do me the honor of reading and attempting to understand where I was coming from when I wrote it. I mean!
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 4:53:36 AM
If you had contained your criticisms to the leadership of the various Christian sects that abuse our personal freedoms and distort the message of Christ I would have climbed on your bandwagon, certainly. The abuse of power is neither confined to religious groups or unique among all humanity, sadly.
When you note:
"Is it? I think not! While there may exist many truly christian christians in the world, my experiences with christianity, both from within and without, have been anything but pleasant. Also, I don't really buy that there are a billion christians anyway. A couple hundred million, yes, a billion, I really, REALLY doubt that. And even if it were true, the argument that might makes right, or numbers make right is a poor and illogical argument. "
... you seem to admit that your entire raison d'etre in castigating christianity is personal experience with a very statistically insignificant number of christians. I trust this is not the case, especially as you are a perceptive and intelligent poster. As to your disbelief in the numbers, well, spend a bit of time with any reputable search engine, I prefer Vivissimo or Teoma, even Dogpile, and you will quickly find the truth in those numbers who hold to the christian faith. They are about equal to the numbers who follow the teachings of Islam.
When you use that "might doesnt make right" argument you inject something into this argument that you yourself create. My assertion, one that goes to the very bedrock of my belief system, is that such blanket indictments of so many is always wrong and to be shunned. I would put to you that, as an open and honest homosexual, you of all of us should be so aware of the evils of such blanket critiques.
If you had contained your criticisms to the leadership of the various Christian sects that abuse our personal freedoms and distort the message of Christ I would have climbed on your bandwagon, certainly. The abuse of power is neither confined to religious groups or unique among all humanity, sadly.
Which ones don't? You seem to speak from a point of ultra knowledge on this issue, but I submit there isn't one single sect of christianity that doesn't engage in at least one of the "sins" listed in the initial quote which spawned this article. I have met members of so many sects of christianity, and for the most part, I don't have the time to deal with their world view. Perhaps it's closed minded on my part, but that assumes I ever claimed to be fully open minded. I am not, nor is anyone else who draws a breath on this planet.
While you are correct in saying religion doesn't have the market cornered in the power abuse department, no other human creation can bring about the kind of abuses of religion.
All one needs to do is look at the bloody history of christinaity to know this is true. Oh yes, the histories of Judaism and Islam are bloody as well. There is no religion that is innocent of abusing power. However, when it comes to doing it on a grand scale, christians are really good at it! Islam hasn't existed long enough to approach the bloody history of christianity, and Judaism usually gets done to more than it does, historically speaking, they aren't guiltless.
... you seem to admit that your entire raison d'etre in castigating christianity is personal experience with a very statistically insignificant number of christians. I trust this is not the case, especially as you are a perceptive and intelligent poster. As to your disbelief in the numbers, well, spend a bit of time with any reputable search engine, I prefer Vivissimo or Teoma, even Dogpile, and you will quickly find the truth in those numbers who hold to the christian faith. They are about equal to the numbers who follow the teachings of Islam.
Statistically insignificant? Are you out of your fucking mind? America is statistically somewhere around seventy percent christian. Considering the way the Religious Reich rallied their sheep for the 2004 election, I would say that those people are quite significant in a statistical sense.
Using search engines to establish numbers is fuzzy math at its best. Once again, even if christians are the religious majority in this country, that doesn't make any of them right! I do not, nor have I ever bought into the "everyone does it so it's ok," argument. Four out of five dentists in Nazi Germany thought Jews were worthy of rebuke up to and including death! Were those dentist right? Just because everyone does something doesn't make it right, proper, moral, or ethical. Arguing that point is ridiculous!
When you use that "might doesnt make right" argument you inject something into this argument that you yourself create. My assertion, one that goes to the very bedrock of my belief system, is that such blanket indictments of so many is always wrong and to be shunned. I would put to you that, as an open and honest homosexual, you of all of us should be so aware of the evils of such blanket critiques.
I am expressing my fucking opinion! Catch a bloody clue here! If what I say shakes your foundation, that's your problem, not mine. Perhaps if your foundation is so easily shaken by my disgust with christianity, you need to look at yourself, not me. I am only saying what I think and how I agree with the quote that began this article. It's up to others to agree or not as the case may be. If someone is so drastically affected by reading this article that I shook them to their core, I achieved my goal!
Question why it is you believe what you believe. If it's because your parents believed this, then perhaps it's time you thought a second time. If it's because you don't know of any other way to be, then it's up to you to do some research on your own. If you are scared to buck the system, that's your problem. I have bucked the systems since I was small, and that was a long time ago. You are free to review your belief system whenever it becomes necessary. I do it all the time. It's good for what ails you!
christians...2.1 Billion
Islam........1.3 Billion...so who knew?
Once again, might doesn't make right. Two thousand years ago, the predominant religion in the world was Roman Paganism. It died out. So will christianity. Nothing is forever. I frankly can't wait for that day!
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 3:53:30 AM
In several weeks I will have been a born-again Christian for 40 years. I cannot stand most churches and no one is more ashamed than I of televangelists like Pat Robertson who spew bilious, pious crap out of their mouths and pretend that it is in some way or another Anointed Truth. It's not: it's a steaming pile of shit.
Therefore I applaud some of Pappy's condemnation, but I have some serious modifications or qualifications to suggest. Before moving forward with those, let me make one minor point. If Pappy (or Robert Raitz) is going to make the superstition and stupidity of Christians one of his principal themes, he should proofread his comment before submitting it, to make sure his own words don't sound stupid. His phrase "burdened by the yolk of Christian pridefulness" is a fair example. He means yoke, of course, not the yolk of an egg in your face when you make that kind of error in your writing. You betray your own stupidity and lack of education when you let these little things slip. Another is the phrase "more then" (more proof of ignorance then servility) instead of "more than." Again, one wonders: Has this person even been to college? What about "assasionation"? Just a typo? How about, "I wish making money was that easy for me" instead of "I wish it were that easy ..."?
And there is more of that, but enough of the "minor" point. It's just that there are too many screwballs on both sides of the believer-atheist argument, or should I say all sides, and if you want to be taken seriously, Mr. Raitz, you have to clean up your prose. If you can't do it yourself, you should hire someone to do it. Because otherwise you look like an idiot and it becomes difficult to take seriously your accusations of idiocy and stupidity among the Christian herd. Capiche? You're just another idiotic screwball spewing the "scientific" party line against the screwball Christian crowd. Which turns everyone off even more than (not more then) before reading your piece.
That said, I welcomed a lot of your main points and was amused at some of your formulations. Since this is a comment and not a formal essay, I won't list all those. But your piece had merit. What it lacks is true experience (the experience of being a Christian) and probably even true knowledge of what is in the Bible. Since I have both, I will extend your essay with a little more perspective.
First, Christ in His day was persecuted by Pharisees, who were elders of the church. Probably the main reason they plotted to get Him killed was that He continually pointed out that these IMPORTANT MEN IN THE CHURCH were hypocrites, were evil inside, and would all go to hell. They didn't like that. Do you see an analogy to Pat Robertson and other IMPORTANT MEN IN THE CHURCH, or Religious Reich, as you call it? One of the better known scenes in the New Testament was of Christ going through the temple with a whip, driving out the money-changers. If you can spare a moment from your Linux, think about that image. What does it mean? It means nothing made Him angrier than to see a holy place used for financial profit and personal gain. I once saw Pat Robertson, all a-flutter, gushingly admiring a display of diamonds on his program. I had the same gut-wrenching nausea and anger deep down inside.
Simple point, then: Those who say they represent Christianity, the people you condemn, are not necessarily Christians. Is it hard to find these long, loud, public, noisy hypocrites and charlatans? No, it's not hard to find them. It's hard to find real Christians. You can think about that; think about whom you are condemning. If you want to throw Christianity out the window, find out what it actually is first, don't just judge it by those who are most loudly proclaiming their own holiness and god-given insights. From what I could tell in reading the life of Christ, He was nothing like Pat Robertson or any of the people you condemn. So if Christianity is belief in Christ, what exactly are you condemning?
Another point. Anyone, like yourself, can point out something naggingly inane about Noah's story ... and other things in the Old Testament ... should we really stone someone caught in adultery, for example? These kinds of things are in the popular mind and do not evidence at all that you've ever even opened a Bible. But if you do open it and read it and study it for ten or twenty years, as I did, the things you'll find that are objectionable run much deeper than what you've used to illustrate the absurdity of the faith. Try, for example, the doctrine of election, as it's called by theologians, made explicit by Paul in the Book of Romans (Chapter 9 is a good place to start). Paul explicitly says that God created most people to be damned -- that He pre-ordained them to be damned -- that He elected to salvation only a select few, and predestined all the rest to eternal hell. Why did God do this? Paul says, Who are you to question God? And then he says, in so many words, that God may have done it to show that He, God, would punish evil.
Now, if you sit on that doctrine for a little while and really ponder it thoroughly, you will come up with some really intelligent reasons to doubt Christianity. Pointing out that Noah probably didn't have dinosaurs on the ark is a cartoon version of Biblical critique. It's colored in pinks and greens and silly bubbles are coming out of your mouth. It's not a critique of Christianity. It's a parody of critique, and it betrays YOUR ignorance. Go instead to the heart of the faith, which presents a God who predestines the vast majority of created human beings to everlasting hell ("broad is the gate to destruction ... narrow is the gate the leads unto life, and few there be that find it"). Ask the believing Christian: How can you worship such a God? How can you sit in your tidy little place, thinking you'll be blessed in heaven forever, while most of the rest of humanity will not only be burning in hell forever, but in fact were predestined to that end and never had any choice in the first place? That will mean your friends, your family, your neighbors, your teachers, your students, your customers, your business partners -- and on and on. How can YOU rejoice, if you really have a heart of love, at a God who would predestine most of the human race to perdition?
Now, I'm not saying this is the only theme or passage or plot in the Bible that is really worthy of criticism -- one that DEMANDS an answer from you in your heart, in your soul. But it's an important one. And I raise the question here because I want to say to you, if you are going to expose the hypocrisy of Christianity, if you are going to rail against the pious, pompous, wretched men in our government who claim to be Christian but are truly owned by Pfizer and Monsanto and Halliburton and Lockheed and Raytheon, then LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE RELIGION YOU DESPISE SO MUCH. Learn about it enough that you can speak intelligently about what fails in that religion. And stop being so arrogant about the stupidity and superstition of Christianity's adherents that you cannot even see that the loud ones on the public stage are not even Christian at all -- so are you denouncing a religion, or are you just denouncing corrupt parading fools? And if that's all it is, why bother us with all these references to Christianity, which really only tell us how little you know about it?
I spoke earlier about the EXPERIENCE of being a Christian. What I meant when I said that, was about the experience of prayer going unanswered. There isn't any time here to discuss that now. But if you were on the INSIDE, you'd know (and could relate in your writing) that there are heartbreaking facts about God's silence that deserve critique. Where was God when His chosen people were butchered in concentration camps in WWII? Or if you don't like something sympathetic to Jews, then I'll ask: Where was God when George Bush, claiming to be His fiery soldier, descended on Iraq and destroyed that country and drove hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims into exile forever -- not even mentioning here the ones who died? Where was God when ... well, one can go on at length. There is no shortage of examples about God's allowing evil to triumph over good in this world. This is worth questioning. Dinosaurs on the ark is a quasi-scientific quiddity or quibble which doesn't enlighten anyone who struggles sincerely with these questions of the human heart.
Now, presumably your snide arrogance means that all this is obvious to you and you don't need to question whether there is a God, whether it's just all bullshit, whether there is anything eternal out there (or in here), and so on. But you see, that kind of writing doesn't really convince. Because human beings really do struggle with these questions. And although your ancestors are undoubtedly apes, it's not so clear that all of ours are. I have great admiration for Stephen Jay Gould, one of the more articulate expositors on evolution. His writing is solid and convincing. I don't know if he's right about everything, but if you could absorb the FEEL of his style, you'd learn something. I'd recommend you read him and learn from him.
There's nothing, of course, wrong with being fed up, as you are so clearly fed up with the bullshit you see around you. But since you have an aptitude for a clever turn of phrase, it seems to me you might gain more power in your critiques if you were to lose some of that snide quality and become a more honest and intelligent voice. I liked your article but what I didn't like was that you clearly have never read the Bible -- or if you have, you did not absorb anything in it. If you're going to rail against Christianity, you should first study the Ur-Text. Why should anyone listen to you if you haven't?
Kot Mirskoi
by
Kot Mirskoi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 5:40:48 AM
Good God, Kot, pun intended. Here, allow me to hand you a lectern and a pulpit. You accuse the author of "turning a clever phrase" during which instance you launch into a hideous diatribe disguised as a "helping hand" complete with grammar suggestions and seemingly clever ad hominem attacks. Who anointed you to the "thrown of inerrant knowledge" and when?
A steady diet of smarmy, condescending statements – full of clandestine and transparent subterfuge – poorly masqueraded as a depraved "syntax intervention" and Bible retreat, inelegantly only accomplished one thing: You come across as pious pimp and an acrimonious ass!
Obtuse, haughty statements, such as, "Now, if you sit on that doctrine for a little while and really ponder it thoroughly, you will come up with some really intelligent reasons to doubt Christianity" are a meager attempt to conceal your "verbiage body slams" and discredit the author's point. You do so by imprudently trying to elevate your own bogus superiority as a "born-again Christian of for 40 years" and ostensibly the self-appointed "word police" and "keeper of the lexicon of English language."
The bulk of your discourse is a poor, undercover attempt of more of the same from the rabid, religious right – fear mongering and bigotry. Allow me to illustrate my line of reasoning. Take this "clever" nugget concealed as a benign rumination, "That will mean your friends, your family, your neighbors, your teachers, your students, your customers, your business partners..." "Gasp! What ever shall I do?" A reality check is in order here. In and throughout life you will eventually lose all of those people. In turn, someday, they will also eventually lose you, too. This is the natural circle of organic life. It is not an eternal damnation to a mystical, insidious place fill with an incendiary inferno. All this superfluous banter you churn out is more of the same: fear and control through religious indoctrination.
Then we have this fallacy that attacks the author rather than dealing with the real topic in dispute, "Because human beings really do struggle with these questions. And although your ancestors are undoubtedly apes, it's not so clear that all of ours are." I can only speak for myself, but I do not struggle with these questions. The answers are quite clear in my mind. God did not make man; man made God. Man needed God (or an unexplainable myth) to give people meaning and purpose in life so as to ensure the stability of society for the elite. The controlling elite "needed God" as a means to justify slavery, brutality, torture, prejudices, hate and murder to sustain the "rule of aristocracy" with the unproven promise of a blissful afterlife, while toiling away in utter, abject strife for nobility.
Now as to the "ape comment", I can only add that such baboon buffoonery is precisely proof that you indeed are not only a progeny of primitive primates, but also a lowly monkey banging away on a keyboard in hopes of driveling some of your self-righteous hatred into the minds of others.
The author's point is very clear. Religion distorts, oppressed, maims, kills, tortures, elicits false fear, projects bigotry, fuels hate and is the ultimate, nefarious method to rule a nation by. Rationality and intellectualism are always persecuted while faith and ignorance meld into blind nationalism. This produces a mass delusion of grand arrogance that erroneously justifies insidious acts of human brutality and conquest. Religion is merely faith over facts and superstition instead of common sense.
To quote Voltaire, "Man will never be free till the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Next time, direct your unfounded arrogance, sanctimonious screed and monotonous, charlatan sermon elsewhere. We already have enough hypocrites and heretics to deal with in the realm of reality; we don't need another.
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 378 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 3:52:51 PM
...I am so glad you said these things at about the same time I was saying them. Obviously I said some things that sent our friend above into some sort of seizure.
The point you made that I like the most is: God didn't make man; man made God. I wish I had included those words in the original text of my article. Never have truer words been written.
I am a pagan. I realize that making this statement means I could be seen as a hypocrite for slamming the religion of so many in this country. However, my spiritual and metaphysical beliefs end where my capacity for rational thought begins. I celebrate the solstices and equinoxes because they mark the passing of time and the seasons as they have since the planet began to rotate on a skewed axis. However, I don't buy a lot of the hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo that has become associated with the idea of paganism.
The earth is millions of years old, not a mere five to six thousand as the Religious Reich would have us believe. The Grand Canyon was created by the erosive force of the Colorado river, not built as a place for Noah and his supposed menagerie to come to rest in the US. Speaking of the ark, how could Noah make enough room for all the huge dinosaurs? Two Brontosaurus, two T-Rex, and two Triceratops would have more or less taken all the room on the ark. Where were the mastodons, woolly mammoths, and standard pachyderms going to hang out, much less the rhinos and hippopotamuses? There was only so much room on that boat.
Whether the original quote was taken out of context, whether or not I made technical errors in the original article, and whether or not there are other side issues connected with my original article which are debatable, the truth is, when it comes to the Religious Reich, both the leaders and the followers of this religion are guilty of pride, indolence, ignorance, servility, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. I have seen these things over and over again, and I have no other option than to assume that they are part and parcel to the reality of the Religious Reich.
If that opinion upsets some folks, perhaps they should look into why they are so upset. While it's a lot easier to fault me for my opinion in a million different ways, it's a lot better for those who would attack me to look inward and find out what it is inside that upsets them so.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 5:23:23 PM
I've good news for you Pappy-- I'm a Christian and what you think of Christianity doesn't upset me at all. I don't really understand why it would. What you think isn't going to change what I think, so who cares? In the overall scheme of things nobody cares what either one of us thinks.I'm almost 60 yrs old and have been called plenty of names in my life,so you calling me a few more because of what I believe is water off a duck's back. Happy Paganing!!
by
larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 279 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 10:59:01 PM
I've good news for you Pappy-- I'm a Christian and what you think of Christianity doesn't upset me at all. I don't really understand why it would. What you think isn't going to change what I think, so who cares? In the overall scheme of things nobody cares what either one of us thinks.I'm almost 60 yrs old and have been called plenty of names in my life,so you calling me a few more because of what I believe is water off a duck's back. Happy Paganing!!
Good for you! I wrote my opinion, and I think I was pretty clear that it was my opinion. Others, perhaps not you, were a trifle upset by my words. Doom on them!
Also, where did I call you a name? I just went back over this thread, and I didn't call you any name anywhere. Perhaps you ought to stop taking ludes before you read articles here. As I recall though, you did call me names, and rather rudely I might add. I had to have the comment removed! Don't condemn me for your sins!
If this is all so much water off your duck's back, why bother even writing any comment? And when you take a paranoid tack of thinking I personally called you a name, I'd say you need to take a long look in the mirror and find out if you really believe your bullshit. From where I'm sitting, you seem a lot like a little boy whistling in the dark, even if you are almost sixty.
You won't change my opinion. However, in an interesting twist, you told us all a story about yourself.
Blessed be! (happy paganing yourself!)
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 4:08:21 AM
Sorry it took so long to get back to you.( my other life kicked in ) I've got to tell you that your bitterness is a thing to behold! I mean truly it is awesome. I get a kick out of your stuff. The name calling I referred to was in the last part of your article. I believe you referred to Christians as indolent, ignorant, and bigoted among other things. You didn't say that " some " Christians were all these things so I assume you mean all of them are.Now if you didn't mean all of us, cool. Also, I commented because you said if people were upset by what you had to say they needed to examine theirselves as to why they were so upset. I simply wanted you to know that not everyone was upset. You need to remember all this stuff. As far as me calling you names, maybe I was taking ludes because I don't remember that at all. I didn't know you were an armchair shrink either. I didn't tell you squat about me. I would like to though. I'm also a musician like you. I play bass and guitar and made my living at it until about 10 years ago and got sick of the rat race. Maybe we can talk about music next time!
Regards.
by
larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 279 comments)
on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 8:12:10 PM
I'll elect to respond to just a few for reasons of brevity.
If Pappy (or Robert Raitz) is going to make the superstition and stupidity of Christians one of his principal themes, he should proofread his comment before submitting it, to make sure his own words don't sound stupid. His phrase "burdened by the yolk of Christian pridefulness" is a fair example. He means yoke, of course, not the yolk of an egg in your face when you make that kind of error in your writing. You betray your own stupidity and lack of education when you let these little things slip. Another is the phrase "more then" (more proof of ignorance then servility) instead of "more than." Again, one wonders: Has this person even been to college? What about "assasionation"? Just a typo? How about, "I wish making money was that easy for me" instead of "I wish it were that easy ..."?
First and foremost, I am not perfect, nor have I ever claimed to be perfect in any of my articles or comments. While I go through a lengthy write-rewrite-rewrite process when I formulate ideas and create my articles and even some comments, small errors will escape detection. This is especially true when I am doing my writing later on in the day, or getting close to bedtime.
Therefore, I will apologize for the minor errors that survived my editorial process. While one might assume that submission of articles would mean the editors here might read them with fresh enough eyes to catch such minor glitches, that's not a safe assumption. I have seen more than one article, otherwise well written, that fell short of acceptable because of egregious spelling errors.
I am not faulting the editorial system here, I am making an observation. The editors here do so on a voluntary basis. I am sure they have other jobs and complete lives outside the reality of this site. Ergo, spelling, grammatical and syntactical errors are sure to fall through the cracks.
Be advised, Mr. Mirskoi, this is NOT The New York Times, The Washington Post, or even The National Enquirer. This is OpEdNews.com. We are here to express opinion, make commentary, and debate. If you want perfect prose, impeccable spelling, rock solid syntax, and stellar grammar, this isn't the place to find it.
Secondly, your calling my intellect into question because of minor spelling errors is a cheap shot. You don't know me from Adam, and for you to condemn my thoughts and opinions for errors contained in a dozen words out of almost three thousand is nothing more than an attempt to disprove my opinion on the flimsy thought that just because I made technical errors, I don't know what the fuck I am saying. Who in the fuck are you to make this judgment on me? There is a vast difference between spelling errors and sending over six million dollars to Oral Roberts because you are stupid enough to believe that god needs the money. If you wish to continue to think me stupid, go right ahead. I will continue to see you as someone who can't debate on ideas, so you go for cheap shot tactics.
I have done the same thing, and I always do it when I can't think of anything better to say. Of course, you spend a lot of time saying other things; things that I even agree with. However, trying to belittle me and my ideas on the grounds that I am imperfect is not a good place to start a debate with me. Once again, there is a difference between small spelling errors and the kind of mental errors that lead to people like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Ted Haggard bilking people, then falling from grace in public.
Also, for your information, I was born Roman Catholic, and went through eleven years of Catholic education (Kindergarten through fourth, skipping fifth and sixth which were spent at a public and a Montessori style school, and finishing seventh through high school senior). I have read the bible through many times, albeit not the KJV. While I am sure that, to your eyes, doesn't qualify me to have an opinion about christians in this society, fortunately, I don't work from your point of view. If you feel me unqualified, so the fuck be it. From what I have read, I feel you are a total loser who can't debate me on the truth of the words I wrote, but has to play games to make yourself look like an intellectual giant in comparison.
Let me also add, I don't feel the need to be a part of any religion that condemns me for being who I am. I will not be a participant with a group that will always look upon me as a second class citizen. Just because I am gay, I have faced being persecuted from people calling themselves christian from the time I first came out. If this is the way you folks spread your love and tolerance for all mankind, it sucks ass. You can find all the fault you want with my spelling and so on. When one compares spelling errors with condemnation for just being, there is no comparison. Ill spel thinggs rong al dae rathur then comden sumwon four beeing hooo they arr.
Now, presumably your snide arrogance means that all this is obvious to you and you don't need to question whether there is a God, whether it's just all bullshit, whether there is anything eternal out there (or in here), and so on. But you see, that kind of writing doesn't really convince. Because human beings really do struggle with these questions. And although your ancestors are undoubtedly apes, it's not so clear that all of ours are. I have great admiration for Stephen Jay Gould, one of the more articulate expositors on evolution. His writing is solid and convincing. I don't know if he's right about everything, but if you could absorb the FEEL of his style, you'd learn something. I'd recommend you read him and learn from him.
Snide arrogance? Hah! It is to laugh! You begin your response to me with nothing less than snide arrogance and intellectual belittlement, then dare to accuse me of the same!?!? I don't know who the fuck you are, or who the fuck you think you are, but to me, you look like another Religious Reich moron!
I could care less about your bastard son savior. I have read your bible, heard your sermons, and walked the bloody path of your crooked cross. No matter which flavor of christianity I have tried in life (and there have been many), I find the same things over and over again:
Arrogant fucks like yourself who think they know it all when it comes to religion. Self-righteous turds who dare to tell me I am wrong because I am homosexual. People who think that the bible is a history book, not a disparate collection of metaphor written, translated, and passed down by a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic, and impotent clergymen. And the worst of the lot, a bunch of people who cannot think for themselves, especially when it comes to the fact that there are more religions and spiritual systems and ideologies in the world than your narrow way of christianity.
Perhaps in the future, you will come to realize that you do not hold a patent on truth. You might also realize that my opinion is my opinion, right or wrong. If you even want to have a hope of changing my mind, you will have to do a lot better then coming at me from the holier-than-thou fashion you used on me this time around. By you coming off as a total ass, you have further cemented my opinion of mainstream christianity and adherents to the Religious Reich. Poot thaat en yer piep annd smoeck itt!
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 4:51:21 PM
Jesus who was NOT a Christian-that term was NOT even coined until three decades after JC walked the earth.
JC for me was -and is- a social justice, radical, revolutionary, Palestinian, devout Jewish Road Warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authority by telling the people you do NOT need ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God: just come as you are, He already loves you.
JC was crucified for disturbing the status quo of the empire and occupying forces of his time by teaching that God loved the poor, diseased, oppressed, widow, orphan, prisoner, outcast, and that Ceasar only had power because God allowed it.
Evangelical for me does NOT mean I want to convert any to my POV,
only to further this good news:
Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10 and Gnostic Thomas saying 44:
Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."
I find if significant that JC is documented 4 times telling us that it is OK if you do not get him as God:
BUT, do NOT fail to recognize that God is within you and all of Creation.
Thus, the sacred value of EVERY life is THE primary spiritual value Christians should be upholding;
All life came from God and the commandment remains that
thou shall NOT kill and
thou shall love God first,
and if one truly does,
one will love one's neighbor; no matter what they look like or what they believe.
That is the spiritual and moral value that this subversively orthodox radically progressive Christian of The Beatitudes lives by.
e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
by
Eileen Fleming (146 articles, 51 quicklinks, 266 diaries, 579 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 9:03:14 AM
Jesus who was NOT a Christian-that term was NOT even coined until three decades after JC walked the earth.
No, he was Jewish; a fact that seems lost on the rabid anti-Semites that one runs into in the world. How soon they forget the truth they do not want to face.
JC for me was -and is- a social justice, radical, revolutionary, Palestinian, devout Jewish Road Warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authority by telling the people you do NOT need ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God: just come as you are, He already loves you.
If the Rabbi Christ existed, and was, in fact, a god in human flesh, he would have been the kind of person I'd have enjoyed being in his company. He was a radical, and very much against the Religious Reich of his day. It's just too bad that his message has been corrupted by so many over the years. Of course, his message isn't good for businesses, or dirty politics. Maybe that's why the message had to be bastardized.
Evangelical for me does NOT mean I want to convert any to my POV,
only to further this good news:
Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10 and Gnostic Thomas saying 44:
Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."
Well, considering the amount of blasphemies I have uttered, I will be smoking all kinds of turds in Purgatory. It's a good thing that I don't believe in the existence of such a place. Otherwise, I might be scared that the reality sold to me by mainstream christianity is right. Besides, I have a lot more to worry about in the world I can see than the world that is supposed to exist in the places on the other side of the veil (Heaven, Valhalla, whatever).
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 5:58:45 PM
You are correct about the term Christian. Jesus died about 30 CE (AD) and the term was used first in the New Testament Book of Acts as a derrogatory term, "Little Christs."
I would widen you statement about the Beatitudes to include the whole of what most Christians call the New Testament. There is not one book of the twenty-seven (27) books, not one chapter, not one verse that permits a Christian to do violence to another human being for any reason whatsoever. When some Christians defend the right of a "just war" and the right of the "magistrate" to protect and defend the citizenry, they must go to what they call the Old Testament and the Jews call the "Tanakh." The Old Testament (Tanakh) does not
