[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
But, alas we have tried to push religion into the categories next to if the man wears boxers or briefs. [/quote]
Because they are the same style of choice in the sense that you decide for yourself (free will), and may be swayed to wear boxers (atheism) based on research (science) that says briefs (organized religion) is detrimental to your man parts.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
But don’t go around pointing fingers at others; creating an “us-them”/“right-left” environment; and accusing others of sucking at the tit of the Government…when you are walking around with breast milk sloshing in your stomach and dried colostrum around your lips.
Mufasa[/quote]
Why not?
What you do not seem to understand is that the fact that we have to drink it makes it worse, not better.
Why not?
It’s called “hypocrisy”…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Why not?
It’s called “hypocrisy”…
Mufasa[/quote]
No, in German this would be called “swallowing a toad”.
You do not like people who make you do that.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(This thread really should be changed to “Keep the Government OUT of my SS/Medicaire/Student Loans/Farm Subsidies” thread!)
Look, guys.
I have no problem with politicians and other people availing themselves of Government Jobs, subsidies,unemployment, Loans and programs…cool…really.
But don’t go around pointing fingers at others; creating an “us-them”/“right-left” environment; and accusing others of sucking at the tit of the Government…when you are walking around with breast milk sloshing in your stomach and dried colostrum around your lips.
Mufasa[/quote]
Well then, don’t take the milk of others, thrust a breast under their nose, and demand they look to you for sustenance. Only to mock them when they ask if they could keep their own damn milk in the first place.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Would you elect a Mormon?[/quote]
Would you elect an atheist, even assuming they agree with you on almost every political position, and their only difference was a lack of religion?
Be honest.[/quote]
If he supported freedom of religion, was against abortion, believed in free market and small government and did not let there atheism control policy, then yes I would.
The only inherent problem with atheists is the lack of submissiveness, and elected official is to serve, not rule. Theists generally inherently have some sense of serving where as atheists lack it inherently. It you think your ‘it’ it’s hard to take orders. In a republic, your there to represent, so you take orders from constituents, ultimately.
I understand there are plenty of theists who sodomize this notion with a rusty knife, but I am talking general inherent notions. [/quote]
You’re going to have to explain how atheists lack the ability to serve the public, because simply saying “they inherently lack the ability” isn’t going to cut it. Public service is a very simple concept, you seem to think it needs a theological underpinning when I and many others like myself (atheists) understand it just fine without the need for a God.
However, to the main point, if you would elect based on positions held and not some sense of kinship based on flavor of theological viewpoint, then I applaud you.[/quote]
Uh, I thought I did??? Well, I’ll try again. What I mean is very simply this, that a theist realizes that they themselves are not the final say and that they have to answer for there actions. An atheist, ultimately, doesn’t have to answer for shit, because they don’t have to ultimately answer for their decisions and behavior.
You believe in moral relativism, theists do not. We believe in consequences you do not. So in the end, atheists can act in there own interest with out fear. Theists cannot.
Like I said, I would vote for an atheist who supports my views and beliefs. I have never met one that does though.
If you know of anybody who is running for public office anywhere who is an atheist, but supports the views I described, please present them. I’d like to know more about them, if nothing else, as a study.
BTW, I did not say they lack the ability to serve the public, per se, I said they lack the ability to be submissive, with out threat of force.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well then, don’t take the milk of others, thrust a breast under their nose, and demand they look to you for sustenance. Only to mock them when they ask if they could keep their own damn milk in the first place.[/quote]
I’ll let others comment on your analogy, Sloth; because I’m at a loss for what to say.
Mufasa
[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I thought I did??? Well, I’ll try again. What I mean is very simply this, that a theist realizes that they themselves are not the final say and that they have to answer for there actions. An atheist, ultimately, doesn’t have to answer for shit, because they don’t have to ultimately answer for their decisions and behavior.
You believe in moral relativism, theists do not. We believe in consequences you do not. So in the end, atheists can act in there own interest with out fear. Theists cannot.
Like I said, I would vote for an atheist who supports my views and beliefs. I have never met one that does though.
If you know of anybody who is running for public office anywhere who is an atheist, but supports the views I described, please present them. I’d like to know more about them, if nothing else, as a study.
BTW, I did not say they lack the ability to serve the public, per se, I said they lack the ability to be submissive, with out threat of force.[/quote]
I answer to the people I interact with in day to day life. If I act like a tool, I will be treated accordingly. Why should I care? Because when it comes to interactions with people, I like to be treated with respect.
The Golden Rule is hardly a new concept.
Hummm…Reminds me of a little diddy an old atheist friend of mine used to sing…
I don't want to go to school....
And obey the golden rule......
I wonder where he got it. Perhaps atheist mothers teach it to their little kids!
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Hummm…Reminds me of a little diddy an old atheist friend of mine used to sing…
I don't want to go to school....
And obey the golden rule......
I wonder where he got it. Perhaps atheist mothers teach it to their little kids!
[/quote]
The fact that the same principle is inherent in almost every ethical system man has devised should be rather telling.
[i]“Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” - Isocrates
“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” - Epictetus
“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” - Confucius
“If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” - Mozi
“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” - Leviticus 19:18
“Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.” - Baha’u’llah
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” - Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31
“One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.” - Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)
“Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential. In support of this Truth, I ask you a question - ‘Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?’ If you say ‘yes it is’, it would be a lie. If you say, ‘No, It is not’ you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.” - Acaranga Sutra[/i]
These are mere droplets in a much larger pool of collective quotes that highlight this common understanding. A lot of the belief systems that hold the Golden Rule are otherwise incompatible, and yet it remains.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Hummm…Reminds me of a little diddy an old atheist friend of mine used to sing…
I don't want to go to school....
And obey the golden rule......
I wonder where he got it. Perhaps atheist mothers teach it to their little kids!
[/quote]
The fact that the same principle is inherent in almost every ethical system man has devised should be rather telling.
[i]“Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” - Isocrates
“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” - Epictetus
“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” - Confucius
“If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” - Mozi
“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” - Leviticus 19:18
“Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.” - Baha’u’llah
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” - Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31
“One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.” - Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)
“Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential. In support of this Truth, I ask you a question - ‘Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?’ If you say ‘yes it is’, it would be a lie. If you say, ‘No, It is not’ you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.” - Acaranga Sutra[/i]
These are mere droplets in a much larger pool of collective quotes that highlight this common understanding. A lot of the belief systems that hold the Golden Rule are otherwise incompatible, and yet it remains.[/quote]
Mak - Quite true. The Golden Rule has been around forever, presumably pre-dating the Bible. But, the athetist kiddie tune noted above was in defiance of the Golden Rule. It was Pat’s comment that made me think of it: ‘The only inherent problem with atheists is the lack of submissiveness, and elected official is to serve, not rule. Theists generally inherently have some sense of serving where as atheists lack it inherently. If you think your ‘it’ it’s hard to take orders.’
Mormonism is as Polytheistic as Catholicism. Get over yourselves, and enter the modern age.
Anyone who actually believes in Christianity is a moron.
Polytheism = Many deities.
Christianity has three in one main deity, a slew of minor gods in the form of Saints who are Patrons to shoe-makers and countries, and then a god of the passion and the Earth realm known as Satan.
Yes, Satan is indicated in the bible as the “God of the Earth” look it up.
Christianity is jsut as polytheistic as Hinduism. Both justify their polytheism by saying that all Gods are subordinate to a main one. The only difference is in Hinduism that main one is singular where as in Christianity he is triparite.
Judaism avoids the classification of polytheism much better than Christianity does btwe.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
But, alas we have tried to push religion into the categories next to if the man wears boxers or briefs. [/quote]
Because they are the same style of choice in the sense that you decide for yourself (free will), and may be swayed to wear boxers (atheism) based on research (science) that says briefs (organized religion) is detrimental to your man parts.[/quote]
What’s this about science proving organized religion wrong?
And, if anything organized religion is like going commando, it’s the way we were born. 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
But, alas we have tried to push religion into the categories next to if the man wears boxers or briefs. [/quote]
Because they are the same style of choice in the sense that you decide for yourself (free will), and may be swayed to wear boxers (atheism) based on research (science) that says briefs (organized religion) is detrimental to your man parts.[/quote]
What’s this about science proving organized religion wrong?
And, if anything organized religion is like going commando, it’s the way we were born. ;)[/quote]
I never said wrong, you must be projecting.
And your options in civilized society are different types of underwear or change your pants every day.
Wow, gangbusters. You should really take that act on the road, you could win some serious debates…against the B team at a low-level junior high with all this logic you use there.
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Mormonism is as Polytheistic as Catholicism. Get over yourselves, and enter the modern age.
Anyone who actually believes in Christianity is a moron.[/quote]
Ad hominem attack, you are attacking me instead of the argument, right off the bat. Not only that you don’t even show evidence to back up your claims. So not only are your claims unsubstantiated, they are mere opinion.
[quote]
Polytheism = Many deities.
Christianity has three in one main deity, a slew of minor gods in the form of Saints who are Patrons to shoe-makers and countries, and then a god of the passion and the Earth realm known as Satan.[/quote]
Your claim that Christianity has many deities is not founded. Your second claim, “one main deity,” is true; however the rest is not. There are no minor gods. Your claim of Saints being “patrons” is correct, the use of the word “Patron” is in the same sense of a Renaissance art patron. A patron (n.) is defined as a person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, cause, or activity.
When a saint is a “Patron” to shoe-makers or countries, it is a person who – in this case – prays for shoe-makers or countries to God. They are not gods, they are not worshiped, they are righteous sons of God.
You are going to have to do better than this, I am not very well versed in the Bible. After all, I am a Catholic. And, as we all know from our elementary history classes: Catholics killed people for reading the Bible. So, which verse are you talking about:
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=God+of+the+Earth&b=drb&t=0
You didn’t actually provide a valid argument that Christianity is polytheistic, and even if you did it wouldn’t be a sound argument because Christianity isn’t polytheistic.
So, until you have provided a valid and sound argument for the above I will just leave you with a quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
To be Christian is to be a sect of Judaism with the other string being Rabbinical Judaism. 
[1] Ratzinger, J., Introduction to Christianity, (SF: Ignatius Press, 2004)
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I never said wrong, you must be projecting.
And your options in civilized society are different types of underwear or change your pants every day.[/quote]
Reminds me of a joke I heard from my uncle.
There was a Navy officer and a Marine officer using the bathroom. Both of them were using the urinals, and the Marine officer finished first. He zipped up and turned around to leave without washing his hands.
The Navy officer watched him over his shoulder and said to the Marine officer on his way out “In the Navy, they teach us to wash our hands after using the bathroom.”
In response, the Marine officer replied “In the Marines, they taught us not to piss on ourselves.”
I guess Catholics just learned how not to shit on ourselves.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Wow, gangbusters. You should really take that act on the road, you could win some serious debates…against the B team at a low-level junior high with all this logic you use there. 
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Mormonism is as Polytheistic as Catholicism. Get over yourselves, and enter the modern age.
Anyone who actually believes in Christianity is a moron.[/quote]
Ad hominem attack, you are attacking me instead of the argument, right off the bat. Not only that you don’t even show evidence to back up your claims. So not only are your claims unsubstantiated, they are mere opinion.
[quote]
Polytheism = Many deities.
Christianity has three in one main deity, a slew of minor gods in the form of Saints who are Patrons to shoe-makers and countries, and then a god of the passion and the Earth realm known as Satan.[/quote]
Your claim that Christianity has many deities is not founded. Your second claim, “one main deity,” is true; however the rest is not. There are no minor gods. Your claim of Saints being “patrons” is correct, the use of the word “Patron” is in the same sense of a Renaissance art patron. A patron (n.) is defined as a person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, cause, or activity.
When a saint is a “Patron” to shoe-makers or countries, it is a person who – in this case – prays for shoe-makers or countries to God. They are not gods, they are not worshiped, they are righteous sons of God.
You are going to have to do better than this, I am not very well versed in the Bible. After all, I am a Catholic. And, as we all know from our elementary history classes: Catholics killed people for reading the Bible. So, which verse are you talking about:
You didn’t actually provide a valid argument that Christianity is polytheistic, and even if you did it wouldn’t be a sound argument because Christianity isn’t polytheistic.
So, until you have provided a valid and sound argument for the above I will just leave you with a quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
To be Christian is to be a sect of Judaism with the other string being Rabbinical Judaism. 
[1] Ratzinger, J., Introduction to Christianity, (SF: Ignatius Press, 2004)[/quote]
Among a bunch of other bibilical verses that are blatantly polythiestic but are sideways reasoned out of being so. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 it says; “Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.”
If you are too clouded by belief and too brainwashed to be unable to connect the dots, then this conversation is meaningless. Me pointing out your religion’s polytheism is not ad hominem, you are misusing the term.
I will do this in a nutshell because it is a waste of time, and then I will be done. I was once a Polytheist (Catholic) like you.
First off, let’s define deity.
de�?�·i�?�·ty�¢?? �¢??[dee-i-tee]
noun, plural -ties.
1.a god or goddess. / 2. divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity. / 3. the estate or rank of a god: The king attained deity after his death. /
4. a person or thing revered as a god or goddess: a society in which money is the only deity.
/5. the Deity, God; Supreme Being.
Then Polytheism and Monotheism.
polytheism = The worship of or belief in more than one god.
monotheism = The worship of and belief there is only one God.
Okay.
There are bunch of other biblical passages that indicate to polytheism. I won’t go into them because the bible is such a cryptic irregular and incoherenent pile of steaming crap that you will just glue a bunch of random disparate citations together and try to form a counter argument. Then I can do the same, and then we can each start our own sect and encouage more ignorance.
If Monotheism is the belief in One God. Then there can only be one God. In Christianity you have 3 main Gods, who are then said to be all part of One God. But the Trinity is not hailed as the supreme God, each God is hailed individually. Indeed it gets worse, because Jesus is said to be a prequisite to all other Gods. The Trinity cannot be expressed without being logically inconsistent or polytheistic, this is why every Christian church calls it a ‘mystery’ meaning that it is a dichotomous but accepted logical fallacy we should not question. I will get more into this below to keep this succint. It will be added to the end called ‘On The Trinity.’
While you are indeed correct that Patron Saints are not considered to be equal to Gods. They are considered to have more sway over the Earthly world than another Saint or even Deity. Otherwise, why would they be Patrons? That makes them ‘divine characters’ matching the definition of a Deity or a minor God. If they did not have sway over our reality in a supernatural way, they would not be the Patrons of it now would they. In addition, to this, Patron Saints were once men…who are now endowed with these supernatural powers.
Expand this now, and consider that Catholicism supposes there are several cities of Angels. There are many Angels who you can make devotions to recieve help in your worldly woes. Further, it was Satan (biblically the God of Earth realm) who arose from the state of an Angel to being a God or at least the ‘anti’ to the current God.
Conclusion;
You can argue semantics with me on this, but the lines do match up, and they match by the same qualifcations that make Hinduism polytheism. Recall, that in Hinduism you have a Pantheon of uneven Gods, and when they are venerated they are pathways and avatars of the Creator God.
So just like Angels, Patron Saints, Satan, and the Trinity; Hinduism also has a vast collecti of unequal deities and minor gods. The Hindus say;
“Hinduism worships multiple forms of the one God.” (OM, an American Hindu organization)
“According to the tenets of Hinduism, God is one as well as many.” (HinduWebsite.com)
“Hindus believe in monotheistic polytheism, rather than polytheism.” (The Hindu Universe)
I would say, that with all we’ve gone over just now, that Christianity could fall into this Monotheist Polytheism definition. However, Christianity is even more Polytheistic than Hinduism, as in Hinduism, it is a single deity above all others, while in Chrisitanity that deity is always three distinct dieties with none being greater than the other, and their whole not being a deity in itself. Thus Christianity has no ‘singular God’ above all others, making it not able to fit the definition of monotheism, as monotheism requires their be only God, and monotheist polytheism requires that there be on God above all others. In Christianity this is not the case.
I will not be making any rebuttals on this because I know all the illogical Christian nuts are going to come out of the clockwork and try to wordsmith their way into making their polytheistic absurdity sound plausible to others who favor belief over reason.
Holy Spirit + God + Jesus = God.This is a mathematical error, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, should be 3. The only way for this to work is to say 1x1x1 = 1, 1 being God in his entirety. But in saying this, you as a man versed in formal logic, would understand that values of equal identity act and ARE the same unless they are different in some way. For them to differ in some way, is to make the
elements of Trinity unequal. One must be a fraction of the other, or a different entity entirely, which would make it unique. Thus, the statement one can only reach God through Jesus, is a logical fallacy. If Jesus is equal to the value of A, and God is also equal to A, then one cannot be a pathway to the other, less one be equal to A+ and the other A-…nearly similar but slightly different, one greater and one lesser. This would be Arianism, stating that Jesus must be slightly lesser than God in order to be a ‘pathway’ to him. For if Jesus is a pathway to God, this would imply that he is a ‘face’ of God, and in this case, that would mean lesser than him, such as one more sides of the six sided cube but never the entirity of the polygon.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I never said wrong, you must be projecting.
And your options in civilized society are different types of underwear or change your pants every day.[/quote]
Reminds me of a joke I heard from my uncle.
There was a Navy officer and a Marine officer using the bathroom. Both of them were using the urinals, and the Marine officer finished first. He zipped up and turned around to leave without washing his hands.
The Navy officer watched him over his shoulder and said to the Marine officer on his way out “In the Navy, they teach us to wash our hands after using the bathroom.”
In response, the Marine officer replied “In the Marines, they taught us not to piss on ourselves.”
I guess Catholics just learned how not to shit on ourselves. ;)[/quote]
Or they have pretended that their shit does not stink for so long that they actually believe it.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I never said wrong, you must be projecting.
And your options in civilized society are different types of underwear or change your pants every day.[/quote]
Reminds me of a joke I heard from my uncle.
There was a Navy officer and a Marine officer using the bathroom. Both of them were using the urinals, and the Marine officer finished first. He zipped up and turned around to leave without washing his hands.
The Navy officer watched him over his shoulder and said to the Marine officer on his way out “In the Navy, they teach us to wash our hands after using the bathroom.”
In response, the Marine officer replied “In the Marines, they taught us not to piss on ourselves.”
I guess Catholics just learned how not to shit on ourselves. ;)[/quote]
Or they have pretended that their shit does not stink for so long that they actually believe it. [/quote]
Apparently Catholics don’t have crotch sweat. Maybe they don’t have anything down there?
Hmm. The mind boggles at these revelations.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I thought I did??? Well, I’ll try again. What I mean is very simply this, that a theist realizes that they themselves are not the final say and that they have to answer for there actions. An atheist, ultimately, doesn’t have to answer for shit, because they don’t have to ultimately answer for their decisions and behavior.
You believe in moral relativism, theists do not. We believe in consequences you do not. So in the end, atheists can act in there own interest with out fear. Theists cannot.
Like I said, I would vote for an atheist who supports my views and beliefs. I have never met one that does though.
If you know of anybody who is running for public office anywhere who is an atheist, but supports the views I described, please present them. I’d like to know more about them, if nothing else, as a study.
BTW, I did not say they lack the ability to serve the public, per se, I said they lack the ability to be submissive, with out threat of force.[/quote]
I answer to the people I interact with in day to day life. If I act like a tool, I will be treated accordingly. Why should I care? Because when it comes to interactions with people, I like to be treated with respect.
The Golden Rule is hardly a new concept.[/quote]
Nope, it’s Christian.