How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

[volprof]

I do ok. Thanks for your concern. I prefer not to listen to the advice of people who think just a little too much of their own opinions. You must be or have been an awesome professor.

I was a decent one, not great.

I'm honest, and I love this country, so much so that I'm willing to let people who believe in unicorns kindly abstain from our public policy-making if they so choose.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I was a decent one, not great.

I'm honest, and I love this country, so much so that I'm willing to let people who believe in unicorns kindly abstain from our public policy-making if they so choose.

Can't believe you left out the part about how humble you are... by far your most appealing quality.

 

[Roustabout]

Come on Roust, that's a strawman argument and you know it. Nobody wants to shut down religious liberty, but lots of people don't want to be governed by the religious principles of any particular brand of religion.

Really. You can speak for EVERYBODY? Wow, im amazed.
You obviously don't follow this then. Peter Boghozian, among a myriad of other secular humanist and anti-theist. absolutely speak of Christianity as a disease that needs to be prohibited and eradicated. Do i need to provide some links.

I don't know of any Christian movement that seeks to force people to be Christian. The fact is that many Christian ethical positions can be defended without forcing anyone to believe Christianity. The fact that many Christians fail in articulating this doesn't negate this.

 

[southgatevol]

I was a decent one, not great.

I'm honest, and I love this country, so much so that I'm willing to let people who believe in unicorns kindly abstain from our public policy-making if they so choose.

I too am honest and love this country so much that I am willing to let arrogant people have their opinions heard no matter how offensive they are to others. Thankfully, your influence on the youth of our society is more limited at this time. That fact alone has the potential to make our country a better place.

 

[volprof]

It aint "your" science.
Your arrogance is ridiculous.

Most of our government is founded on principles older than the 1st century. Further, last i checked, it's a direct contradiction of Christian doctrine to implement a theocracy. so, when you say don't impose your religion on me, you are actually contradicting yourself.

The US has a rich history of non-theocratic rule, with overt Christian practice within its boundaries. Get over yourself.

Yes, you are correct. I don't know why some of you keep thinking you can "win" against me by accusing me of being "arrogant." I've already told you all that I am, and I don't care. Your value system tells you to be humble, not mine.

As I said, although I respect the idea of the liberal democracy, I approach it with a pagan value system. I believe in pride of the self, in an ethics of the self, and I believe in it as a service to the greater community. I don't care about any sky gods, especially those with universal, absolutist moral laws, getting in the way.

I believe in the spirit but not the holy ghost, if that makes any sense. You can keep your humility; I'll keep my honesty.

 

[volprof]

I too am honest and love this country so much that I am willing to let arrogant people have their opinions heard no matter how offensive they are to others. Thankfully, your influence on the youth of our society is more limited at this time. That fact alone has the potential to make our country a better place.

You should take heart in knowing that I never interjected myself into any of my students' deciding to give the classroom their opinion on how unicorns saved humanity.

I always listened and required that all my students respect that unfounded belief, because it was nonetheless a belief and the student was a human.

Besides, HR is too messy. Just let the student talk about unicorns and ride it out. A much smarter policy.

 

[southgatevol]

You should take heart in knowing that I never interjected myself into any of my students' deciding to give the classroom their opinion on how unicorns saved humanity.

I always listened and required that all my students respect that unfounded belief, because it was nonetheless a belief and the student was a human.

Besides, HR is too messy. Just let the student talk about unicorns and ride it out. A much smarter policy.

What makes someone else's belief system offend you so much?

 

[volprof]

What makes someone else's belief system offend you so much?

You ever read Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian"? If you haven't, then you should. He's a former UT and a Tennessee guy. Probably the finest American author of the past half-century.

Anyhow, one of the main characters, Judge Holden, has this idiosyncratic self-ethics, where whatever isn't him offends him. And, therefore, he must destroy it.

While I don't support or admire Holden's solipsism and nihilism, I do support his approach, partially, in principle. Whatever is stupid and unfounded offends me and, therefore, I must destroy it.

I do this, unlike Holden, in service to the people and in service to the Republic.

One nation, under the people, and for the republic for which it stands.

 

[joevol33]

It doesn't bother us that you believe that way. If all it was was a matter of you believing that way, we wouldn't care.

What bothers us is that your believing that way influences your votes, which in turn influences your elected candidates, which in turn influences local laws, which in turn influences state laws, which in turn influences national laws, although, admittedly, we've usually cut you off by the point it reaches the entire nation, thank god.

Not blaming you personally, but as a voter bloc, yes.

So it's okay for non believers to vote for people who will pass laws that line up with their beliefs, but not Christians? Seems fair.

 

[LouderVol]

You won nothing but your own typed nonsense.

Keep your religious beliefs confined to your church and your household.

Otherwise, they have no place in our secular democracy, our Republic.

going to have to disagree with you there. that was kinda the point of our secular republic. it was that all were welcome, and that more view points are better than fewer. In a day and age where debates are/were held this would certainly be true, as it is now you could argue that a different view point holds no benefit to society. but then you have limited freedom to those who agree and have quiet gotten away from the secular formation of our nation

 

[volprof]

So it's okay for non believers to vote for people who will pass laws that line up with their beliefs, but not Christians? Seems fair.

Anyone who votes out of non-rational principles -whether these be unrelated to religion or because of religion - is a loser to democracy.

Those who vote solely out of unfounded religious principles are just one set of losers. There are other losers, to be sure.

 

[southgatevol]

You ever read Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian"? If you haven't, then you should. He's a former UT and a Tennessee guy. Probably the finest American author of the past half-century.

Anyhow, one of the main characters, Judge Holden, has this idiosyncratic self-ethics, where whatever isn't him offends him. And, therefore, he must destroy it.

While I don't support or admire Holden's solipsism and nihilism, I do support his approach, partially, in principle. Whatever is stupid and unfounded offends me and, therefore, I must destroy it.

I do this, unlike Holden, in service to the people and in service to the Republic.

One nation, under the people, and for the republic for which it stands.

So if I have an opinion which YOU BELIEVE is unfounded, you would seek to destroy it? Sounds just a little dictatorial. Would you destroy all who believe different than you if given the chance?

 

[volprof]

So if I have an opinion which YOU BELIEVE is unfounded, you would seek to destroy it? Sounds just a little dictatorial. Would you destroy all who believe different than you if given the chance?

Absolutely not.

I only seek to destroy, in debate, those who believe in unfounded nonsense, such as yourself.

You're whining about me being a dictator-type, and then you're probably just going to go vote for the biggest authoritarian in the history of our nation's presidential elections.

Just too cute. Harmful and deleterious as Biblical Hell, but still very cute.

 

[LouderVol]

There were earlier myths that described
1) the fall
2) the flood
3) the Messiah...heck Christians even stole Jesus' birthday from the Pagans.
Watch this series it will help to explain the origins of myths
Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth | Shows | BillMoyers.com

basically I am just going to say ok, and? to all of those. congrats on making the same argument South Park did.

1. and?
2. there is actually a lot of physical evidence for a flood, as well as many cultures mentioning it as well at roughly the same time. no one said the OT stories were unique, the faith is, the stories aren't, i will let you guess which is important. so if anything there being support for one of the stories would seem to hurt your side (its all made up about some flying spaghetti monster)
3. yeah a savior and him being the son of a god is not unique and neither is the date. woohoo you really cracked open the Christian faith with those two. and from the link we weren't the first to "steal" it either. and either of your two points being unique SHOULDN'T matter to any of the faithful.

 

[LVvol]

I appreciate the sincerity, I really do, but you should save yourself the waste of time. It won't make any difference.

You, see, I have this demon inside of me, and it's called "Intellect." And do you know what Intellect tells me? He tells me that Satan is actually the hero of the Bible, because, when everyone else is just doing things mindlessly, Satan and Intellect are there to give us pause, asking us, "Are you sure you really want to do that? Upon what grounds? It makes no sense."

Intellect tells you that Satan is the hero of the Bible. I finally understand your previous posts. They bring to mind the following quote: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."- Werner Heisenberg
I have a Spirit inside of me that tells me: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. " Gal. 5:22-23

 

[volprof]

going to have to disagree with you there. that was kinda the point of our secular republic. it was that all were welcome, and that more view points are better than fewer. In a day and age where debates are/were held this would certainly be true, as it is now you could argue that a different view point holds no benefit to society. but then you have limited freedom to those who agree and have quiet gotten away from the secular formation of our nation

More rational viewpoints are welcomed. And non-rational ones are also allowed to participate. Doesn't mean the non-rational perspectives make a healthier product. So far, we've succeeded, despite them and mostly for this reason.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

You ever read Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian"? If you haven't, then you should. He's a former UT and a Tennessee guy. Probably the finest American author of the past half-century.

Anyhow, one of the main characters, Judge Holden, has this idiosyncratic self-ethics, where whatever isn't him offends him. And, therefore, he must destroy it.

While I don't support or admire Holden's solipsism and nihilism, I do support his approach, partially, in principle. Whatever is stupid and unfounded offends me and, therefore, I must destroy it.

I do this, unlike Holden, in service to the people and in service to the Republic.

One nation, under the people, and for the republic for which it stands.

I read THE EVENING REDNESS IN THE WEST years ago.

Judge Holden believed that human actions can have no moral dimension, which is what most Atheists believe.

 

[southgatevol]

Absolutely not.

I only seek to destroy, in debate, those who believe in unfounded nonsense, such as yourself.

You're whining about me being a dictator-type, and then you're probably just going to go vote for the biggest authoritarian in the history of our nation's presidential elections.

Just too cute. Harmful and deleterious as Biblical Hell, but still very cute.

Not whining, just using your words. Your demeaning and insulting attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is just a sign of your weakness. In reality you are not very good at debating. You resort to name calling or insults to deflect from your actual lack of knowledge on the subject up for debate. You can go ahead and sling some more of your insults my way for they do not influence me. I find them amusing.

 

[volprof]

Intellect tells you that Satan is the hero of the Bible. I finally understand your previous posts. They bring to mind the following quote: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."- Werner Heisenberg
I have a Spirit inside of me that tells me: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. " Gal. 5:22-23

Says yet another guy with yet another big boob avatar.

Even your reference to a German, in a slick attempt to sound smart, doesn't fool me.

What they told us in our missionary training is true. People are constantly watching and judging you, and what you're trying to sell them is only as good as the image you present them.

Don't big boob avatar me, bro!

 

[LouderVol]

If I thought you were posting this with even a touch of ironic self-criticism, I would have given this a "like."

You're not, however. You sincerely believe that me telling you to keep your religious beliefs out of the public sphere, where they have no place, is limiting your freedom. Of course you can interject your unfounded beliefs into our public policies if you so desire. That doesn't make it advisable or smart though.

neither is a flat rejection thinking you know what an argument might be before you heard it. if nothing else there is the chance that something we say might trigger something for you. and just because we don't get the bible passed as law doesn't mean we haven't contributed to the well being of society by adding in. last time I voted they didn't ask me why.

no one can actually say they voted objectively in our two party system. as long as our choices are limited to who we can realistically vote for you are bringing subjectivity into it.

 

[volprof]

I read THE EVENING REDNESS IN THE WEST years ago.

Judge Holden believed that human actions can have no moral dimension, which is what most Atheists believe.

No, that is not what most atheists believe. Although you are correct in your interpretation of Holden.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

You ever read Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian"? If you haven't, then you should. He's a former UT and a Tennessee guy. Probably the finest American author of the past half-century.

Anyhow, one of the main characters, Judge Holden, has this idiosyncratic self-ethics, where whatever isn't him offends him. And, therefore, he must destroy it.

While I don't support or admire Holden's solipsism and nihilism, I do support his approach, partially, in principle. Whatever is stupid and unfounded offends me and, therefore, I must destroy it.

I do this, unlike Holden, in service to the people and in service to the Republic.

One nation, under the people, and for the republic for which it stands.

 

[VolnJC]

basically I am just going to say ok, and? to all of those. congrats on making the same argument South Park did.

1. and?
2. there is actually a lot of physical evidence for a flood, as well as many cultures mentioning it as well at roughly the same time. no one said the OT stories were unique, the faith is, the stories aren't, i will let you guess which is important. so if anything there being support for one of the stories would seem to hurt your side (its all made up about some flying spaghetti monster)
3. yeah a savior and him being the son of a god is not unique and neither is the date. woohoo you really cracked open the Christian faith with those two. and from the link we weren't the first to "steal" it either. and either of your two points being unique SHOULDN'T matter to any of the faithful.

OK so which of these actually happened

1) Earth was created in 6 days
2) Woman was made from a rib
3) People lived to be 700 years old
4) An ark held two of every living thing
5) Angels could fly at the speed of light to Earth
6)An ocean just opens up and people walk through

OK now imagine that we just now found the Bible without 100s of years of indoctrination...would you then say..Yes! this answers all my questions about my existence...no it's believed because its been pushed on us by governments and majority thinking.

 

[hog88]

With all of the religion threads we have had there have bound to have been a conversion or two. Anyone converted one way or another please raise your hand.

 

[LouderVol]

Like I told Roust, you're free to interject your unfounded nonsense into our science, otherwise known as our "secular democracy." But that doesn't mean it's smart or advisable. We don't need public policy formulated upon first century ideas about how the universe and societies work.

In other words, keep your religion to your churches and your homes.

lol, there hasn't been an original idea since before the greeks, maybe even the Egyptians, so I wouldn't use the date of the start of a belief system as an argument.