The Christian Agenda Continues

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Inasmuch as I am not an atheist, I would not presume to speak for them. If you are interested in the dogmas and tenets of atheism, I refer you to the writings of the Four Horsemen of Bigflamer’s avatar: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris. They can explain what they believe and more importantly what they don’t, far better than I could.

My contention is that idolatry is not synonymous with atheism: you can reject belief in the Abrahamic God, but if you create your own god from clay, metal, wood, or economic/political philosophy, and worship it as the only acceptible source of truth, then you are no atheist. If you establish a state based on the worship of this god, then you have a theocracy. [/quote]

I cannot look up to intelectual half-wits. Seems pointless to me.[/quote]

Childish response…

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I agree with both Varq and Pat. They are merely arguing over what essentially amounts to nothing more than semantics.[/quote]

Thank you, Push. The first reasonable response I have heard so far.

And I absolutely agree, science can certainly be elevated to the level of idolatry if one adheres to the notion that it is the only source of absolute truth. And I will be the first to admit that there are an awful lot of fundamentalist adherents of “scientism”. These people, for whom science is their god, cannot, by my reckoning anyway, be considered atheists.

And I think Pat mistakes my indictment of communist theocracy as a defense of atheism, which it is not at all. If anything, my argument is that “atheism” is a lot less common than it is assumed to be, and cannot exist in a pure, platonic sense, because we as a species have a need to create gods. Back to Voltaire again, who famously said “if God did not exist, we would find it necessary to invent Him.” My proposition is, and I believe Voltaire would agree, that God exists, but that even people who deny the existence of God will find it necessary to invent surrogates for him.

My question for Pat is, if China and the Soviet Union were not theocracies, then by the same criteria, has there ever been a Christian theocracy in the history of Christendom? I ask because on another thread he did make the claim that Church policy has never been state policy. I’m still scratching my head over that one, but then I’m not Catholic so what the fuck do I know?

[quote]pat wrote:

I cannot look up to intelectual half-wits. Seems pointless to me.[/quote]

No, of course not. You have all the answers, and refuse to even consider an opposing viewpoint, even one penned by some of the most prolific, well-respected and lettered holders of that viewpoint. This is why I directed the response to Sloth, who while sharing your religion does not seem to share as many of your prejudices.

And having presumably read nothing of their work, you still dismiss four brilliant men: a biologist, a philosopher, a neuroscientist and an author, broadly as “intellectual half wits”. Was Socrates an intellectual half-wit? Were Schopenhauer and Nietsche? I suppose Stephen Hawking would also qualify as an intellectual half-wit by your reckoning.

EDIT: removed gratuitous ad hominem, with apologies.

The League embraced workers, peasants, students, and intelligentsia. It had its first affiliates at factories, plants, collective farms (kolkhoz), and educational institutions. By the beginning of 1941, it had about 3.5 million members of 100 nationalities. It had about 96,000 offices across the country. Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party’s orders with regards to religion, the League aimed at exterminating religion in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers. It propagated atheism and scientific achievements, conducted ‘individual work’ (a method of sending atheist tutors to meet with individual believers to convince them of atheism, which could be followed up with public harassment if they failed to comply) with religious people, prepared propagandists and atheistic campaigners, published anti-religious scientific literature and periodicals, organized museums and exhibitions, conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and critics of religion.

Wiki, sure.

It was a good discussion, but I simply do not agree. Atheism is narrowly defined. If an atheist adopts a despotic economic/political philosophy he doesn’t stop being an atheist. To me it is just odd that anyone would claim atheists must conduct themselves in a certain way–besides the godless definition–or they’re kicked out of the club.

Or that atheists stop being atheists when they commit idolatry. Atheists believe in, much less must refrain from ‘idolatry?’ As if it’s one of their commandments? They makes no more sense to me than kicking atheists out for blasphemy. Again, I appreciate hearing from you. You’re a thinker, and I for one welcome the conversation. But I don’t see how these additional commandments and tenets are being attached to atheism.

I’d offer that the word you’re looking for isn’t ‘religious.’ It’s militancy.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

It was a good discussion, but I simply do not agree. Atheism is narrowly defined. If an atheist adopts a despotic economic/political philosophy he doesn’t stop being an atheist. To me it is just odd that anyone would claim atheists must conduct themselves in a certain way–besides the godless definition–or they’re kicked out of the club. The word you’re looking for isn’t ‘religious.’ It’s militancy. And that’s a perfectly neutral term.

Or that atheists stop being atheists when they commit idolatry. Atheists believe in, much less must refrain from ‘idolatry?’ As if it’s one of their commandments? They makes no more sense to me than kicking atheists out for blasphemy. Again, I appreciate hearing from you. You’re a thinker, and I for one welcome the conversation. But I don’t see how these additional commandments and tenets are being attached to atheism. [/quote]

And that’s fine, Sloth. I respect “I don’t agree” far more than I respect “you are obviously wrong”.

My only response to this is that I view an atheist as simply a person who conducts his or her life without perceiving a need for gods. Pure atheism makes no commandments, appoints no bishops, has no dogma or tenets or ex cathedra probouncements, and claims no authority to excommunicate. It also doesn’t conduct witch hunts and inquisitions, which is why the League of Militant Atheism is as much of a misnomer as “Moral Majority”. Calling something by a certain name does not make it that thing.

Atheism is as rare (well nigh impossible, in my estimation) as pure anarchism, for the same reason: humans, as social animals with a long, long history of hierarchical societal organization, seem to have an intrinsic need to govern and be governed. We have a highly developed sense of causality and reciprocity, which gives rise to codified morality and systems of justice. Most people need gods, just as most people need government. But you can’t have govenment unless a preponderance of the governed have faith that the government is working for the common good, just as you can’t have religion unless the majority of the believers have faith that God is just and good. When this faith (defined as belief without the need for evidence) fails, government fails, and so does religion. But our very nature as social, hierarchical animals prevents us from lapsing into anarchy and atheism. When our government fails us, we get a new government. When our gods fail us, we get new gods.

Every government that has ever existed has failed, except for the ones that exist right now. Every religion that has ever existed has ever failed except for the ones we have right now. And the governments and religions we have right now exist because they have managed to adapt to the ever-changing fashion of moral and political reality. Judaism, Catholicism, Islam and Protestant Christianity bear little resemblance to what they looked like three thousand, two thousand, one thousand or five hundred years ago respectively, any more than The United States, Russia, and China look anything like the countries they were one hundred, seventy-five, or fifty years ago respectively. A thousand or a hundred years in the future, if our species still inhabits this planet, these states and these religions will either have evolved yet again, or they will have become extinct, and replaced with others.

And atheism and anarchism will still be as rare to find and nebulous to define as always.

Can anyone answer on why there NEEDS to be a essentially a 330 Ton Penis smack dab in the middle of Vatican Square
whose brief history of it is explained below? Enquiring minds want to know.
Thank you.

“The Obelisk in St. Peter?s Square in the Vatican City is not just ANY Obelisk. It was cut from a single block of red granite during the Fifth dynasty of Egypt to stand as Osiris? erect phallus at the Temple of the Sun in ancient Heliopolis (Ἡλιούπολις, meaning city of the sun or principal seat of Atum-Ra sun-worship), the city of ?On? in the Bible, dedicated to Ra, Osiris, and Isis. The Obelisk was moved from Heliopolis to the Julian Forum of Alexandria by Emperor Augustus and later from thence (approximately 37 AD) by Caligula to Rome to stand at the spine of the Circus. There, under Nero, its excited presence maintained a counter-vigil over countless brutal Christian executions, including the martyrdom of the apostle Peter. Over fifteen hundred years following that, Pope Sixtus V ordered hundreds of workmen under celebrated engineer-architects Giovanni and Domenico Fontana (who also erected three other ancient obelisks in the old Roman city including one dedicated to Osiris by Rameses III?at the Piazza del Popolo, Piazza di S. Maria Maggiore, and Piazza di S. Giovanni in Laterano) to move the phallic pillar to the center of St. Peter?s Square in Rome.”

Varqanir, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Religions may change because man is involved, but God does not.

[quote]Karado wrote:
Can anyone answer on why there NEEDS to be a essentially a 330 Ton Penis smack dab in the middle of Vatican Square
whose brief history of it is explained below? Enquiring minds want to know.
Thank you.[/quote]

Because humanity needs to erect big penises, whether we call them the Tower of Babel, the Obelisk, the Washington Monument or the Empire State Building. It’s the same reason the Soviets paraded their ICBMs around Red Square: “our dicks are mightier than your dicks!” In the case of the Obelisk, it was, “we’re so badass we can even steal your dick, and display it in our front yard.”

We even constructed big metal dicks to shoot into space. The Russian dick penetrated space first, and since then it’s been a space bukkake, with prizes for who can shoot the biggest load the farthest, onto the most heavenly bodies.

What would Freud say? Humanity must be compensating for something.

Lol…‘‘Space Bukkake’’, the unreleased adult Sci-Fi novel from Philip K…DICK!

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Varqanir, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Religions may change because man is involved, but God does not.[/quote]

Nor do I think I ever claimed that God does. God is eternal and infinite, whereas man’s conception and understanding of God is finite and ever in flux. Any time we think we have a comprehensive understanding of God (and that all other interpretations of God are inherently false), we have created yet another idol, which will eventually crumble, inevitably to be replaced by another idol, as soon as our understanding of God leads us to construct yet another comprehensive yet false conception of what God is, does or wants.

You drew the parallel between science and religion, and I think it’s an apt one, but not perhaps for the reason you intended. Whenever science thinks it has everything figured out it becomes no better than religion, and scientific ideas that refuse to adapt to new realities are inevitably tossed into the ash heap of inquiry. Anytime we think we have the physical universe all figured out, the universe pulls a fast one on us and we have to revise our model. Ideas must evolve or they become extinct. Same for religions and governments.

[quote]Karado wrote:
Lol…‘‘Space Bukkake’’, the unreleased adult Sci-Fi novel from Philip K…DICK![/quote]

Nah, Philip K. Dick would never have come up with such an elegantly simple title. It would be more like “Do Rocket Phalluses Dream of Intergalactic Ejaculation?”

But many times it isn’t us finding out that we were wrong in our understanding of God and his will, it merely becomes to inconvenient or unappealing to certain group and that leads to the altering of doctrine to make religion more inclusive and less “offensive”. However, nothing has changed with God, our tolerances change and we try to mold the Bible and God to fit those new tolerances when in reality with each iteration of this new religion we are moving further away from God’s will.

“Do Rocket Phalluses Dream of Intergalactic Ejaculation?”

Which would later be adapted to “Penis Runner”.

And isn’t ''Rocket Phalluses" redundant? Or would that be ''Rocket Phalli"?

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
But many times it isn’t us finding out that we were wrong in our understanding of God and his will, it merely becomes to inconvenient or unappealing to certain group and that leads to the altering of doctrine to make religion more inclusive and less “offensive”. However, nothing has changed with God, our tolerances change and we try to mold the Bible and God to fit those new tolerances when in reality with each iteration of this new religion we are moving further away from God’s will. [/quote]

Nearly every Muslim in the world would agree with you.

There are a lot of similarities between Christianity and Muslims. (Lot of differences too just so I am clear) Only Muslims chose to not adapt to modern culture. Prime example of what I am talking about is the so called Health and Prosperity Gospel. As in, if you are a Christian you will be rewarded by God with money and good health. It flies directly in the face of basic biblical teachings but it is one of the fastest growing Christian messages out there right now. There are some more but I could derail this thread really easily with the rest of them.

Honestly, I admire the faithfulness that many Muslims have. They are far more faithful than most Christians. That’s a terrible thing to have to admit on our part but it is nearly unquestionably true.

That’s that ‘‘prosperity theology’’ intimately connected with the ‘‘new thought’’ Christianity a century ago, intimately connected but
‘watered down’ a bit religiously and hijacked by new agers with ‘‘The Secret’’ movie a few years back.
It’s the same shit.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
There are a lot of similarities between Christianity and Muslims. (Lot of differences too just so I am clear) [/quote]

Even more between Islam and early Christianity. How many times a day did Jesus pray? Did he pray standing, kneeling, or flat on his face? Did he eat pork? Did he approve of moneylenders? Did he approve of a hierarchical clergy between man and God? Did he approve of ostentatious displays of material wealth, or of commercial activities in the place of worship?

No, the Amish chose not to adapt to modern life. The Muslims choose to reject those aspects of modernity that lead to immorality. To use a Christian phrase, they strive to be “in the world, but not of the world.”

A thousand years ago, Islam built a more advanced civilization, in terms of medicine, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, commerce and literature, than anyone else on the planet had at the time. That they did it cribbing from Classical Greek and Roman sources does nothing to diminish this: indeed, if Christendom hadn’t recovered this lost Classical knowledge (I say “lost”, but the proper term is “destroyed”, because what the Muslims had saved was only what was left after people of an indeterminate religious affiliation burned the library at Alexandria.

Christianity got its shit together for the most part after the 30 years war, which was the last Great War between Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. That was in the early 1600s of the Christian calendar. Islam is only in the early 1400s by its own calendar. If Islam follows a similar progression, a Great War between Shi’a and Sunni in the next two hundred years will come, then perhaps a reestablishment of the Caliphate, which will bring about a Muslim Renaissance, an Enlightenment, and ultimately an Islam that once again defines “modernity” for the rest of the world.

Well, I doubt if any proselytizing religion would get very far with a Sickness and Destitution Gospel: “join our religion and your life will suck”. seriously, though, there is this passage in the Qur’an: “Whoever works righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a true believer, verily, to him We will give a good life (in this world) with respect, and We shall pay them certainly a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do.” Rewards now, rewards in Paradise. Not so different from what you describe.

Well, Jesus didn’t say it was bad to have money, just that you shouldn’t be an ostentatious prick. I always chuckle when I see a loud mouthed fat fucker in a Hummer H3, carting a plasma screen TV that he bought on credit back to his McMansion… with a “Not Of This World” sticker on the back windshield. Is that really what Jesus would do?

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Honestly, I admire the faithfulness that many Muslims have. They are far more faithful than most Christians. That’s a terrible thing to have to admit on our part but it is nearly unquestionably true. [/quote]
Maybe they just appear that way.

Yyyyeah, I’d say that too…Hypocrites exist in all religions and they are no exception.

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/19204-muslim-hate-preacher-caught-pounding-booze-womanizing/