Attention, God hates The Netherlands

[thepixiesrock]

:'(

[Killian Kalthorne]

"Of course not, but then I never claim to worship an all good, all powerful God as Christians do."

 

Says the one who has no problem judging others - espicially Christians - as evil.

 

He's freelance judgemental. not being a Christian he has no problem judging others. It was Christ after all who said "Let he among you is without sin cast the first stone".

Exactly. When I judge others at least I am not being hypocritical about it.

 

I look at 2000 odd years of Christian history, both on the Protestant and Catholic side on the coin, and I see more evil done in God's name than good.

[Killian Kalthorne]

:'(

Maybe if you copy his sig into yours he might like you better.

[Volourn]

"Exactly. When I judge others at least I am not being hypocritical about it."

 

Yes, you are. Because youa re claiming they are bad for judging others for doing thinsg they dissaprove of yet you ar ejduging them for doing things you disaprove of and you hate being judged yourself. And, yes, I'm judging you. All this judging others is a nasty never ending cycle.

[Gorgon]

No, those who discriminate on the basis of race or sexuality are not just expressing a different opinion, they are actively making the lives of those people harder for no good reason. Indifferent relativity does not apply here.

[Walsingham]

"Of course not, but then I never claim to worship an all good, all powerful God as Christians do."

 

Says the one who has no problem judging others - espicially Christians - as evil.

 

He's freelance judgemental. not being a Christian he has no problem judging others. It was Christ after all who said "Let he among you is without sin cast the first stone".

Exactly. When I judge others at least I am not being hypocritical about it.

 

I look at 2000 odd years of Christian history, both on the Protestant and Catholic side on the coin, and I see more evil done in God's name than good.

 

As Volo points out, you are being hypocritical because you're saying judgemental behaviour is bad, and judging other for displaying it.

 

As for your no doubt huge, scholarly, and widely cited sociological review of Christian history... my response is difficult to spell, so imagine the noise made by a large and warty hippopotamus, covered in flies, falling thirty feet into a septic tank.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am not saying judgmental behavior is bad, we do it all the time in order to determine what we want, who we want to be around, and how we decide on our actions. I am saying that those who profess they aren't suppose to be judgmental but are judgmental, which is one of the Christian tenets I believe, are being bad. World of difference there Walsh. They are casting judgments on people left and right when right in the book they all profess to believe in states one should not judge others. The core of their hypocrisy. If such aspect of their suposed faith was removed then it would no longer be a problem.

 

As for the history portion, whether an organization or religion is a force of good, evil, or otherwise, is determined not only by its teachings but also the actions of its followers. Do you not agree?

Edited March 3, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Walsingham]

As for the history portion, whether an organization or religion is a force of good, evil, or otherwise, is determined not only by its teachings but also the actions of its followers. Do you not agree?

 

And I'm saying that you're as qualified to render that judgement as I am to render a judgement on life on Mars. I can flannel on with what I've heard second hand, but I've practically no information, and certainly wouldn't be regarded as an expert by anyone remotely up on the subject. Sound familiar? Or have you been secretly doing some kind of PhD on the subject without telling us?

 

I'm sorry to call you out on this, but since you won't shut up about how terrible you think Christians are I think it's about time you told us what authority you have.

[TheHarlequin]

The problem, and probably the main problem I have with Christianity, that not even God is very Christ like. He seems more like a tyrant than anything else. Its His way or the highway and that highway is to Hell. For a so called loving and cvaring God He seems to have no problem torturing people eternally for not doing what He says. There is no sin in this life warrants that.

 

Thats what happens with you have dozens of writers spanning centuries writing the old and new testament. In the old god was a brutal, unforgiving, unloving my way or the highway tyrant.

 

In the new test he apparently gone to rehab, kicked his habit and mellowed up a great deal. In other words different writers, different era trying to get a very different message across. Hence the vastly different attitude. Same as if you took a fictional writer from today had him write a book with some characters then 400 yrs later have another writer use those same characters. Very possible you are going to have some a different personality and outlook in the end that may not reconcile with the first very well. Same issue here.

[Killian Kalthorne]

As for the history portion, whether an organization or religion is a force of good, evil, or otherwise, is determined not only by its teachings but also the actions of its followers. Do you not agree?

 

And I'm saying that you're as qualified to render that judgement as I am to render a judgement on life on Mars. I can flannel on with what I've heard second hand, but I've practically no information, and certainly wouldn't be regarded as an expert by anyone remotely up on the subject. Sound familiar? Or have you been secretly doing some kind of PhD on the subject without telling us?

 

I'm sorry to call you out on this, but since you won't shut up about how terrible you think Christians are I think it's about time you told us what authority you have.

Not a PhD but I have studied various religions, from Christianity to Islam, Hinduism to Bhuddism, and various sects in between. I also did a bit with Christian and Islamic mysticism. Suffism is a bit weird, let me tell you. Not only the teachings of said religions but also the social dynamics on how a religious movement can grow from a cult to a major religious organization. It went right along with my degree in Literature. You should look up one of my professors, Walsh. Doctor Hector Avalos is probably one of the best religious instructors I have ever had.

 

Not only do I go by my studies but with my own personal experiences with Christians. In my own experience, a good chunk of the Christians I have met have either tried to force their views on me, expressed their bigoted views on homosexuality, or seek to remove the freedom of choice for women when it comes to their right to control their own reproductive system. Not all, however. There are some Christian movements I can get along with, especially the Unitarians. They can be a fun bunch.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Killian Kalthorne]

Thats what happens with you have dozens of writers spanning centuries writing the old and new testament. In the old god was a brutal, unforgiving, unloving my way or the highway tyrant.

 

In the new test he apparently gone to rehab, kicked his habit and mellowed up a great deal. In other words different writers, different era trying to get a very different message across. Hence the vastly different attitude. Same as if you took a fictional writer from today had him write a book with some characters then 400 yrs later have another writer use those same characters. Very possible you are going to have some a different personality and outlook in the end that may not reconcile with the first very well. Same issue here.

 

That idealogy would mean that God did not create man in His image, but man created God in his.

[TheHarlequin]

Thats what happens with you have dozens of writers spanning centuries writing the old and new testament. In the old god was a brutal, unforgiving, unloving my way or the highway tyrant.

 

In the new test he apparently gone to rehab, kicked his habit and mellowed up a great deal. In other words different writers, different era trying to get a very different message across. Hence the vastly different attitude. Same as if you took a fictional writer from today had him write a book with some characters then 400 yrs later have another writer use those same characters. Very possible you are going to have some a different personality and outlook in the end that may not reconcile with the first very well. Same issue here.

 

That idealogy would mean that God did not create man in His image, but man created God in his.

 

Ding.. ding.. ding...

 

We have a winner!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...God did not create man in His image, but man created God in his.

 

Slightly off-topic, but isn't that a quote from Marx? Not that that is a bad thing...

[Tigranes]

I'll bite Hades.

 

The problem, and probably the main problem I have with Christianity, that not even God is very Christ like. He seems more like a tyrant than anything else. Its His way or the highway and that highway is to Hell. For a so called loving and cvaring God He seems to have no problem torturing people eternally for not doing what He says. There is no sin in this life warrants that.

 

The Christian doctrine, as I understand it, is founded on the fact that God is the source of all Good and defines all Good. i.e. what you are doing here is applying your own standards of 'loving', 'caring', 'kind' and 'benevolent' - which have a wide range of sources - on God and saying "hang on, that doesn't sound right". Of course it doesn't!

 

Of course, if I left it there, then it's just pointless waffle. The whole bit about Hell is simply about free choice and consequence. If you just say it bluntly, God says, "Look, I have given you the tools to follow me and do what I say should you desire to. I have also given you the opportunity to completely ignore what I say. But there are consequences to each choice. And it happens that the consequence to what I define as 'sin', is eternal suffering." I think it's a perspective issue to say that "God punishes you for not donig what he says"; it's more a case of "God has created this sytem and these laws of what is good, bad, what are the consequences of being sinful, etc". When your dad says "don't touch the frying-pan on the stove", you have a *free choice* of whether to obey that or not. But if you do touch it, you'll get burnt, not because your dad has said "haha you bastard, you didn't listen to me I WILL BURN YOU". You get burnt because that was the consequences to your action, and your dad told you not to do it because he knows what the consequences are.

 

Obviously, the main difference in this metaphor is that your dad did not invent the rules of physics; God, apparently did. So he *could* remove the consequences to your 'sins' or at least make them lighter, if he so chose. Certainly would be nice. But then, you could say, that a world without harsh consequences to your wrongdoings is a world that encourages wrongdoings.

 

I'm not completely committed to this, because I see the ambiguity and mystery of the communication between God as a deity and you as the believer to be much too specious and potentially corrupt. But that is how I understand the system, and that makes sense to me. After all, being a good God is different from being a nice God. I would much prefer the former than the latter.

 

I look at 2000 odd years of Christian history, both on the Protestant and Catholic side on the coin, and I see more evil done in God's name than good.

 

Which is a massive indictment to Christianity as a religion, Christians as a group of people who claim to follow God's word, and humanity as a whole; but not to God. Unless we prove the argument that the actions of prayer or the words of the Bible are unmistakeably biased towards eliciting such 'evil'. And I hardly think that is the case, in general.

 

a good chunk of the Christians I have met have either tried to force their views on me, expressed their bigoted views on homosexuality, or seek to remove the freedom of choice for women when it comes to their right to control their own reproductive system.

 

Christians that try to force their views are wrong. Pure and simple. I have a great deal of time for the religion and regularly attend church (for now), but I abhor this and protest against it.

 

 

Harlequin:

In the old god was a brutal, unforgiving, unloving my way or the highway tyrant.

 

In the new test he apparently gone to rehab, kicked his habit and mellowed up a great deal. In other words different writers, different era trying to get a very different message across.

 

One of the reasons I can't trust the Bible completely, at the moment. The text does raise a great deal of questions. The most fundamental issue is that there is no consistent, general framework in whcih to interpret it; is it literal or symbolic, or both (and if both, where is it which)? Is it a collection of writings by the faithful, or with a degree of direct intervention from the divine (and to what degree)? Is it an interpretation and adaptation of divine will into a text that can be contextualised and understood by the readers of that time, or an absolutely pure and timeless text? Is the Bible as we know it "approved" by God, or were the countless editors of the text who divided the Apocrypha and persecuted various sects working 'independently'?

 

Who knows.

[Gorth]

I always got the impression that God was all justice and no mercy, whereas Jesus was all about mercy and compassion. Now, as to what the supposedly followers of the latter has decided to do with that doctrine...

[Gorgon]

Well Northern Europe is all about the Lutheran legacy, so god is a spineless pinko liberal. All about forgiveness.

[Walsingham]

You can't judge a faith based on the actions of people who are directly contravening the faith. That's like saying "Some white supremacists are OK about black people".

 

May I be cursed sideways into a snake filled hole, but I actually spent ten minutes reading up on your professor, Hector Avalos. His treatise on fighting religions essentially says uses scarce resource theory to explain religious violence. He says that by inventing a scarce resource (righteousness) religion magics new reasons to fight into being. therefore, so he says, religion be evil EEEEVVVIIIIL! Which makes sense as far as it goes, but blissfully ignores the fact that we don't need religion to make 'righteousness' a scarce resource. In war studies it has been long accepted that any form of government and society constitutes a challenge to any divergent form and can form a casus belli by fomenting unrest. Moreover, I'd quite cheerfully go to war with you right now, and neither of us are religious.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Shall it be pipes at dawn at twenty paces?

[Walsingham]

Since you challenge me, I choose weapons. Phlegmatism at twenty paces, sir. The first man whose lip trembles will be swung from the yard arm. Until he bloody well feels ill.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Since you challenge me, I choose weapons. Phlegmatism at twenty paces, sir. The first man whose lip trembles will be swung from the yard arm. Until he bloody well feels ill.

My loogies are ready. BWAAHAAAHAAAAA!