[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There is not a “better” source of an ultimately imaginary goodness.
Edit: Seriously though, in a Godless universe, how is there a “better” source? It wouldn’t matter what your source is. Or, what your definition of “goodness” is.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“That is what they are supposed to do , all the other is not what Christ intended.”[/quote]
I that what you mean for the thx ? And if so , do you agree or is that sarcasm ?
[/quote]
No, I disagree completely. Alms is not all Christians should do. In fact, Christ’s reformation of the Jews was the exact opposite. If you really want to get to the heart of the teaching, Charity, not alms is the real command and they ARE NOT the same thing. The Christian teaching of Charity is love of God and hence neighbor. The RESULT of charity is things like alms. Modern English has confused the 2. The Christian goal is not to give alms. It is to love well enough that things like alms happen naturally. Focus on and equating God’s teaching with the physical act of doing things like alms is the exact legalistic approach Jesus came to call bullshit on.
But, the fact that you are forcing me to justify my beliefs, by telling me what a Christ’s teachings are when you don’t even believe in Christianity is bigotry. You are ignorant on the subject and keep trying to tell everyone else their own beliefs are wrong and what the right ones are.
[/quote]
Alms is almost synonymous with money and you brought up that term.
You also were on the offense by defending a statement that I was a bigot
I really believe I have made no statements in RE: to any one’s belief .
I have however brought up the political and criminal aspects to organized religion
most of your tea billies are the biggest supporters of Religion (notice I did not say Jesus) that is the difference you want me to buy the shit that is pedaled as religion is some how better than what I practice
[/quote]
Soup kitchens are alms genius. What does tea have to do with anything? The term hillbilly (which I’m assuming is the term you were playing on) is legally an offensive derogatory term used to insult a legally protected minority, FYI. And lastly, “is some how better than what I practice” No, that is exactly what you constantly do. I’ve only talked about my own beliefs. You constantly state what other people’s beliefs should.[/quote]
LOL thanks for the definition 
My heritage comes right out of the Hills of WV , If you called my Dad a Hill Billy , you better be ready for a fight . If you call me a Hill Billy , there is a small amount of pride but you still be ready for a fight :).
I don’t say anything about any one’s belief . I am very critical of the beliefs that organized religion touts .
1 God does not want our Government to tax those that can afford it and give to the poor
2 God is a capitalist
3 God would condone drug testing people wanting food or medicine .
4 God would ever condone a War or even standing up for your self
5 I can buy the argument about abortion (even though I disagree)
6 I don’t think he would condone some one imposing his belief on Gay Marriage , I think he would say other wise "If you don’t believe in it don’t do it
[/quote]
lol
Thanks for once again proving my point. Ignorant biased degrading assertions about the beliefs of others.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“That is what they are supposed to do , all the other is not what Christ intended.”[/quote]
I that what you mean for the thx ? And if so , do you agree or is that sarcasm ?
[/quote]
No, I disagree completely. Alms is not all Christians should do. In fact, Christ’s reformation of the Jews was the exact opposite. If you really want to get to the heart of the teaching, Charity, not alms is the real command and they ARE NOT the same thing. The Christian teaching of Charity is love of God and hence neighbor. The RESULT of charity is things like alms. Modern English has confused the 2. The Christian goal is not to give alms. It is to love well enough that things like alms happen naturally. Focus on and equating God’s teaching with the physical act of doing things like alms is the exact legalistic approach Jesus came to call bullshit on.
But, the fact that you are forcing me to justify my beliefs, by telling me what a Christ’s teachings are when you don’t even believe in Christianity is bigotry. You are ignorant on the subject and keep trying to tell everyone else their own beliefs are wrong and what the right ones are.
[/quote]
Alms is almost synonymous with money and you brought up that term.
You also were on the offense by defending a statement that I was a bigot
I really believe I have made no statements in RE: to any one’s belief .
I have however brought up the political and criminal aspects to organized religion
most of your tea billies are the biggest supporters of Religion (notice I did not say Jesus) that is the difference you want me to buy the shit that is pedaled as religion is some how better than what I practice
[/quote]
Soup kitchens are alms genius. What does tea have to do with anything? The term hillbilly (which I’m assuming is the term you were playing on) is legally an offensive derogatory term used to insult a legally protected minority, FYI. And lastly, “is some how better than what I practice” No, that is exactly what you constantly do. I’ve only talked about my own beliefs. You constantly state what other people’s beliefs should.[/quote]
LOL thanks for the definition
My heritage comes right out of the Hills of WV , If you called my Dad a Hill Billy , you better be ready for a fight . If you call me a Hill Billy , there is a small amount of pride but you still be ready for a fight :).
I don’t say anything about any one’s belief . I am very critical of the beliefs that organized religion touts .
1 God does not want our Government to tax those that can afford it and give to the poor
2 God is a capitalist
3 God would condone drug testing people wanting food or medicine .
4 God would ever condone a War or even standing up for your self
5 I can buy the argument about abortion (even though I disagree)
6 I don’t think he would condone some one imposing his belief on Gay Marriage , I think he would say other wise "If you don’t believe in it don’t do it
[/quote]
lol
Thanks for once again proving my point. Ignorant biased degrading assertions about the beliefs of others.[/quote]
My pleasure
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“That is what they are supposed to do , all the other is not what Christ intended.”[/quote]
I that what you mean for the thx ? And if so , do you agree or is that sarcasm ?
[/quote]
No, I disagree completely. Alms is not all Christians should do. In fact, Christ’s reformation of the Jews was the exact opposite. If you really want to get to the heart of the teaching, Charity, not alms is the real command and they ARE NOT the same thing. The Christian teaching of Charity is love of God and hence neighbor. The RESULT of charity is things like alms. Modern English has confused the 2. The Christian goal is not to give alms. It is to love well enough that things like alms happen naturally. Focus on and equating God’s teaching with the physical act of doing things like alms is the exact legalistic approach Jesus came to call bullshit on.
But, the fact that you are forcing me to justify my beliefs, by telling me what a Christ’s teachings are when you don’t even believe in Christianity is bigotry. You are ignorant on the subject and keep trying to tell everyone else their own beliefs are wrong and what the right ones are.
[/quote]
Alms is almost synonymous with money and you brought up that term.
You also were on the offense by defending a statement that I was a bigot
I really believe I have made no statements in RE: to any one’s belief .
I have however brought up the political and criminal aspects to organized religion
most of your tea billies are the biggest supporters of Religion (notice I did not say Jesus) that is the difference you want me to buy the shit that is pedaled as religion is some how better than what I practice
[/quote]
Soup kitchens are alms genius. What does tea have to do with anything? The term hillbilly (which I’m assuming is the term you were playing on) is legally an offensive derogatory term used to insult a legally protected minority, FYI. And lastly, “is some how better than what I practice” No, that is exactly what you constantly do. I’ve only talked about my own beliefs. You constantly state what other people’s beliefs should.[/quote]
LOL thanks for the definition
My heritage comes right out of the Hills of WV , If you called my Dad a Hill Billy , you better be ready for a fight . If you call me a Hill Billy , there is a small amount of pride but you still be ready for a fight :).
I don’t say anything about any one’s belief . I am very critical of the beliefs that organized religion touts .
1 God does not want our Government to tax those that can afford it and give to the poor
2 God is a capitalist
3 God would condone drug testing people wanting food or medicine .
4 God would ever condone a War or even standing up for your self
5 I can buy the argument about abortion (even though I disagree)
6 I don’t think he would condone some one imposing his belief on Gay Marriage , I think he would say other wise "If you don’t believe in it don’t do it
[/quote]
lol
Thanks for once again proving my point. Ignorant biased degrading assertions about the beliefs of others.[/quote]
My pleasure
[/quote]
Hey, if bigotry makes you happy, who am I to stop you? lol.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hey, if bigotry makes you happy, who am I to stop you? lol.[/quote]
You know I never thought much about it , I may be a bigot . Not because YOU say so , I just may be
In my defense , I am not the only one , if we go by your definition
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hey, if bigotry makes you happy, who am I to stop you? lol.[/quote]
You know I never thought much about it , I may be a bigot . Not because YOU say so , I just may be
In my defense , I am not the only one , if we go by your definition
[/quote]
Wasn’t my definition, it was the dictionary’s. And I agree, nothing I say makes you one, it’s what comes out of your mouth that makes you one.
And hey, the way court decisions keep going, the US is already out ahead of the UN anyways. Soon they’ll have religious life painted into a corner, the home and the church building. Can’t even decide what marriages you’ll photograph, and why. The progressives won already. The UN is just mad a church itself might still be able to have “bad thought.” Once they start calling a traditional Christian moral upbringing “child abuse” who knows.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hey, if bigotry makes you happy, who am I to stop you? lol.[/quote]
You know I never thought much about it , I may be a bigot . Not because YOU say so , I just may be
In my defense , I am not the only one , if we go by your definition
[/quote]
Wasn’t my definition, it was the dictionary’s. And I agree, nothing I say makes you one, it’s what comes out of your mouth that makes you one.[/quote]
I do not think you have grasped the scope of my comment , maybe in 30 or 40 years
From a fellow bigot , if you don’t believe me ask the Muslims
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hey, if bigotry makes you happy, who am I to stop you? lol.[/quote]
You know I never thought much about it , I may be a bigot . Not because YOU say so , I just may be
In my defense , I am not the only one , if we go by your definition
[/quote]
Wasn’t my definition, it was the dictionary’s. And I agree, nothing I say makes you one, it’s what comes out of your mouth that makes you one.[/quote]
I do not think you have grasped the scope of my comment , maybe in 30 or 40 years
[/quote]
Oh, no. I’m a discriminatory bigot. The difference is that I don’t hold the belief that either of those things are bad of themselves. I’m bigoted against pederasts for example. I’m so bigoted against them I’d refuse to even listen to their side of an argument and would sooner punch them in the face. I discriminate against murderers, thieves, frauds, and even people who think discrimination is bad in and of itself.
It is the people that are bigoted about bigotry, intolerant of intolerance, and discriminatory of discrimination that I find lacking in introspection.
If you hold yourself to be in favor of tolerance as and end in itself, you can only ever prove it when someone disagrees with your view. Something that people like you fail at miserably.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hey, if bigotry makes you happy, who am I to stop you? lol.[/quote]
You know I never thought much about it , I may be a bigot . Not because YOU say so , I just may be
In my defense , I am not the only one , if we go by your definition
[/quote]
Wasn’t my definition, it was the dictionary’s. And I agree, nothing I say makes you one, it’s what comes out of your mouth that makes you one.[/quote]
I do not think you have grasped the scope of my comment , maybe in 30 or 40 years
[/quote]
Oh, no. I’m a discriminatory bigot. The difference is that I don’t hold the belief that either of those things are bad of themselves. I’m bigoted against pederasts for example. I’m so bigoted against them I’d refuse to even listen to their side of an argument and would sooner punch them in the face. I discriminate against murderers, thieves, frauds, and even people who think discrimination is bad in and of itself.
It is the people that are bigoted about bigotry, intolerant of intolerance, and discriminatory of discrimination that I find lacking in introspection.
If you hold yourself to be in favor of tolerance as and end in itself, you can only ever prove it when someone disagrees with your view. Something that people like you fail at miserably.[/quote]
I am tolerant of those that tolerate others
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:e]
If you look at religion from the perspective of the good people within the church, who go out of their way to help the poor, with soup kitchens
[/quote]
I know many of those people and some of them have divorced themselves from Religion and still help feed the poor and the like . You do not have to belong to a Religion to be a good person
[/quote]
I’m with you, I argue the same. I actually argue a good person devoid of God is more likely to do good for the sake of goodness. Rather than doing good so they can get into heaven or whatever. [/quote]
I personally see a very small difference , that being that a person devoid of religion is not necessarily devoid of God
[/quote]
I can explain via demonstration. If you have one person who donates money, or does good because it makes them happy, if at any point they stop getting happy from donating money or doing good is highly likely to stop doing good if they were motivated to do such as a result of the good feelings they get.
Someone who does good for it’s own sake, who may not get happy feelings is going to do good regardless. It’s not attached to a reward. I’m not saying religious people are incapable of doing good for goodness sake. But for every person who is truly good, you also get people who do things for reasons outside of goodness itself. It’s more like they use doing good deeds as a means to an end, whether it’s to please God, to bring themselves happiness, whatever.
It’s different than doing good for goodness sake, which can be motivated by the good itself, or a type of duty to do good things.
It’s a bit of my own construction of types of good, inspired by Kant. IMO it’s easily superior and for the most part mirrors his philosophy on the good without God attached.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:e]
If you look at religion from the perspective of the good people within the church, who go out of their way to help the poor, with soup kitchens
[/quote]
I know many of those people and some of them have divorced themselves from Religion and still help feed the poor and the like . You do not have to belong to a Religion to be a good person
[/quote]
True. Good people can exist and good works can be done without faith in a supernatural being. Works for other stuff too. Like believing in God/Allah/ancestors doesn’t make you less intelligent. You can be agnostic or atheist or Christian and help people, and contribute to society, and raise kids who will not necessarily be gay murderers who have multiple abortions.
Religion is not the cause of what goes wrong in the world. It’s used as an excuse to grab power or money or land. It’s a little harder to rally around the battle cry of “Let’s get oil and cheap labor and ensure stability in our country at the expense of another!” than to appeal to a sense of community and higher purpose.
Religion has been used as an excuse for so long that it has been ingrained as values, and some of those values include forcibly pushing your beliefs. So you could blame religion for the wars of the past, and the hatred that exists, but it was just some people using it for bad things.
You could also blame science for obesity and the destruction of the environment. After all, it were scientists who decided to isolate and produce high-fructose corn syrup, and develop a process to convert coal into diesel as an alternative to dependence on foreign oil, and to make nuclear fission feasible before disposal of waste was figured out. But really, it was some people who saw something they could use for their own ends, and pushed it and ingrained it into us to see it as normal everyday behavior.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Fuck the UN and fuck religion. They both just want to control you, manipulate you and get your money so that they can further their own agenda of world domination. The UN is simply the church of the progressive “politically correct” movement.
Religions want you to join their little club, show up at the big building on whatever day to sing songs and believe their bullshit (and donate!) and breed more little XYZ zealots. They will excommunicate, shun, blow up, rape, torture and otherwise disenfranchise ANYONE who has the audacity not to believe their (unprovable) little twist on the great questions. Because THEIR version is the RIGHT version (the XYZ book clearly says so).
The UN wants every one to sit in a circle and hold hands and be “equal” (as in equally poor). They will force you into the circle if necessary with their “peace keeping” army. They want to take your resources and give them away to lazy stupid people to further this “equal” utopian ideal. Because if everyone is “equal”, then no one will feel bad about themselves. Ever.
Both don’t do shit about injustice or suffering. Religion protects it’s molesters and it’s terrorists, while the UN is simply impotent (if you don’t stop killing you citizens, we are going to WRITE YOU A LETTER! - until the United States sends us troops, then we will invade you). The net result is the same. The world would be better off without either one of them.
Any time a group forms an entity large enough to have any kind of influence, it loses it’s mission and it succumbs to the simple pursuit of power. That’s just human nature. NO group is immune to that, regardless of their intentions or their mission. As I said, they are both only after ONE thing: control and the power that results from that control.
[/quote]
Agreed, seems like an attempt at new dogma. [/quote]
Angry writes a lot of good posts. This is not one of them.[/quote]
I think a lot of it depends on perspective and what we are taking into account. If you look at religion from the perspective of the good people within the church, who go out of their way to help the poor, with soup kitchens and what not, of course you are going to have a rosy view. But if you take a look at the history of the Church, the conduct of it’s leaders throughout history, you could argue they came straight from hell, and embodied the opposite virtues that Jesus was all about.
For me, I don’t need to get past what the Catholics did to the Catharists, who’s history was for the most part burned, and their followers hunted down and murdered. All you have to do is wiki Catharists.
There’s the way Islam spread, which was by the sword straight up. Islam allowed it’s conquered to join, or if they were lucky enough and met all the correct conditions could keep their own faith and pay something called jizya. Essentially, join the faith, pay the tax, or be punished, probably die.
I just see dogma with strings attached when I look at religion. If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There’s nothing wrong with having an apposing view. However, statements like this:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Fuck the UN and fuck religion. They both just want to control you, manipulate you and get your money so that they can further their own agenda of world domination. [/quote]
and this:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Both don’t do shit about injustice or suffering. [/quote]
Are absurd.
World domination, for real?
[/quote]
They do things about injustice and suffering when it suits them. Sometimes the predicament people find themselves in, are in part a result of things like being against condoms in Africa, when we have both a population boom that we wont be able to account for, and an AIDS/HIV pandemic.
In situations where there are missionaries going to 3rd world countries, half of the effort is to, “Save souls.” By converting people to said religion historically with little regard for whatever the people had in place. Sure, there are missionaries out there today that are looking purely to save and improve people’s lives, but right behind them, and usually their backers are going to make efforts to get these people into churches. It seems innocent, but when you look at the entirety, the history of things like the Spanish Mission complex and the pandemics they brought to America, the brutality of the spread of Christianity it doesn’t look so innocent to me. Mind you, my mother and sister are Catholic. It’s just the way I seem to look at the world.
I try to be just as critical with Islam, and I’d be as critical with Hindi and other religions had I studied them more. But Islam is much the same, they are all in competition, and I’m sure they would all like to be the only religion.
While I sit here and bash the Church, I also understand that religion can save people and bring them hope, happiness. I try to respect the fact that people find religion and it helps them on a better path, usually through becoming part of a parish or some sort of religious community that works to help. I think those things are amazing. But I tend to see these as some of the fringe benefits of religion, they don’t address the corruption or bloody, lusty, murder laden history of the Church which I think people too easily forget, ignore, attempt to sweep under the rug.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
They do things about injustice and suffering when it suits them.
[/quote]
Ya, and I think this is utterly ridiculous.
How does a weekly soup kitchen “suit them?” How do mission trips into war torn areas “suit them?”
So what?
They believe in one thing and stand by that belief. That makes them want to control the world? Or makes them evil?
Again, silly.
Again so what? While they save those souls they also save lives…
I wasn’t aware Christians forces conversions in the 21st century.
Because they believe they are saving their eternal soul. Isn’t that pretty nice of them?
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[quote]
I try to be just as critical with Islam, and I’d be as critical with Hindi and other religions had I studied them more. But Islam is much the same, they are all in competition, and I’m sure they would all like to be the only religion.
While I sit here and bash the Church, I also understand that religion can save people and bring them hope, happiness. I try to respect the fact that people find religion and it helps them on a better path, usually through becoming part of a parish or some sort of religious community that works to help. I think those things are amazing. But I tend to see these as some of the fringe benefits of religion, they don’t address the corruption or bloody, lusty, murder laden history of the Church which I think people too easily forget, ignore, attempt to sweep under the rug. [/quote]
If the above were true I doubt you would of agree with Angry’s assessment about religion. Namely that they want to take over the world Illuminati style…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
AC is a lefty?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
AC is a lefty?[/quote]
I was quoting Severiano.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
AC is a lefty?[/quote]
I was quoting Severiano.[/quote]
I know. CB made the comment that lefties only forget the past when it suits them but AC is the one who criticized religion first and he is no lefty and, he based it upon the past history of religions when it comes to how they spread it and why (hence: world domination).
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
AC is a lefty?[/quote]
I would say no, some of his views are, but not enough to put him in the leftist camp though.
The person U was quoting falls squarely in that range however.
