Koyaanisqatsi

Yeah...

Anyway, here's the post from the other thread that contains most of the "other 99%" of my points that I claimed luvluv had not addressed as well as the arguments regarding cult mentality and the original assessment I made regarding luvluv's "fear" for those keeping score at home and didn't want to bother going back to the Free will thread.

The theory that luvluv is initially referring to (I think; it got exceedingly confused with every subsequent post luvluv made) is the one I came up with recently regarding the idea that all matter is conscious and that this (among other things as further detailed in that thread), is the kernal of truth that cults use to base their snake oil upon; the "watered down whiskey" ingredient that covers the taste of the snake venom and pig urine and fools the innocent/gullible into thinking they are drinking some form of beneficial medicine (posted "as is" from <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000369&p=5" target="_blank">page 5</a> of the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000369&p=" target="_blank">Where does free will lurk</a> thread):

What would be the difference?

You are not addressing the most important point I raised to you; the fact that these people would have no idea what the word "soul" meant unless they were already programmed with such a concept and terminology.

Your analogy would only be applicable if the church I went to was a congregation of absolute materialists who have never heard the word "soul."

If they were intelligent people who weren't programmed to believe that they are just right and nothing else can ever be right as a necessary condition of being a member of the church, yes.

And had never heard of the word "soul," yet were easily programmed to believe in it.

I seek only to deconstruct that programming so that those same ignorant people don't remain ignorant for their entire lives.

Because that would be the truth...

So, let me get this straight, luvluv. You're saying that Jesus lied to people about the true nature of their (and his) existence because they were too stupid to understand the truth, which is not the case.

Jesus lied to people about the true nature of their (and his) existence because he was a cult leader who sought to manipulate and control them for his (and his cult's) agenda and never knew the "true" nature of human existence, but was able to manipulate those ignorant people because he intuited just enough of the innate truth to sell it.

This is the .0001 percent of the puzzle: how does a "zero" (inanimate) become a "one" (animate). Jesus/Paul took that question that is universal to all and said, "We have the answer. The answer is that a mystical God King magically *poofed* the zero to a one in order to punish us all for not obeying him! He then split himself into flesh and I AM I AM so fear and obey me! When authority hits you, let them. When the elite wants your property, give it to them. Do no ever question anything at all for your entire lives, for I am love and I will save you when you're dead, but there's no guarantees and you'll probably burn eternally in hell with everyone else."

What I am attempting is what Jesus should have said, had he actually been a legitimate teacher actually concerned about humanity discovering the true nature of their existence, so you keep getting it wrong. Jesus/Paul (whoever actually created the cult) did the polar opposite of what I am attempting; to free the mind, not enslave it.

See the distinction? That's why your analogy and my use of the analogy ends at the terminology level.

See? You couldn't have provided a more perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are one hundred and eighty degrees in the wrong direction, which is why you can hear "I come to bring a sword, not peace," and think, "I come to bring peace, not a sword."

They're aware of a "self;" only the cult calls it a "soul" in any relevant way and this is precisely my point. It is not a "soul," it is a "self," and its origins have nothing to do with a magical god king that created us all in order to punish us for not worshipping him.

This is exactly how the cult uses just enough of the truth to manipulate and control you.

Another example--in keeping with my theory-thing here--is the notion that God is "in" all of us and "whosoever hurts the least among you" hurts God; I contend this is the sub conscious projection of the innate "true nature" of all matter being conscious (again, refer back to my extension of Freudian projection theory on this).

We are all telling ourselves over and over and over again in our art, literature, religion, science the clues to our "true nature" (for lack of a better term), thus, when cult dogma says, "God is in all of us and we are all a part of God," the correct translation is "all matter is conscious and therefore we are all connected on a fundamental, inherent level to every single particle in the entire four dimensional universe," IMO.

This puts the focus on the right topic and not on a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked us all into existence in order to punish us for our sins.

Got it? The innate, intuitive truth is stolen by the cult in order to tack on the fear-based ending designed to enslave people, not free them.

Categorically false. You are describing the result of necessary cult programming so that no one in the cult discovers they are being lied to about the "true" nature of the self (and the cult).

What is "self-evident" in need of no explanation about a "spirit" that is magically breathed into you somehow by an ineffable, all powerful, vengeful God who is to be feared because of his ability to kill both body and spirit in the eternal fires of an unimaginable place called "Hell?"

Everything about that nonsense screams for explanation, which is why the members are conditioned never to ask for it, just except it on faith (or face Hell for not doing so).

Religion--ultimately--does not and never has sought to help people in "learning how to live." It's a dictatorial construct: live the way we tell you to live or face Hell.

The way that decree is softened and the ultimate agenda hidden, of course, is through the rehashing of simplistic platitudes, such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Basic, ancient humanism that's as old as cave paintings.

Just look at the New Testament. All the creators of the christian cult did was rewrite the Old Testament!

Also false. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "The truth shall set you free?" How can you "learn how to live" if everything you have been told about life is a bald-face lie, or, worse, just enough of the truth to get you to face in the completely opposite direction, as I contend you are doing, evidenced by your comments above? That the fundamental basis for your entire existence is a cult sham to get you to become largely subservient, compliant, worker drones, conditioned to suffer now and be rewarded later (the slave mentality and underlying purpose of christianity, IMO)?

How can "learn how to live" on your own if you are told lies? You can't, which is why cult members don't learn how to live on their own, they are dependent upon the cult for guidance, which is, of course, the goal and purpose of the cult.


Well, that's because I just came up with it (over the last couple of months) and am openly posting it here because most of the people who post here are exceedingly intelligent, critical thinkers that will help me either improve and augment the theory or show me why it is not tenable and/or missing a crucial explanatory element that would force me to discard it.

It is necessarily mutable, unlike christianity, I should add, and that's why the scientific approach is superior to cult mentality.

I have freely granted over and over that my thoughts are not complete on this matter, which is precisely why I've posted it and opened it up to skeptical scrutiny.

Again, you are demonstrating the detrimental qualities of your cult conditioning; seeking any excuse possible in order to dismiss a concept because it threatens the cult. I have freely granted it is not complete. In fact, this is only the second time I have posted it and the first time I have posted it in any detail (thanks greatly to excreationist and DRF and to you for critically assailing it).

My glass on this is not even one-tenth full yet and you're saying, "No one's thirst will be quenched with such a little bit of water! Destroy the whole glass!"

Again, more evidence of the detriments of cult mentality. You've just stated that "people" need to be lied to in order for it to do them any good in their daily lives.

It's astounding to me that you so clearly and plainly understand exactly what cults do and why they do it--you're parroting the Grand Inquisitor from The Brother's Karamazov, by the way--and yet cannot then self reflect upon their own words enough to see how unnecessary and horrific the meaning and resultant view on life truly is.

What good is the possible truth when people need lies to get through the day?

How could you possibly understand the purpose and intent of the scientific method when you've been so operantly conditioned to accept and, worse, believe that statement to be true?

Before cult members heard the word "soul," they didn't have "common parlance," so the introduction of that term was just as confusing and convoluted as what I've posted; the difference being, of course, that I'm not threatening anyone into just accepting it or be thrown into Hell.

That's the great thing about being free from a cult; you don't have to KNOW, you only have to engage other intelligent, free thinking people into examining the construct/theory (whatever) to see where it goes from there and how it helps )or detracts) from the always mutable, ever growing field of knowledge and understanding.

It's an open-ended system, which is of course why cult members are programmed to fear it. After all, their systems were shut down two thousand years ago.

How? Did I say "This is absolutely true. Accept it or burn eternally in Hell?"

In a colloquial sense only, which is why I took such great pains to clearly delineate that fact.

In a cult context, however, as your post clearly demonstrates, precisely the opposite is the case, because I am not describing what a soul is; I am seeking to destroy the entire concept of a "soul" from a cult context and correcting for all of the cult programming.

No, it is not. The "soul" (in a cult context) is a magical spirit-being that a mystical, ineffable, necessarily incomprehensible fairy god king controls and created and which "he" can destroy if you do not do as "he" says (aka, what the cult tells you "he" says), which is nothing more than an intellectual/emotional club cult members are beaten into submission with.

No, he wasn't, because he said that your "soul" was created as a means to punish or reward you in death by a vengeful, genocidal, "all loving," aka, logically inconsistent being that does not and could not exist.

And this particular MOL told his audience this in order to make them subservient to the Romans, aka, any elite, controlling authority, with such sophisms as "turn the other cheek" when any such Authority strikes you because you should only fear that which can destroy your soul in hell; aka, me and by extension my fellow cult members.

Fear me and let Authority do whatever it wants to. Render unto Caesar that which is yours, because you are sheep and sheep are to be shorn, bludgeoned and eaten by the ruling elite.

Only if you want your 3 year old daughter to grow up with an intelligent, inquisitive mind.

The reason you aren't understanding what I'm talking about is because you think Jesus/Paul told the truth, which they did not.

The used part of "the truth" to tell ultimate lies, so in your analogy, you're suggesting I tell my 3 year old daughter that babies come from an all loving, all knowing, all seeing, invisible Father who will punish her eternally if she doesn't believe what I'm telling her to be "the truth."

Good night, honey! God loves you and will destroy your soul in hell. Nighty night!

No, I'm not. I'm positing what consciousness is; the self, not the "soul."

The word "soul" (as I explained before) is too contextually charged to be useful in anything other than a colloquial sense. It implies a spiritual being that is like some sort of ethereal carbon copy of us; software that God boots up only to then eject and either put on his shelf or burn in his incinerator.

True. But if you pointed to a human being and said, "A magical fairy god king created being, animated with something called a 'soul' that the king removes at will and either throws into a lake of fire to suffer eternally for not obeying him or gives wings and a harp for it to sing his glory for all eternity" then you would be lying (or, more appropriately, heinously deluded).

No, I was not "wrong," since that wasn't the entirety of the lie, you just conveniently redacted that part.

What? No, he would have to be saying something that he knows is false or couldn't possibly know to be true and when questioned, threatens the questioner with heinous punishment for not accepting what he says to be true with the addendum, "I know this to be true because God told me it was true."

For the ten billionth time, fictional creatures from ancient mythology cannot tell anyone anything, so if someone believes they are telling the truth, then yes, you can't say that they are lying, which is why I qualified all of this by saying Jesus/Paul/Creators of the cult.

The creators of a cult know they are lying, even if they ultimately delude themselves as much as they have deluded their followers.

This is, however, a trivial and pointless observation, so I'll just grant it and move on. People who believe they are telling the truth cannot necessarily be said to be lying.

Happy?

Fine. Granted.

Only the person who created the lie and those who know it to be a lie would be the liars, all right?

My mistake was in not clearly defining that, though I suppose an argument could be made that anyone who inculcates others into believing a lie because they in turn believe a lie are all guilty of lying to themselves, the point is trivial.

The snake oil salesmen are the creators of the lies, i.e., Jesus/Paul/Mark/Whoever created the christian myths. Happy?

No. To be a snake oil salesman, you have to know you are selling a lie, granted.

However, I will addend that once the snake oil has been revealed for what it is and the salesmen who didn't know they were selling watered down whiskey, snake venom and urine--as difficult as that would be to accept considering they're the ones who mix it all up and sell it and live with it and see the detrimental effects it has on people--unless they truly are so deeply deluded should never sell the stuff again.

Qualified enough?

False. Deconstruct the dogma and you see that the doctrines state that an individual human is born worthless and in sin; that they know nothing and never can know anything, for wisdom is foolish.

They are taught repeatedly that their suffering in this life will be rewarded in the next and that if they believe "as a child would" they will be saved once they are dead, thus conditioning them to except their living fate with humility and inaction against their oppressors.

They are taught that they should love their neighbor as they love themselves, yet also told that they are full of sin and hubris and self-glorification in God's eyes, which in turn results in them actually loving their neighbors precisely as they love themselves, which is to say, horrifically for the vast majority, particularly those who do not share their beliefs.

They are told to never do as the hypocrites do and pray to their savior in private at the same time they are told to spread the message and do as the hypocrites do.

They are told that works and deeds and fervent belief will get them into heaven and that nothing they do will get them into heaven.

They are told that what they do unto the least of their brothers so they do unto God at the same time they are told that God is separate from them and only reveals himself to a select few; that he is all powerful and vengeful in his infinite love and goodness.

They are told that their savior is a god of peace and love and infinite mercy who comes with a sword and that their souls will go to heaven when they die, unless they are thrown into the lake of fire to burn for all eternity.

They are told he is "Justice" when it is abundantly clear that he is not.

In short, they are told so many contradictory and mutually exclusive lies that they have no real idea at any given moment just exactly what it is they believe in (which is why there are some 20,000 divergent sects throughout the world), except for the anchor/mantra, "Jesus Christ," yet they have no clue who or what this thing truly is; Father, Son, Holy Ghost; a Son of god that is also the Father who came to earth to be sacrificed to himself so that we could all be saved from himself.

It's called cognitive dissonance and it is deliberate, no question about that, so someone at some point was lying for the express purpose of controlling the minds of ignorant, innocent, superstitious people.

Strawman. Throw a rock anywhere in the Bible Belt and you hit one of 'em.

Better still, just lurk around these fora. Any Calvinist/Fundamentalist will do.

No, they don't. That's what your preacher obfuscates and uses to gloss over what the Bible says.

Oh, and of course my favorite that supports so nicely what I was getting at before about slave mentality to the ruling elite:

And here's a little veiled threat about seeking knowledge:

And just for the hell of it (couldn't resist) a little bit about suffering that serves nicely to illustrate several of my points about how fear and suffering is used as a means to manipulate and control and condition:

Fear is replete throughout the book just as "do not be afraid" is--like injecting the poison so that you can control through the antidote--and they are used as tools of manipulation:

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to go back to the OT to make my point since Jesus didn't care about it and based nothing upon it other than, of course, to assuage everything set up in it, thereby representing the antidote to the poison.

Of course, there is Mary's song:

And let's not forget how fear is used later in Luke:

And of course, my all time favorite from Luke:

Start cross-quoting all you want, but nothing tops this one and it will only reinforce my points, not counter them.

Fear and the removal of fear is used in exactly the same way that a master of torture first breaks the man of any external/internal allegiances. The removal of fear serves to bind the broken man to his torturer, so that he gives them (of his own free will) his allegiance, or hadn't you read Orwell's 1984 yet?

Talk about a strawman. My "argument" in this regard was largely drawn out by you and had little to nothing to do with my theory, other than in my desire to reconcile the mythology of cult mentality; to cull from those myths any possible truths and how those truths might lead us to a better understanding of who and what we are in an intelligent manner, not based on fear and inculcation.

Really? Let's test that. Shout out at the top of your lungs with all of the anger you can possibly muster (with nobody around you, if you like), "My God is a child murderer! I rebuke Him and defile His holy name for all eternity!"

Yes, I know, which only proves my point about the effectiveness of cognitive dissonance, because without original sin, there is no purpose for Jesus' death.

Don't "believe" in original sin and you don't believe Jesus died for the stated purpose he died for.

You're actually demonstrating exactly what lead me initially to my theory; the fact that you can selectively discard things you know to be untrue, yet retain other things that are equally untrue, just not as obvious in your eyes.

Why stop with original sin? I'm sure you don't believe the earth is six thousand years old, or that God created Adam out of dirt and Eve out his rib (or even in a literal Adam and Eve) even though, according to the bible, Jesus did believe these things, so, I should thank you rather than provoke you.

You're right. You are living proof, but, with everything else so far about your posts, living proof in favor of my theory, you just haven't peeled enough layers off; haven't "burrowed deep" enough down to really get at the truth the way I contend my theory does.

At least more so than what you have so far been able to do. Think of it this way (I do): we're both peeling an onion; you've only removed the first two or three layers, I'm at two or three layers from the center.

All warrior-deity cults--which are the predominant, most active, most popular cults in this world--follow this same formula.

In fact, I can think of no cult that doesn't use fear and the destruction of the self as a necessary precursor to the cult/savior stepping in to rebuild that self into "cult self."

Can you? Buddhism, I suppose, but they have no deity in the same way as Judeo/Christian, Muslim and Islamic cults.

At the same time he told you that God only knows and nothing you do or think or practice or preach ultimately means anything to God or guarantees you salvation--other than belief--while also telling you to live this "quality" life in his footsteps, giving up all that you are and believe in and own, etc., etc.

Right, which is why Jesus said:

It makes perfect sense. Love is hate and hate is love and one must first hate in order to love and you cannot love without hating and black is white.

Yes, actually, it is as the many quote bombs I dropped readily demonstrate.

Want some more? We can literally do this all day. You, of course, will present only those quotes that you have personally decided you will believe in, right?

\

Wow.

Ummm...no, but God does...including the unintended pregnancy, at least from Mary's perspective.

You mean strength like this...?

Or were you referring to strength such as this...?

What comfort to know that God will destroy the enemies of righteousness, eh? Like those damned Jews that are God's chosen people, of which Jesus was their Messiah?

But what was it they had done that Paul was so distraught about? "Blameless?"

What a shock that people who are conditioned to fear God at the same time they are conditioned to turn to God for help would do precisely what their conditioning mandated.



You don't fear the dark anymore because you turned on a light. Think about that for ten seconds--and not metaphorically for once in your life--and perhaps you'll see my point.

I see. So, granting your assertion (which I don't, by the way, but for the sake of argument), you are saying that lies are the best way to go when someone comes to you for comfort.

How very christian of you.

Not at all. They center on the malicious intent that is so clearly evident even in the most heavily veiled obfuscations.

No, actually they don't. It is a question of ultimate good outweighing ultimate bad, not whether or not some good can be found within and in spite of an ultimately detrimental institution.

There were "good" Nazis just as there are "good" KKK members and even "good" politicians, but that doesn't exonerate what the Institutions as a whole do.

As before and always, Hate the sin, not the sinner.

The flipside to that in this context, by the way, would be, Praise the sinner, not the sin.

And through their inaction, deprive society of their arguably necessary active participation and possibly vibrant, intelligent, breakthrough contribution!

You constantly contradict yourself; always offering the view that black is white and that is why I so desperately seek to eradicate such derailed thinking by seeking to reconcile the power and allure of cult belief with science.

Again, thereby removing themselves from otherwise vibrant participation and active participation in the betterment of all humanity, all because they have been programmed to think they have the answers and the rest of humanity is doomed to eternal damnation.

You could not prove my point more perfectly than you are here doing.

Yet you post here in an attempt--just in this thread alone--to dismiss a theory I have regarding the origins of consciousness that apparently threatens your beliefs.

As am I, believe it or not, so where does that get us?

I will take that wager and instruct you to turn on CNN at any given point to prove you wrong, especially these days with the removal of "under god" from the pledge of allegiance (which should be removed itself) and the endless Middle East debacles, which are entirely based ultimately on differences of religion (again, as Paul readily demonstrated above).

Just by being an American and carrying around money with "In God We Trust" you are proven wrong. You are an active participant in an organized religion, just as I am, every time you vote.

Categorically false. Even the simplest deconstruction of the doctrines (which you, by the way, selectively discard for no discernable reason) proves you are incorrect.

Again, it makes no difference if you are the most reformed member of the KKK, you're still a member of the KKK.

What is even worse, however, which you are apparently blind to, is those who call themselves members of the KKK but pretend that none of their shit stinks as a result, simply because they have never actively participated in a lynching and "in their hearts" do not believe that such action is what the doctrines of the KKK actually condone.

I WAS a christian; my parents are christian; my relatives are christian; in fact, one of my Aunts is a Born Again because she believed (and took no medication and saw no doctors) that she had been possessed by the Devil--Satan himself--for two years and the Lord finally saw fit to "drive him out."

I have first hand knowledge of everything I speak out against.

Again, precisely the opposite. The reason they believe what they believe is entirely scientific, you just have to know which discipline of science to look under.

Um, no, you might but "we" christians don't. As you went to such pains to point out earlier, it is the "soul" that goes to heaven; the spirit who then receives a new body, if you're Mormon, in heaven, but the earthly body stays buried in the ground.

And which "faith" would that be? Your own personal faith, where there is no original sin yet still a reason for Jesus' death on the cross, perhaps?

Who knows, who cares? There are over 20,000 disparate sects and none of them agree so to say that there is "a" faith is itself a baseless claim and we have gone so far from the topic by now that I'm sorry I brought any of this up to begin with.

Ummm...I'm not threatening you with eternal damnation?

"Belief" is for children.

That apparently scares the living shit out of you. Why? I have stated repeatedly that this is precisely what it is and detailed as best as I can what I base it upon.

Why would you fear an "unproven theory" (which is technically redundant, by the way) that I have freely granted repeatedly is little more than my own speculation based upon several different concepts?

What the hell are you talking about? I told you over and over again that this was a theory, an hypothesis that I am grappling with that I think addresses the issue of "where" and "how" consciousness, just not necessarily "whence" consciousness.

Have I put a gun to your head, either literally or metaphorically? Have I told you that if you do not believe what I say on faith alone that you will be thrown in a lake of fire for all eternity?

Have I told you to fear me, yes me, for my theory has the power to destroy both your body and your soul in hell?

Again, luvluv this post of yours is the absolute living proof of exactly the kinds of warped, detrimental mentality cult thinking instills, whether it was self-inflicted (as you claim) or not.

For all of the reasons posted here.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd rather discuss the incompleteness of my theory with anyone who does not strike out against it with so much fear.

Speaking of Shakespeare, "The Lady doth protest too much, methinks."

WJ

Well, pardon my lack of understanding skills, but could you possibly offer a thesis or synopsis of your argument? I mean, I understand all the cult mentality stuff and people problem stuff that exists in society, but beyond that I'm not sure I'm following your specific concern(s).

Maybe its a sort of question pertaining to the merits of knowing something without knowing everything. What I mean is that you seem to be saying that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, or something like that. Or, maybe there is this 'hang-up' about 'fear' and the abuses of it. And whether fear is natural and/or artificially induced via manipulation to create a sense of reverence and power. Or too, maybe you are saying that Christianity is based upon fear and authority for its controlling and convincing powers that otherwise people would not intrinsically possess the need for in their or as part of their own will or motivation to believe.

I think what needs to be explored first is what motivates human nature to become 'religious' and what is considered 'natural' in terms of the 'intrinsic' fear factor. I think for one, we would have to look back at James (the psychology of religion) again but am not sure you're prepared to go there.

(?)

Wali

Koyaanisqatsi

You go WJ. Take a position and make a point for once in your SecWeb existence and we'll see.

For the rest of us, but especially luvluv, here's a very telling comment you had made in your thread on <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000422&p=" target="_blank">Bias</a> that bears directly on control mechanisms in cults (particularly the christian cult):

You couldn't have proved my point regarding slave mentality more directly if you tried.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Typhon

Wal!

So you agree with me? Excellent!

What did happen to those two tenants, sound like the set up of a good joke, no? Haha, anyway.

1. No question that I do not seek relationship nodes with fellow other sapients based on primacy or even solely feeling. Indeed though, feeling is the sum output in many cases of relationship and loving human interactions which while not feeling per se, are nonetheless mixed with that crucial emotional node. Logic dictates as well that my maximum happiness is a balance of pleasure and practicality, and that is logical and reasonable for me to desire happiness and survival, hence, evolution! Perhaps we all need a whipping star?

2. Yes, you do see! Analytical reasoning is a great tool for explaining existence. It frees us, unlike the theist, who is confined by his own imposed limitations, as you are, no? With logic, you can set the rules of the game to function as the real game does, rather than blinding oneself to both the stakes and the outcome of events seen and unseen. No need to make one's self just *feel* better, one can actually affect meaningful, intelligent change! All feeling comes from a biological substrate as logic, so logic and feeling can both be understood and appreciated. One doesn't need to be an emotional ringmaster, running a circus of fears and insecurities to gain a full measure of success over feeling. It's easy! Like pie or pi, depending on how deeply one wishes to plumb the node interactions between logic and emotion.

Thank you, and I am glad you see my logic. Now we can agree, that you agree with me, yes? Let us then talk no more about feeling, as we've here established it has no bearing on our discussion.

Or perhaps you need more explanation of the readily understood to connect to this node?

Typhoon

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Still out there luvluv? You started this thread.

Explain to me how your own comment:

Is not a perfect example of specifically, in this case, christian cult control terminology?

Proxima Centauri

[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvluv:


PS. I can respect that you used the KKK as an analogy, but you ought to be sensitive enough that there are some analogies which are unnecessarily inflamatory and insulting. My family has had some run-ins with the KKK (at the business end of the noose). So those "analogies" have some teeth on them with me. You say that I should never again call you a bigot, I'll consider it if you never again refer to me as a member of the KKK.
________________________________________________

I'm an agnostic. I don't really like Christianity. Despite this I feel comparing the whole of Christianity to the KKK is unscientific as well as insulting.
The KKK is a relatively small group in the USA. They are in no way representative of Christian thinking worldwide. Those British Christians whom I know personally view Martin Luther King more favourably than the KKK.
Terrible things have been done in the former Soviet Union and other Communist countries in the name of, atheistic Marxism. Marxism is based on faith as much as are most theistic religions. Are we on the Secular Web who truely try to follow the scientific method representative of those unscientific Marxists?
Some try to blame all atheists, perhaps also agnostics for the harm done by Communism. They try to argue that we are all as bad as Communists. This is about as silly as blaming all Christians for the KKK.



[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: B.Shack ]

[Edited to shorten string of ______s which was stretching the browser window - Pantera]

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Or as silly as misunderstanding what the metaphor was used for as I clarified several times?

GunnerJ

*sigh* Another fallacy of extended analogy. Another person who can't tell the difference between an explanitory analogy and a direct comparison. So sad how reasoning skills have gone down the tubes.

luvluv

Rimstalker and Koy:

First, Rimstalker, I would say that your suggestion that the "source texts" establish the character of an institution to be somewhat flawed. I would say that source texts record the basic beliefs of a system as well as other extraneous material. I believe that the basic "core" Christian beliefs can be established with just a few documents (The Sermon on the mount, the prodigal son story, etc). Therefore, you would have to find control mechanisms at the core beliefs of an institution to insist that the institution is inherently controlling.

To that end, I suggest we limit our discussions to what we can all agree constitute the major beliefs of Christianity. We can establish these through discussion. I would claim that The book of Genesis, the prophets, and the Gospels (with specific emphasis on the parables of Jesus), The book of Romans (which establishes salvation through faith) and 1st Corinthian 14 (the love chapter) constitute the core beliefs of Christianity. I identify as extraneous anything which can be jettisoned without seriously affecting the core beliefs. I propose that the core beliefs are the existence of God, the existence of Christ (either as Messiah or God), the belief in the beatitudes, the belief in the doctrine of free redemption and remission of sins, the belief in heaven and hell. We can further sketch these out by negotiation. I'm not attempting to determine the outline of the argument.


I am proposing this because I can see us going on forever with the random quotes from every nook and cranny of the Bible and making completely subjective and arbitrary comments on "what Paul meant when he said" this passage or that passage. What that represents, at best, is one man's (Paul's) attempt to be controlling over one groupd of people (the Thessolonians). It does not establish that a belief in the core values of Christianity necessitates a controlling system (either psychological or hierarchical). Could I be a Christian if the book of Thessolonians was never written? Absolutely. Therefore whatever was written in the book of Thessolonians does not make Chrisitianity an inherently controlling religion (and I don't think there were attempts at control being made there. Your entire argument is highly subjective and it would get us nowhere.)

So for my part, Koy, I would like for you to begin by taking one or more of the major core belief statements of Christianity and explaining how one of the central theological or ethical beliefs is inherently controlling. (I've mentioned the Sermon on the mount, the prodigal son, and others, but you can pick whichever one you want. However, I hope you get to these at some point in your response).

As for your submission quotation, I think you misunderstand the doctrine. The Christian form Submission can only be given by a penitent to God. Submission is our free gift to Him. Submission is subject to the laws of free will: God will only require of me that submission which I am willing and able to give. He will not demand submission from me that I am not willing to relinquish or able to accomplish. The key aspect of the doctrine that you are perhaps not grasping is that most Christians want to submit their own desires to God. By desires, I mean impulses towards anger, ill-temper, selfishness, jealousy, insecurity, despair, lust, etc. Submission given to God is by extension submission rendered unto the whole human family. It is the Christian concept of servanthood. I am not a servant of a particular church or priest, but through God I am a servant of all mankind. My submission makes me give money, time, effort, and devotion that I want to keep away to humanity. In Matthew 25, Jesus explains this perfectly, that when we submit and feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, we have done Him a service. So submission as a concept is varied. It embodies my wilfull surrender to God to allow Him to help me change in the ways that I already want to by making me less self-centered and ultimately turning me outwards away from my selfish interests towards my fellow man. Submission is asking for God's power to do something that you could not do on your own: control the tendency to view yourself as the center of all value. This is the true definition of humility: not a low opinion of yourself, but an equal opinion of and appreciation for the value of all selves. (It has been said that humility is the one virtue that cannot be taught by atheism: if you don't have it coming in, you won't get it from there.)

By the way, Rimstalker, you could make a good argument from the original text documents of democracy that it is an exploitative, plutocratich, sexist, and racist. The constitution of the United States did not provide for the equal participation of women, blacks, or non-land holding whites. In fact, I am not aware of a single text that is central to democracy which made provision for the rights of blacks, women, or the poor. So since this is the case, and since democracies still demonstrate properties that are sexist, racist, and (especially) plutocratic, can we say that these are intrinsic properties of democracy?

It seems that in establishing whether a certain beliefs system is intrinsically bad we must ask whether or not that which is clearly bad about them can be removed without the belief system ceasing to be itself. I'd argue, in both the cases of Christianity and democracy, they can. An idea exists apart from it's execution and it's "central texts", both of which, for any human endeavor, will always be flawed. But behind both the texts and the execution the ideal exists in a form clear to everyone who holds the ideal dear and towards which it's adherants must aspire. It is that central ideal that must be judged. Anyone who is involved in anything (capitalism, communism, democracy, fascism, psychology, art) will tell you that there are serious flaws in both it's central texts and it's historical application. It does not follow that they are therefore inherently corrupt and subject to abolition, else we would have to eliminate virtually every human institution.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

luvluv

And can we please reformat this page?