have you guys given up moderating the boards?

[Dave]

I was thinking of more extreme people like Manson, Koresh, or Jim Jones. Although I guess you could make some comparisons there to the established church in some cases.

My whole point though, was just to try to get you to see how your viewpoint seems extreme to me, because of the built-in "It's what God wants" loophole. That's why, although I do think kids need to be taught values, I am glad that there is a distrust for all churches throughout American society. We've seen too many Jim and Tammy Faye Baker types, so when someone claims to have the answers from God lots of us assume they are nuts or charlatans.

It doesn't matter how much you pray or how honestly you really try to humbly find the truth. The bottom line is that if I don't agree with your point of view you have it all sewn up with your "only Christians understand" clause. It doesn't matter if you're right or not for this argument. My whole thing is that I do agree with some of what you say, but the insistence you have on some other parts makes the whole thing seem suspect, I feel, to the average person.

The part about no attack being offensive is also a real problem because you are one of the last people saying that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know how the logic ties in here. God wanted us to attack Iraq. Things like that keep politicians from mentioning god that much. They like to be seen going to church, but most are smart enough not to get too deeply into it in an interview. They wind up with headlines like those about Bush saying that God told him to attack Iraq, and a lot of people think that sounds crazy.

[Kuiper]

I was thinking of more extreme people like Manson, Koresh, or Jim Jones. Although I guess you could make some comparisons there to the established church in some cases.

My whole point though, was just to try to get you to see how your viewpoint seems extreme to me, because of the built-in "It's what God wants" loophole. That's why, although I do think kids need to be taught values, I am glad that there is a distrust for all churches throughout American society. We've seen too many Jim and Tammy Faye Baker types, so when someone claims to have the answers from God lots of us assume they are nuts or charlatans.

When someone reads the Bible and quotes a verse, it is a verse that has been in print since the invention of the printing press. There's no new prophecy that people are supposed to buy into. Essentially, there's nothing new here, so the possibility of a charlatan coming and saying they had an epiphany have received a new vision of religion from God is preemptively stricken down by the very clear point the Bible makes that when anyone claiming to be a Christian teacher comes bringing a "new Gospel" they are not to be trusted, no matter who they are. Seems to me that there is no already-laid groundwork to build a personality cult or control of the masses when the Bible teaches people to be skeptical to brash "prophets".

It doesn't matter how much you pray or how honestly you really try to humbly find the truth. The bottom line is that if I don't agree with your point of view you have it all sewn up with your "only Christians understand" clause. It doesn't matter if you're right or not for this argument. My whole thing is that I do agree with some of what you say, but the insistence you have on some other parts makes the whole thing seem suspect, I feel, to the average person.

That's why it is very difficult to have a discussion on religion between a Christian and a non-Christian. The bottom line for me is I'm not going to pretend that Christianity is anything less than it is, I won't play along that is is not the one true faith for the sake of discussion.

The part about no attack being offensive is also a real problem because you are one of the last people saying that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know how the logic ties in here. God wanted us to attack Iraq. Things like that keep politicians from mentioning god that much. They like to be seen going to church, but most are smart enough not to get too deeply into it in an interview. They wind up with headlines like those about Bush saying that God told him to attack Iraq, and a lot of people think that sounds crazy.

You are putting words in my mouth. First let me clarify my amateur military science hypothesis that is completely non-dogmatic and has no relation to religion. I just said that I personally think that for a war to be justified it must be defensive in some way, and that so by default for a war to actually be "justified" it ends up as defensive and visa versa. As for me being among the last people to still believe about WMD, it doesn't matter about the number of people who believe something. It can be a sign of the possible legitimacy of something, but in the end it comes down to facts, logic, and evidence and not fickle public opinion.

Did God want us to attack Iraq? That is tricky to get into you. God wants people to be free from dictators, God doesn't want dangerous nuts like Saddam to have any power, God doesn't want innocent people gas bombed, so it is fair to say that yes God probably does prefer not having Saddam Hussein still running Iraq. And the actions of politicians and their attempts to look like this but not too much like that are meaningless. They all want to have their cake and eat it too. They all want to say how they go to church on Sunday and they all want to pray in private but with no mention of Jesus and they all want to say how tolerant they are and how much they love the freedom of religion.

Once again people thinking something sounds crazy doesn't make it so. People used to think the idea of the earth revolving around the sun sounded crazy. And yes that was quite a long time ago, but who says we are any smarter on anything now? In 200 years our knowledge of many subjects will be laughed at, despite our major advancements. But is Bush crazy? I would say a hesitant yes. He is crazy in a number of ways, but I think I find him to be crazy on different things than you and many other people do.

I think I should yet again clarify a number of points.
- Dictatorships and oppression frequently, if not always, include a lack information. Whenever they try to twist around and corrupt the Bible, they'll try to keep it out of people's hands. I encourage people to read the Bible, and the Constitution and the laws and all other manner of important documents. I'm encouraging a wealth of information. A populace well informed of what is being distorted will seldom fall for the lies being sold to them.
- I think that philosophically-speaking for a war to be "justified" it must also be "defensive". That has nothing to do with religion and politics, I just see war that way.
- I believe that to fully understand the meaning of the Bible one must be a Christian. That doesn't mean an atheist can't point a verse that conflicts with one person's stretched interpretation of another, it just means that without the Holy Spirit any attempt to discern the meaning of the Bible will ultimately fail.

[Worm]

You're assuming that the alternative to faith in God is nihilism or godlessness, and I presume by quoting Marx you additionally regard the political opposition to a "Christian nation" as rooted in America's arch nemesis, communism.

Attacking nihilism and communism is casting your opponents as bogeymen, suggesting there isn't room within Christianity for debate. There is. One needn't be a nihilist or a communist to understand that, just as our knowledge of the perfection of heaven is mediated by the imperfection of earth, and the perfection of the soul by the imperfections of the body, so too is our knowledge of the perfect mind of God mediated by the imperfect instrument of the human mind. Skepticism and belief are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to understand this-- I think-- but then you have such odd confidence that an authentic Christian would be incapable of being a mass murderer. Christians produce mass murderers as often as any other religion. I agree if we call them false Christians, but your ideas of being a true Christian, at least as you have spelled them out here, are downright scary, nowhere moreso than in the insistence that God wrote the Bible and not men, controverting an historical fact which seems to have been accepted even by many Christians. The point of my first post is that every murderer who ever killed in the name of religion-- and I understand that you are against such men-- believed that his version of faithfully serving God was absolutely correct. All of them probably began by saying something to the effect of "God sanctions this".

Lastly, I have to take issue with your use of the word "secularist". You're talking about nihilists in your comparison (interestingly, a polemical twist which seems to bear the stamp of your hometown), not secularists or even atheists. Some secularists probably hold the views you describe, but most do not. Most subscribe to a morality based on human reason rather than the revealed word of the deity. Whether or not this project has succeeded or even could succeed is too big a debate for this board, but suffice it to say guidelines for morality must not necessarily come from the Bible or any other religious book. To take the obvious example, your use of the Marx quotation: Marx's philosophy was grounded on the desire to establish peace and harmony among people, based on codes of conduct which could be as binding as the Ten Commandments (say) but freed from the harmful illusions that went along with such sacred texts or traditional bourgeois ideas of morality. To reject the Ten Commandments is to reject the way those rules are transmitted and codified, and not necessarily the rules themselves.

So one can call communists "godless" but it doesn't follow that they are a bunch of "anything goes" savages. A fully realized Christian state probably wouldn't look a whole lot different than a fully realized communist state in most key respects, a fact seized on by a few cheeky souls like Oscar Wilde who dared to suggest that Christ's morality can be combined with the central tenets of socialism. In any case, there is an ocean of interpretative possibilities of Christianity you seem to be closed to, all this despite your ostensible openness to people reading the Bible for themselves. I suspect the freedom of personal interpretation you allow is another way of saying, "Let them arrive at orthodoxy in their own unique way". The path is narrow. No other conclusion is possible if one believes the Bible is authored by God.

[Kuiper]

You're assuming that the alternative to faith in God is nihilism or godlessness, and I presume by quoting Marx you additionally regard the political opposition to a "Christian nation" as rooted in America's arch nemesis, communism.

You seem to imply that I'm some ignorant, redneck, queer-bashing shotgun-owning, cousin-marrying, fool to think that communism is a bad thing. Well it is. I would quote anyone else if they said something similar to what Marx did, that was just a quote I had at hand that spelled things out very well.

Attacking nihilism and communism is casting your opponents as bogeymen, suggesting there isn't room within Christianity for debate. There is. One needn't be a nihilist or a communist to understand that, just as our knowledge of the perfection of heaven is mediated by the imperfection of earth, and the perfection of the soul by the imperfections of the body, so too is our knowledge of the perfect mind of God mediated by the imperfect instrument of the human mind. Skepticism and belief are not mutually exclusive.

So by saying I don't like communist and nihilistic philosophy I'm casting them as bogeymen? So if I didn't like laissez-faire philosophy I wouldn't be casting its proponents as bogeymen, I'd be casting them as prodigal sons, right?

You seem to understand this-- I think-- but then you have such odd confidence that an authentic Christian would be incapable of being a mass murderer. Christians produce mass murderers as often as any other religion. I agree if we call them false Christians, but your ideas of being a true Christian, at least as you have spelled them out here, are downright scary, nowhere moreso than in the insistence that God wrote the Bible and not men, controverting an historical fact which seems to have been accepted even by many Christians. The point of my first post is that every murderer who ever killed in the name of religion-- and I understand that you are against this-- believed that his version of faithfully serving God was absolutely correct. All of them probably began by saying something to the effect of "God sanctions this".

Technically speaking you can be a Christian and murder someone just as every Christian still sins. Christianity is such a forgiving faith that we don't kick someone out for committing even such a grave crime as murder. But murdering someone is condemned by the Bible, therefore someone would not be acting in a Christian way when doing so. So my ideas of being a true Christian are scary? You mean the idea of being loving towards everyone and not killing anyone unless it is in some way defense of yourself or others, and about distrusting men but believing a book that says stuff like love your neigbour and show mercy towards all? That is scary? And it doesn't matter how many times some wacko nutcase says that "God told them to", it doesn't mean that God has not communicated some things and that you can safely say in some circumstances that God supports or is against something. Never once have I said that I can go tote that God is telling me to do something not said in the Bible, all I've come close to saying is that the Bible is God's word, Christians should only fully trust that and not men, and that Christians should act in a Christian way (I.E., the whole loving everyone thing). If you find that scary, then that must be a bias inside of you, because I mean no harm to you and am no threat and not the least bit frightening.

Lastly, I have to take issue with your use of the word "secularist". You're talking about nihilists in your comparison (interestingly, a polemical twist which seems to bear the stamp of your hometown), not secularists or even atheists. Some secularists probably hold the views you describe, but most do not. Most subscribe to a morality based on human reason rather than the revealed word of the deity. Whether or not this project has succeeded or even could succeed is too big a debate for this board, but suffice it to say guidelines for morality must not necessarily come from the Bible or any other religious book. To take the obvious example, your use of the Marx quotation: Marx's philosophy was grounded on the desire to establish peace and harmony among people, based on codes of conduct which could be as binding as the Ten Commandments (say) but freed from the harmful illusions that went along with such sacred texts or traditional bourgeois ideas of morality. To reject the Ten Commandments is to reject the way those rules are transmitted and codified, and not necessarily the rules themselves.

I was not only referring to nihilists. I said that there is no automatic, predefined, permanently applicant code of morality. There is no higher power anywhere that will say definitely that this or that is wrong, and that there will be justice. And I didn't even say that with those conditions every secularist will go kill someone, I said that that is a bigger threat because someone can tear down anything holding them back. And now you're seeing Marx as this harmonious hero of mankind? First of all you are denying what he said. He didn't say he was casting off any theistic connection with the Ten Commandments but holding true to the spirit of them, he called them invalid. His intent was not to create peace, and there is no point in arguing for that.

So one can call communists "godless" but it doesn't follow that they are a bunch of "anything goes" savages. A fully realized Christian state probably wouldn't look a whole lot different than a fully realized communist state in most key respects, a fact seized on by a few cheeky souls like Oscar Wilde who dared to suggest that Christ's morality can be combined with the central tenets of socialism. In any case, there is an ocean of interpretative possibilities of Christianity you seem to be closed to, all this despite your ostensible openness to people reading the Bible for themselves. I suspect the freedom of personal interpretation you allow is another way of saying, "Let them arrive at orthodoxy in their own unique way". The path is narrow. No other conclusion is possible if one believes the Bible is authored by God.

Once again I didn't say that automatically every atheist is an "anything goes savage", as I said that it is more likely to breed the thinking in someone that they can be that than an upbringing of a God that expects good of people and you cannot hide your sins from. Socialism is just an embryo form of communism, you best pay more attention to Marx in whom you seem to see some worth. Christ wants people to leave lovingly towards one another peacefully, freely giving charity and helping each other out. Socialist/communism is a rigid structure of theft, corruption, fear, and torture. Hardly the kind of thing Jesus wishes for.

Yes there are a lot more interpretations of the Bible than I consider valid. I am open to people interpreting the Bible, not rewriting it, deleting parts from it, and adding parts to it. And that is most of this ocean of interpretation you are referring to. And it's a bit vague what this narrow path you are referring to is. You mean my views on the Bible only lead to orthodoxy? Orthodox has other connotations, but yes the way is narrow to truth, the Bible itself says so. Yes, most so-called "interpretations" (in actuality, rewrites) are false and shouldn't be given any scholarly respect. On a number of things involving Christianity there is only one conclusion one can reach, and there is nothing wrong with the only truth being that Christians are supposed to be charitable and whatnot. There is nothing wrong with the Bible being very clear on certain subjects, you seem to be grasping at straws in your argument. Your very mode of thinking appears to be founded on there never being any single truth and perhaps a complete rejection of any divinity. This is why only a Christian can truly understand the Bible. Non-Christians can't understand because of a number of reasons, ranging from the most innocent of not being as learned in it to as sinister as an ingrained hatred against the religion.

[Oh my god, it's Robby!]

It is only after we have lost everything that we are free to do anything.
said Tyler Durden

[Grim O'Grady]

nice soap.

love

Grim (done with errors)

[Worm]

With all due respect, I'm going to respond to this post and (unless you come up with a doozy in response, which is probably likely) I'll let you have the last word. I think I've said my piece in this thread. I say this not to win the argument but because I'm tired of typing.

You seem to imply that I'm some ignorant, redneck, queer-bashing shotgun-owning, cousin-marrying, fool to think that communism is a bad thing. Well it is. I would quote anyone else if they said something similar to what Marx did, that was just a quote I had at hand that spelled things out very well. ...

Socialism is just an embryo form of communism, you best pay more attention to Marx in whom you seem to see some worth. Christ wants people to leave lovingly towards one another peacefully, freely giving charity and helping each other out. Socialist/communism is a rigid structure of theft, corruption, fear, and torture. Hardly the kind of thing Jesus wishes for.

I implied no such thing about you. To me you sound educated and middle class, my background. I do, however, think you have a poor understanding of Marxism, regardless of how well you can articulate the crimes of its Stalinist incarnations. The difference between Marx (and his philosophical successors) and Stalin is as great as the difference between free Christianity and Catholicism (as you see them).

So by saying I don't like communist and nihilistic philosophy I'm casting them as bogeymen? So if I didn't like laissez-faire philosophy I wouldn't be casting its proponents as bogeymen, I'd be casting them as prodigal sons, right?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What is obvious is that you created a simple, two-column comparison between a Christian and a secular person which mistook secularism for nihilism.

Technically speaking you can be a Christian and murder someone just as every Christian still sins. Christianity is such a forgiving faith that we don't kick someone out for committing even such a grave crime as murder. But murdering someone is condemned by the Bible, therefore someone would not be acting in a Christian way when doing so.

Right. I get that. But murdering someone in the name of a just war can be Christian in some cases. Who decides? God. How do we know? We have His book.

So my ideas of being a true Christian are scary? You mean the idea of being loving towards everyone and not killing anyone unless it is in some way defense of yourself or others, and about distrusting men but believing a book that says stuff like love your neigbour and show mercy towards all? That is scary? And it doesn't matter how many times some wacko nutcase says that "God told them to", it doesn't mean that God has not communicated some things and that you can safely say in some circumstances that God supports or is against something. Never once have I said that I can go tote that God is telling me to do something not said in the Bible, all I've come close to saying is that the Bible is God's word, Christians should only fully trust that and not men, and that Christians should act in a Christian way (I.E., the whole loving everyone thing). If you find that scary, then that must be a bias inside of you, because I mean no harm to you and am no threat and not the least bit frightening.

Christ's moral teachings are among the most beautiful and edifying texts in Western literature. I would be the last to call them "scary". Again, what is scary is your confident claim to knowing the difference between a good Christian and a bad Christian, that you can always remain the former while condemning the latter along with all the "secular" evildoers. Even if one allows that we can know what God wants of us, there are so many ways to read His commandments that almost any kind of certainty about them expressed politically is potentially deadly. And yes, that is frightening. I don't wish to insult you, since you seem perfectly nice, and after all we are only words beaming into each other's rooms via electronic signals, but I'll risk this much: your rhetoric doesn't sound like murderous religious zealotry but it certainly sounds like a stage leading directly to it. Ironically we are both casting our arguments in a similar way, but the process we're describing leads toward two different-- but equally tragic-- ends.

I was not only referring to nihilists. I said that there is no automatic, predefined, permanently applicant code of morality. There is no higher power anywhere that will say definitely that this or that is wrong, and that there will be justice. And I didn't even say that with those conditions every secularist will go kill someone, I said that that is a bigger threat because someone can tear down anything holding them back.

Stop. Western thinkers, off the top of my head including Rousseau ("The Social Contract") and Kant (his Categorical Imperative), have tried to establish just such a code. Again, you seem to be saying that morality can only exist built on a foundation of Mosaic law. That isn't true.

And now you're seeing Marx as this harmonious hero of mankind? First of all you are denying what he said. He didn't say he was casting off any theistic connection with the Ten Commandments but holding true to the spirit of them, he called them invalid. His intent was not to create peace, and there is no point in arguing for that.

See my comment about communism, above. While I would hardly claim to be an expert in Marxist thought I have read enough to know that your use of that quotation is disingenous. You are laboring under the assumption that "Karl Marx" and "USSR" are interchangeable concepts. They are not. Marxism has plenty of flaws but theoretically speaking its sole motivation has always been equality and freedom.

Yes there are a lot more interpretations of the Bible than I consider valid. I am open to people interpreting the Bible, not rewriting it, deleting parts from it, and adding parts to it. And that is most of this ocean of interpretation you are referring to.

Exactly. If I understand you, you believe alternative or less rigid interpretations of the Bible are really just cases of people tampering with it. You read it correctly. The other guy must be rewriting, editing, or deleting what he believes.

And it's a bit vague what this narrow path you are referring to is.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13-14) (Words of Christ in red, so you'll know they're infallible.)

You mean my views on the Bible only lead to orthodoxy? Orthodox has other connotations, but yes the way is narrow to truth, the Bible itself says so. Yes, most so-called "interpretations" (in actuality, rewrites) are false and shouldn't be given any scholarly respect. On a number of things involving Christianity there is only one conclusion one can reach, and there is nothing wrong with the only truth being that Christians are supposed to be charitable and whatnot. There is nothing wrong with the Bible being very clear on certain subjects, you seem to be grasping at straws in your argument.

We'll ignore the Bible's contradictions for a moment.

You talk of "one conclusion one can reach", but then talk of being charitable without mentioning the most fundamental (I use this word for a reason) part of Christian doctrine: there are the saved, and there are the damned. There is the narrow path, and there is Broadway to Hell.

Remember, the main subject is war. When the lines are drawn so strictly it is a short and quick step from "Love thy neighbor" to "Love thy neighbor and kill the non-believer". I don't say you have made that step, but you've got one foot in the air, teetering. The people who take that step rationalize it by saying they are (again) sanctioned by God, such that the simplist of sophistries yields "Love thy neighbor and kill the non-believer in self defense". See: Osama bin Laden.

Your very mode of thinking appears to be founded on there never being any single truth and perhaps a complete rejection of any divinity. This is why only a Christian can truly understand the Bible. Non-Christians can't understand because of a number of reasons, ranging from the most innocent of not being as learned in it to as sinister as an ingrained hatred against the religion.

A plurality of truths does not mean the world is plunged into moral darkness. It means that even if one believes in a Creator it is also true that our understanding of His laws is necessarily imperfect, and any claims to knowing His mind or being able to forcefully enact His laws-- especially as a justification for murder or wider warfare-- are the stuff of the same crazy religious fundamentalism that has bedeviled the planet for thousands of years. Nor is a plurality of truths a call for lawlessness. Nietzsche, who probably looms large on your list of villains, said that "God is dead", but he also saw that a lawless society would be a species of man-made hell. He expended a great deal of thought confronting this threat, as did many of the thinkers who built on his philosophy. Their success or failure may be debated, but in any event no one but the most hardened nihilist-- of which there are actually very, very few-- thinks the way you suppose them to. They merely regard as open a subject you seem to view as closed.

[andy_fozzy]

WHAT THE FUCK??????

OMG, have you lot really got nothing better to do............

[left out]

I've found this a most interesting discussion.

As human beings we have through documented history searched for meaning and a "greater power" outside of our own experience. But the human brain being limited can only envisage "God", whatever form that take, so far as its own understanding of the world allows. Thus most “Gods” are made in the image of the ones who create them. And so have the same flaws- revenge, anger, and hatred of the “other”.

As beautiful ideas of peace and harmony exist in all societies and in the origins of many major religions, these too often have been suffocated under the weight of Doctrine, which is used to keep the faithful in order, and to control society in general.

It may be comforting to be able to say with confidence that “this is Gods word which can provide the rules for everything” but it can stifle personal growth and intellectual debate too. I would rather be a seeker of truths in the mud and mayhem of life (however uncomfortable that can sometimes make me) than live in a castle where I can pull up the drawbridge on the nastiness outside.

The debate on Church and State is current in Britain.
Recently-introduced laws to prevent discrimination against homosexuals has led Christian owners of Guest Houses to complain that they would no longer be able to refuse a room to homosexual customers. Yet they would have great trouble if they complained they were no longer able to discriminate against people on grounds of race. (I’m not implying that they necessarily would). I see little difference, to me intolerance is the key here.

The freedom to follow your own belief is a fundamental right, so long as it doesn’t hinder the freedom of others to do so, or cause harm to others.


Also Catholic child adoption agencies have complained they will have to allow adoption by gay couples under proposed legislation. Now it may be that Protestant religious organisations feel the same, I don’t know. The reason it became an issue is because politicians who are elected to represent their whole constituency, have allowed their personal religious beliefs to influence their responsibility to serve all the people by suggesting exemptions. Should legislation be determined by the religious beliefs of a minority opinion?
Would adoption agencies that seek to provide good homes for children really close down ALL their work (as they have implied) just in case there is a risk of one child being placed with a homosexual couple?
Of course not.

So far as going to war is concerned, I can think of no instance where economic and political interest has not been put before the supposed “moral” justification to go to war. Moral/religious reasons are a smokescreen for self-interest, and degrade both the speaker and the religion - if it does truly speaks for equality and justice.


The practicalities of everyday life mean religious people and religious organisations are daily confronted with situations that contradict their beliefs. Isn't it a measure of their love for fellow human beings rather than the Doctrine that they follow that should determine their response to that?

[Oh my god, it's Robby!]

One can tell this from the fact that until now nobody knew anything about it, and tomorrow everyone in Zurich will be talking about it. Dada comes from the dictionary. It is terribly simple. In French it means "hobby horse". In German it means "good-bye", "Get off my back", "Be seeing you sometime". In Romanian: "Yes, indeed, you are right, that's it. But of course, yes, definitely, right". And so forth.

An International word. Just a word, and the word a movement. Very easy to understand. Quite terribly simple. To make of it an artistic tendency must mean that one is anticipating complications. Dada psychology, dada Germany cum indigestion and fog paroxysm, dada literature, dada bourgeoisie, and yourselves, honoured poets, who are always writing with words but never writing the word itself, who are always writing around the actual point. Dada world war without end, dada revolution without beginning, dada, you friends and also-poets, esteemed sirs, manufacturers, and evangelists. Dada Tzara, dada Huelsenbeck, dada m'dada, dada m'dada dada mhm, dada dera dada, dada Hue, dada Tza.

How does one achieve eternal bliss? By saying dada. How does one become famous? By saying dada. With a noble gesture and delicate propriety. Till one goes crazy. Till one loses consciousness. How can one get rid of everything that smacks of journalism, worms, everything nice and right, blinkered, moralistic, europeanised, enervated? By saying dada. Dada is the world soul, dada is the pawnshop. Dada is the world's best lily-milk soap. Dada Mr Rubiner, dada Mr Korrodi. Dada Mr Anastasius Lilienstein. In plain language: the hospitality of the Swiss is something to be profoundly appreciated. And in questions of aesthetics the key is quality.

I shall be reading poems that are meant to dispense with conventional language, no less, and to have done with it. Dada Johann Fuchsgang Goethe. Dada Stendhal. Dada Dalai Lama, Buddha, Bible, and Nietzsche. Dada m'dada. Dada mhm dada da. It's a question of connections, and of loosening them up a bit to start with. I don't want words that other people have invented. All the words are other people's inventions. I want my own stuff, my own rhythm, and vowels and consonants too, matching the rhythm and all my own. If this pulsation is seven yards long, I want words for it that are seven yards long. Mr Schulz's words are only two and a half centimetres long.

It will serve to show how articulated language comes into being. I let the vowels fool around. I let the vowels quite simply occur, as a cat miaows . . . Words emerge, shoulders of words, legs, arms, hands of words. Au, oi, uh. One shouldn't let too many words out. A line of poetry is a chance to get rid of all the filth that clings to this accursed language, as if put there by stockbrokers' hands, hands worn smooth by coins. I want the word where it ends and begins. Dada is the heart of words.

Each thing has its word, but the word has become a thing by itself. Why shouldn't I find it? Why can't a tree be called Pluplusch, and Pluplubasch when it has been raining? The word, the word, the word outside your domain, your stuffiness, this laughable impotence, your stupendous smugness, outside all the parrotry of your self-evident limitedness. The word, gentlemen, is a public concern of the first importance.

[Kuiper]

With all due respect, I'm going to respond to this post and (unless you come up with a doozy in response, which is probably likely) I'll let you have the last word. I think I've said my piece in this thread. I say this not to win the argument but because I'm tired of typing.

I can fully understand what a pain typing a lot at once can be. Really, sincerely, it is a pain.

I implied no such thing about you. To me you sound educated and middle class, my background. I do, however, think you have a poor understanding of Marxism, regardless of how well you can articulate the crimes of its Stalinist incarnations. The difference between Marx (and his philosophical successors) and Stalin is as great as the difference between free Christianity and Catholicism (as you see them).

I can understand how Marxism can look like it has a few interesting thoughts and it understandable their frustration with the bourgeois and the corruption of the time. You can see the Vatican killing however many (I don't think any estimate for the deaths caused by the Crusades can be accurate because of obvious limitations) Jewish people because of their ethnicity and when they weren't even fighting anyone. Then you can look in the Bible and see how racism is not only immoral but illogical, and that Jesus himself was Jewish as were the Apostles and virtually all of the first 5,000 or so Christians. So those acts supposed "in the name of Christianity" and "approved by God" are clearly not being approved of or being in the name of. But then you see someone like Stalin following many of the principles set forth by Marx, regardless of whether or not Marx's utopian vision was fulfilled (you can follow the Communist Manifesto down to the letter and still not end up with a paradise of equality and harmony, so just because someone's following of certain guidelines doesn't result in the vision once had doesn't mean the person wasn't following the rules, it can mean the rules were bad to begin with).

I'm not sure I understand the question. What is obvious is that you created a simple, two-column comparison between a Christian and a secular person which mistook secularism for nihilism.

No, it is not obvious because it isn't true. What I'm saying is that I see many people, perhaps not including you, who spring to the defense of their own vision of communism will accuse anyone who criticizes communism of being ignorant rednecks who don't know anything about philosophy and political science and that they are fearmongering or warmongering or something-mongering and that they dare not badmouth the utopian perfection of socialist principles or else they are racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, facists. Obviously you are a much more sane person than these types I have come in contact with or have become aware of.

Right. I get that. But murdering someone in the name of a just war can be Christian in some cases. Who decides? God. How do we know? We have His book.

War is not murder. Shooting an enemy soldier is warfare and on a personal level self-defense, civilian casualties are accidents, but purposefully shooting a civilian or shooting an enemy soldier who has surrendered is murder. And yes, we can have a good indication of what God thinks of something through His book. Who decides is the gulags are apart of a worker's paradise, Marx, how do you we know, his Manifesto. If that is valid, then isn't also looking in the Bible to see if something is Christian or not?

Christ's moral teachings are among the most beautiful and edifying texts in Western literature. I would be the last to call them "scary". Again, what is scary is your confident claim to knowing the difference between a good Christian and a bad Christian, that you can always remain the former while condemning the latter along with all the "secular" evildoers. Even if one allows that we can know what God wants of us, there are so many ways to read His commandments that almost any kind of certainty about them expressed politically is potentially deadly. And yes, that is frightening. I don't wish to insult you, since you seem perfectly nice, and after all we are only words beaming into each other's rooms via electronic signals, but I'll risk this much: your rhetoric doesn't sound like murderous religious zealotry but it certainly sounds like a stage leading directly to it. Ironically we are both casting our arguments in a similar way, but the process we're describing leads toward two different-- but equally tragic-- ends.

I am not actually claiming to know the difference between a good or a bad Christian as in the person, all I'm saying is I can see someone's actions and possibly know what God said about it. And I'm glad you can admit the beauty of Christ's teachings and that I am being nice and not a threat to anyone. You too are a nice fellow who means no harm to anyone and essentially wants the same thing. What I've found is this:
1) People generally see the same problems. Sometimes people see different problems within the same subject (I.E., we have different reasons why we dislike George W. Bush), but by and large people can notice problematic things and what is going wrong and what needs fixed.
2) People have radically different ideas on how to fix them. This is generally what leads to conflict, from a personal level to an international level.
3) People generally want the same results, such as a peaceful environment, stability, some form of equality, etc.

That is why I am sympathetic to the views of almost everyone except organizations, like political parties, special interest groups, abstract philosophies, etc. I hate the sin and love the sinner, so I love the communist and can understand why he wants equality and I hate the communism which is a flawed system that never works and only leads to turmoil.

I honestly do not see how what I am saying can lead to mass-murdering zealotry. What you are thinking I am saying can lead to that though. Immutable self-confidence, assurance that you (and only you) are right, assurance that God approves of everything you do, etc. But I am not saying any of those things. I am encouraging people to question their first mortal guesses, to qustion the actions of and motives of other men, and to only trust God, while always holding true to the principles of love, mercy, charity, and fellowship. That does not lead to dictatorships and genocides and world wars (unless it is the Christians being attacked, which happens constantly sadly). The things you accuse me of saying do, that's the big difference. You imagine the type of egomania and delusion that festered in Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Idi Amin, and the many, many others. Those people all falled at the guidelines I am want people to go by: love, mercy, kindness, morality, humility, and obedience to God and not any tyrannical dictator.

Stop. Western thinkers, off the top of my head including Rousseau ("The Social Contract") and Kant (his Categorical Imperative), have tried to establish just such a code. Again, you seem to be saying that morality can only exist built on a foundation of Mosaic law. That isn't true.

I said that secularists and atheists can follow their own code of morality, my point was that it is more dangerous to live in a culture of no higher authority, no judgments, and easily being able to reject any moral code because of the previous two than living in a culture where there is a higher authority, judgments for wrong done, and with a moral code that is rigid and expected because of the past two.

See my comment about communism, above. While I would hardly claim to be an expert in Marxist thought I have read enough to know that your use of that quotation is disingenous. You are laboring under the assumption that "Karl Marx" and "USSR" are interchangeable concepts. They are not. Marxism has plenty of flaws but theoretically speaking its sole motivation has always been equality and freedom.

Yes, theoretically speaking, but looking through its philosophies and policies all I find are careless flaws and careless openings for the type of things the USSR committed. Yes Karl Marx and the USSR are very different and not interchangeable, I never said they were, what I am saying is that Marxism does not work and has proven through trial and error to logical only lead to at best corruption and suppression and at worst the death of over a hundred million people.

Exactly. If I understand you, you believe alternative or less rigid interpretations of the Bible are really just cases of people tampering with it. You read it correctly. The other guy must be rewriting, editing, or deleting what he believes.

If me and another person both read the same verse, and without ignoring it or rewording it or ignoring the rest of the Bible, and we come to different interpretations, there's nothing wrong with that and I never said there was. What is wrong is when people, even Christians, just degraded the book as "full of stories meant as life lessons", cut out the first and the last books as being either crazy zealot additions or allegorical gibberish, and start putting words in God's mouth, claiming any number of things.

[Kuiper]

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13-14) (Words of Christ in red, so you'll know they're infallible.)

Of course I know that verse, and of course I knew what you were referencing. What I was unsure of what you were referring to. Were you saying that the path is narrow and only leads to orthodoxy or was the path narrow that didn't lead to mass-murdering zealotry?

We'll ignore the Bible's contradictions for a moment.

You talk of "one conclusion one can reach", but then talk of being charitable without mentioning the most fundamental (I use this word for a reason) part of Christian doctrine: there are the saved, and there are the damned. There is the narrow path, and there is Broadway to Hell.

There aren't any contradictions. The Bible teachs many lessons and has suffered from gross misunderstanding at times and been taken out of context more times than it has been actually pondered, but the fact is the book has been admitted even by secular scholars to be internally consistent and is considered (whether or not many admit this) the most accurate book of its time.

I believe (from reading the Bible, not like some of these Unitarian Universalists who don't even call themselves Christian anymore) that everyone will go to heaven after suffering in hell. Hell is punishment for your sins, and Christians are immune from it because their sins are paid for. However, everyone will be redeemed to God and live in heaven. So it is still true that only Christians will enter heaven, because everyone will become Christian.

Yes on many things only one conclusion can be reached. Jesus rose again after dying, there is no hidden metaphorical meaning there, it is very clear and the foundation of the religion. That is an example, as whether or not it seems like the type of things to consciously realize, a majority of the Bible isn't open to interpretation. Like when it says Abraham went into Egypt, you can't say that it "means" Abraham went into India or that by "went" it means sailed along the coast of Egypt. Again just a random example, but within a kind, nurturing environment of interpretation and study there can be no room for denial and deletion for the sake of the sanctity of the book and to make room for careful, considerate reading.

Remember, the main subject is war. When the lines are drawn so strictly it is a short and quick step from "Love thy neighbor" to "Love thy neighbor and kill the non-believer". I don't say you have made that step, but you've got one foot in the air, teetering. The people who take that step rationalize it by saying they are (again) sanctioned by God, such that the simplist of sophistries yields "Love thy neighbor and kill the non-believer in self defense". See: Osama bin Laden.

Love your neighbor, and still love him and show him mercy and care for him, but if he tries to kill you or your family or fellow believers or any innocent person even non-Christians, do whatever you can to stop it, even if it means killing him for the safety of others. It's actually not the hard to understand. We are all used to the countless examples of people heretically claiming various ungodly things "in God's name", but really this is the most conservative, cautious stance that does not seek to harm anyone and it's only goal is to prevent more harm from being done.

A plurality of truths does not mean the world is plunged into moral darkness. It means that even if one believes in a Creator it is also true that our understanding of His laws is necessarily imperfect, and any claims to knowing His mind or being able to forcefully enact His laws-- especially as a justification for murder or wider warfare-- are the stuff of the same crazy religious fundamentalism that has bedeviled the planet for thousands of years. Nor is a plurality of truths a call for lawlessness. Nietzsche, who probably looms large on your list of villains, said that "God is dead", but he also saw that a lawless society would be a species of man-made hell. He expended a great deal of thought confronting this threat, as did many of the thinkers who built on his philosophy. Their success or failure may be debated, but in any event no one but the most hardened nihilist-- of which there are actually very, very few-- thinks the way you suppose them to. They merely regard as open a subject you seem to view as closed.

Yes, our understanding of God's laws are imperfect, that was most likely to the point of the Torah in relation to salvation, to show us what it takes to be perfect (and also the needs and expecations of the Israelites at the time) and how we cannot achieve it. Yes, Nietzsche is one of my main philosophical enemies. I can have no scholarly respect for anyone who slanders my savior, despite love, personal respect, and mercy. Yes for me the subject, (whichever one you are specifically referring to) about the existence of God, the accuracy of the Bible, the truth of Christianity, and the existence of moral absolutes are all closed to me. They are self-evident. I'll happily debate day and night about if a bicameral legislature is still necessary today and I'll look for an answer, but no, nothing will change my mind about Christianity. You can change my mind about whether or not this or that is the Christian thing to do, but nothing can shake my faith in the religion.

Talk about a doozy of a post, it spans two pages!

[Oh my god, it's Robby!]

Yes, Nietzsche is one of my main philosophical enemies.

what a shame for you then
you have doomed yourself to never even having the vaguest notion of how little you & most others really know
good luck with that!

[Kuiper]

what a shame for you then
you have doomed yourself to never even having the vaguest notion of how little you & most others really know
good luck with that!

Just because I don't like his views doesn't mean I haven't studied him.

[Uncleskinny]

Of course I know that verse, and of course I knew what you were referencing. What I was unsure of what you were referring to. Were you saying that the path is narrow and only leads to orthodoxy or was the path narrow that didn't lead to mass-murdering zealotry?



There aren't any contradictions. The Bible teachs many lessons and has suffered from gross misunderstanding at times and been taken out of context more times than it has been actually pondered, but the fact is the book has been admitted even by secular scholars to be internally consistent and is considered (whether or not many admit this) the most accurate book of its time.

I believe (from reading the Bible, not like some of these Unitarian Universalists who don't even call themselves Christian anymore) that everyone will go to heaven after suffering in hell. Hell is punishment for your sins, and Christians are immune from it because their sins are paid for. However, everyone will be redeemed to God and live in heaven. So it is still true that only Christians will enter heaven, because everyone will become Christian.

Yes on many things only one conclusion can be reached. Jesus rose again after dying, there is no hidden metaphorical meaning there, it is very clear and the foundation of the religion. That is an example, as whether or not it seems like the type of things to consciously realize, a majority of the Bible isn't open to interpretation. Like when it says Abraham went into Egypt, you can't say that it "means" Abraham went into India or that by "went" it means sailed along the coast of Egypt. Again just a random example, but within a kind, nurturing environment of interpretation and study there can be no room for denial and deletion for the sake of the sanctity of the book and to make room for careful, considerate reading.



Love your neighbor, and still love him and show him mercy and care for him, but if he tries to kill you or your family or fellow believers or any innocent person even non-Christians, do whatever you can to stop it, even if it means killing him for the safety of others. It's actually not the hard to understand. We are all used to the countless examples of people heretically claiming various ungodly things "in God's name", but really this is the most conservative, cautious stance that does not seek to harm anyone and it's only goal is to prevent more harm from being done.



Yes, our understanding of God's laws are imperfect, that was most likely to the point of the Torah in relation to salvation, to show us what it takes to be perfect (and also the needs and expecations of the Israelites at the time) and how we cannot achieve it. Yes, Nietzsche is one of my main philosophical enemies. I can have no scholarly respect for anyone who slanders my savior, despite love, personal respect, and mercy. Yes for me the subject, (whichever one you are specifically referring to) about the existence of God, the accuracy of the Bible, the truth of Christianity, and the existence of moral absolutes are all closed to me. They are self-evident. I'll happily debate day and night about if a bicameral legislature is still necessary today and I'll look for an answer, but no, nothing will change my mind about Christianity. You can change my mind about whether or not this or that is the Christian thing to do, but nothing can shake my faith in the religion.

Talk about a doozy of a post, it spans two pages!

I'm really amazed and impressed that you take the Bible as undeniable truth. I'm not having a go, in fact I think it's fantastic that you have a code that guides your life. As a scientist, I can never accept the existence of a supreme being. We know more now about the world than we did even 200 years ago, and we can explain things we could not then. Time moves on, we learn. I think Dawkins is a great scientist, but I do have issues with the way he debunks some of life's mysteries (for some, not for me). The way he slapped down some of Falwell's 'students' from Liberty University was fantastic to watch. I've always thought if you start from the scientific base of FACT, then you can answer with confidence. Just to reiterate - I am delighted that some folk find religion a daily part of their life - it's just not for me.

Peter

[Oh my god, it's Robby!]

I'm really amazed and impressed that you take the Bible as undeniable truth. I'm not having a go, in fact I think it's fantastic that you have a code that guides your life. As a scientist, I can never accept the existence of a supreme being. We know more now about the world than we did even 200 years ago, and we can explain things we could not then. Time moves on, we learn. I think Dawkins is a great scientist, but I do have issues with the way he debunks some of life's mysteries (for some, not for me). The way he slapped down some of Falwell's 'students' from Liberty University was fantastic to watch. I've always thought if you start from the scientific base of FACT, then you can answer with confidence. Just to reiterate - I am delighted that some folk find religion a daily part of their life - it's just not for me.

Peter

wow pete!
i wonder if you really think
all that about 'faith'
maybe you are just bein a nice
mod


from what ive read on here and seen in 'the real world'
seems like to me faith precludes REAL SMARTS
like by alot

ps: anybody ever notice that the religious often act as if they have an open mind, though the go to such great lengths
to believe
NO MATTER WHAT
?
all the while they constantly proseltyze the same old dead garbage to others
that they and those before have been
for the last
id say 5000 years
at least

someday i imagine bible bangers tryin to convince

robots to
accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior


my dead god!
to think all the harm christians have done
to 'the cause' of people actually acting more christlike
oh well

[Kuiper]

wow pete!
i wonder if you really think
all that about 'faith'
maybe you are just bein a nice
mod


from what ive read on here and seen in 'the real world'
seems like to me faith precludes REAL SMARTS
like by alot

Virtually everything requires some amount of faith. Evolution and uniformitarianism, for example, require a lot more faith than creationism.

ps: anybody ever notice that the religious often act as if they have an open mind, though the go to such great lengths
to believe
NO MATTER WHAT
?
all the while they constantly proseltyze the same old dead garbage to others
that they and those before have been
for the last
id say 5000 years
at least

So having an open mind means you absolutely must change your mind very often? And the same questions have been with men since the beginning of time, so saying the same things (I.E., "what will happen when you die?") are still valid. Death, the afterlife, the existence of evil, etc. haven't disappeared or appeared over the time, they've existed since just after man came into being.

someday i imagine bible bangers tryin to convince

robots to
accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior

So you are confident robots will develop sentience?

my dead god!
to think all the harm christians have done
to 'the cause' of people actually acting more christlike
oh well

Like when the Vatican slaughtered tens of millions of Christians for following the actual religion and not their power structure?

[Kuiper]

I'm really amazed and impressed that you take the Bible as undeniable truth. I'm not having a go, in fact I think it's fantastic that you have a code that guides your life. As a scientist, I can never accept the existence of a supreme being. We know more now about the world than we did even 200 years ago, and we can explain things we could not then. Time moves on, we learn. I think Dawkins is a great scientist, but I do have issues with the way he debunks some of life's mysteries (for some, not for me). The way he slapped down some of Falwell's 'students' from Liberty University was fantastic to watch. I've always thought if you start from the scientific base of FACT, then you can answer with confidence. Just to reiterate - I am delighted that some folk find religion a daily part of their life - it's just not for me.

Peter

As a person with a keen interest in and a student of science I find denying the existence of a supreme being inexcusable from an intellectually honest standpoint.
1) The universe exists
2) There are laws in place that are completely necessary for the universe to function and wouldn't actually exist without the universe (how could gravity exist without the actual apples and the actual air they're falling through)
3) Everything must have a beginning
4) All the laws of thing coming into being are found within the universe
5) Something therefore must have created the universe that is outside of it, considering you cannot be within the universe before you create it!
6) This thing that was responsible for the creation of the universe must be outside the laws therein (I.E., be outside of time, death, and the very fundamental concepts of "existence" and "creation")

From my scientific basis of FACT (such as the FACT that universe exists somehow) I find God to exist and that it is a FACT, and that Christianity is a FACT(S) and the Bible to be FACT and Creationism to be FACT (such as the FACT that pollen has been found in Precambrian rock and the FACT that insects with tubes for sucking nectar have been found dated to 25 million years before the supposed evolution of flowers).

[Uncleskinny]

As a person with a keen interest in and a student of science I find denying the existence of a supreme being inexcusable from an intellectually honest standpoint.
1) The universe exists
2) There are laws in place that are completely necessary for the universe to function and wouldn't actually exist without the universe (how could gravity exist without the actual apples and the actual air they're falling through)
3) Everything must have a beginning
4) All the laws of thing coming into being are found within the universe
5) Something therefore must have created the universe that is outside of it, considering you cannot be within the universe before you create it!
6) This thing that was responsible for the creation of the universe must be outside the laws therein (I.E., be outside of time, death, and the very fundamental concepts of "existence" and "creation")

From my scientific basis of FACT (such as the FACT that universe exists somehow) I find God to exist and that it is a FACT, and that Christianity is a FACT(S) and the Bible to be FACT and Creationism to be FACT (such as the FACT that pollen has been found in Precambrian rock and the FACT that insects with tubes for sucking nectar have been found dated to 25 million years before the supposed evolution of flowers).

Why does somebody or something have to have created it? Why can't it just be?

Peter

[Dave]

I appreciate someone addressing some of the basic questions I have for people who are sure that god does not exist. However, the existence of god seems to be proven by this argument, but the bible, I don't believe, can be "proven" and that is the reason for faith.

I also feel that your second point above is flawed, as I believe that the laws of physics exist outside of a need for them to come into actual existence. I think this is the act of creation, for "god" to somehow "think" of these things. I just think that god is an intelligent force within, throughout, and maybe outside of the design.

I have to mention that this thread is supposed to be about moderating the boards and it's turned into another preachathon from mr preachy. I'm joking.