Perversion of Liberty

[jaguarr]

I didn't know that the term "antiquated" is considered an insult nowadays, besides it's the truth, the morality mindset of christianity is after all 2000 years old if that's not antiquated I don't know what is.

Just keep it civil and from becoming personal, that's all I'm saying.

jag

 

[jaguarr]

Dude, we're individuals. Get use to that.

Unfortunately, this is not an attitude shared by most organized religions who's intent it is to convert as many people as possible to their way of thinking, JH. There's a lot to be said about "live and let live".

jag

 

[Sofa]

Unfortunately, this is not an attitude shared by most organized religions who's intent it is to convert as many people as possible to their way of thinking, JH. There's a lot to be said about "live and let live".

jag

Everyone is a hypocrite in that respect.
No one really goes about living while letting others live the way theyd like.
There's always something that we would like and usually attempt to change.

 

[Emrys]

Ooh, scary. Let me regain my composure. Okay, I'm good now.

Anyhow... last I checked, none of my friends have burnt any 'witches' at the stake. Last I checked, I haven't met anyone who killed someone for having a different belief. Somehow, the mistakes of people of the past equates the desires and crimes of us all? Then I'm assume that secular people all have the same mindset. I'm assuming that you support the idea of killing people for their beliefs or race? Heck you just threatened WW2 on me, so I assume that you think Hitler was a wonderful man with ingenious ideas. I'm assuming that you are like other secular dictators of the past who decided to take over the world, darn secularists. I suppose Jeffrey Dommer, or however you spell it, represents all people who do not worship God. Had any human rib lately? If you aren't represented by all the non-religious people in the world... why would I be represented by all other religious people of the world? Heck... I'm assuming that you believe all white people to be racist, and all black people to be poor and uneducated?

Dude, we're individuals. Get use to that.

Considering that non of the things you mentioned have one itoa to do with secularism I'd say that you missed the mark by a long shot. You may not like it but modern western civilization would not exist if it weren't for secularism, the western world is per definition secularist. Just like the united states by the way Just read the Treaty of Tripolis.

Besides secularism has nothing to do with Atheism. Secularism is the strict separation between church and state meaning that laws are made through rational thought processes instead of religios doctrine that's all there is to secularism. But I'm not surprised that a christian doesn't know that.

Oh and two historic facts, there was a period when christianity ruled the western world. It was an age of opression, war, famine, sickness without freedom or basic rights

There was/is an age where western civilization is ruled by secular principles and io and behold humanity is better off in all aspects,

I'd say 1:0 for secularism.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Even though religion and America are fundimentially linked.It..seems somewhat insulting to see,even if you are not an American.You have an ideal of the country,and to see it so different..it can not help but insult you.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Feel free to post quotes by these same people supporting God. They're out there too.

Yeah, I post those to address this silly idea that America was founded on Christianity.
Almost all the founding fathers were Deists which is contradictory to Christianity, but still involves a belief in a "God".
If anything the whole point was to have NO established religion in government, so how could America be founded on a religion.
Absurd. It's just ignorance.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Everyone is a hypocrite in that respect.
No one really goes about living while letting others live the way theyd like.
There's always something that we would like and usually attempt to change.

that's not being hypocritical. that's just being human. we affect each other. and that's a good thing. but you're still 'living and letting live'.

its when force and fiery judgement are delivered upon those who don't "submit" that the person becomes hypocritical.

 

[Sofa]

Fair enough. But more and more are we not seeing force and fiery judgement?

 

[Daisy]

Daisy, that may be the view of "liberal protestants", but it's not at all what's taught in the Bible.
Remember, Jesus stopped them from stoning the adulteress, but everyone always forgets that he told her to "Go forth and SIN NO MORE."

To "repent" doesn't mean to say "sorry."
It means "a turning away" from your old ways.
If you're, say, living with someone out of wedlock, you aren't a "Christian", despite the fact that you may use the label for yourself, because Jesus didn't "strongly suggest" that you shouldn't do that.
He forbade it.
He said that at the judgment many would claim to be his followers and call him Lord, but he would say "Depart from me. I never knew you."

Apparently many of those people will be "liberal protestants".

What makes your interpretation of the bible more authoritative than that of the scholars of the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. seminaries and theological schools?



On a side note regarding the F-word. Jesus never knew it, so he couldn't have forbade it. It was the common Saxon word for 'intercourse'. It wasn't until the Latinate Normans invaded England and decided the Germanic Saxon words were 'vulgar' that it (and other words like 'S***') became 'inappropriate'. Therefore, the F-word, is culturally defined. It's only do to the vagaraties of war and politics that it became a vulgarity.

 

[jaguarr]

Everyone is a hypocrite in that respect.
No one really goes about living while letting others live the way theyd like.
There's always something that we would like and usually attempt to change.

I disagree. Many people just want to live their lives in their own way, unbothered by those who would have them come over to their way of thinking and living. Unfortunately, because of people pushing their ideals on everyone else, there will certainly always be ongoing battles to protect what some people view as their rights (a great many of which are protected by the Constitution here in the U.S.). However, you don't see me out there trying to convert Christians to agnosticism, do you? And yet they show up on my doorstep nearly every Saturday morning trying to convert me.

jag

 

[JewishHobbit]

Unfortunately, this is not an attitude shared by most organized religions who's intent it is to convert as many people as possible to their way of thinking, JH. There's a lot to be said about "live and let live".

jag

Thinks of it from the christian's point of views. They believe and love God. They believe in heaven and they believe in hell. They also believe that people who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell if they choose not to believe. So then, is it good for them to ignore these people and allow them to continue in their ways and go to hell when they could do something about it? Whether you believe as the christians do or not, wouldn't it be worse for them to just let the nonebelievers go about their way, when they know their ultimate end? Wouldn't it be good for them to try and show them the better way into heaven?

Me personally, I try my best to respect everyone's opinions and beliefs. For example, I use to have a really good muslim friend. I respected her beliefs, but if religion came up, we debated and I tried to get her to understand my side of the story, and she did the same. Why did I try to convert her? It wasn't to 'prove that I was right' or to 'gain power', but because I cared about her and wanted her to be in heaven with me.

Wouldn't it be wrong for an individual to allow someone to do something bad if they can prevent it? That's the situation with christians. It'd be horrible for them NOT to try and convert people. If they left people alone, then in their minds they'd just be letting them go to hell on their own.

Just food for thought in a rambling fashion.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Daisy, that may be the view of "liberal protestants", but it's not at all what's taught in the Bible.

the bible doesn't "teach" anything.
its a book.

PEOPLE teach things that they INTERPRET from the bible.



(often poorly.)

 

[Daisy]

I didn't know that the term "antiquated" is considered an insult nowadays, besides it's the truth, the morality mindset of christianity is after all 2000 years old if that's not antiquated I don't know what is.

Not all Christianity... just the ones that make the nightly news.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

the bible doesn't "teach" anything.
its a book.

PEOPLE teach things that they INTERPRET from the bible.



(often poorly.)

Our only knowledge of Jesus comes from the Bible.
In the Bible's accounts, Jesus taught ALL the time. Sometimes with parables, sometimes directly.
You either believe the records of Jesus teachings (that would make you a "Christian") or you don't.

 

[Sofa]

I disagree. Many people just want to live their lives in their own way, unbothered by those who would have them come over to their way of thinking and living. Unfortunately, because of people pushing their ideals on everyone else, there will certainly always be ongoing battles to protect what some people view as their rights (a great many of which are protected by the Constitution here in the U.S.). However, you don't see me out there trying to convert Christians to agnosticism, do you? And yet they show up on my doorstep nearly every Saturday morning trying to convert me.

jag

Yes, but those who want to live their lives unbothered cannot. And that is the frustrating aspect.

I disagree with those who go door to door, i disagree with any form of solicitation or converting.

I guess part of the fact that im not religious may be adding to my frustration.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Fair enough. But more and more are we not seeing force and fiery judgement?

indeed we are. and it really friggin sucks, doesn't it?

 

[JewishHobbit]

Considering that non of the things you mentioned have one itoa to do with secularism I'd say that you missed the mark by a long shot. You may not like it but modern western civilization would not exist if it weren't for secularism, the western world is per definition secularist. Just like the united states by the way Just read the Treaty of Tripolis.

Besides secularism has nothing to do with Atheism. Secularism is the strict separation between church and state meaning that laws are made through rational thought processes instead of religios doctrine that's all there is to secularism. But I'm not surprised that a christian doesn't know that.

I like how you dodged the point of the post. And don't say that you couldn't find it, because though my analogies weren't great (I've always sucked at them), the point was clear. Funny enough, you even proved my point with your whole post.

Oh and two historic facts, there was a period when christianity ruled the western world. It was an age of opression, war, famine, sickness without freedom or basic rights

There was/is an age where western civilization is ruled by secular principles and io and behold humanity is better off in all aspects,

I'd say 1:0 for secularism.

Good for you. I don't want to rule the world.

 

[Sofa]

indeed we are. and it really friggin sucks, doesn't it?

yes sir, it does.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Our only knowledge of Jesus comes from the Bible.
In the Bible's accounts, Jesus taught ALL the time. Sometimes with parables, sometimes directly.
You either believe the records of Jesus teachings (that would make you a "Christian") or you don't.

i disagree...ANY time you READ anything you INTERPRET it, right? thats how reading WORKS, isn't it? And you can decide how literally or metaphorically, how universally or intimately you want to take it.

i don't usually cop to binary "you believe it or you don't" ultimatums.
binarism is too artificial for me.

 

[Emrys]

Thinks of it from the christian's point of views. They believe and love God. They believe in heaven and they believe in hell. They also believe that people who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell if they choose not to believe. So then, is it good for them to ignore these people and allow them to continue in their ways and go to hell when they could do something about it? Whether you believe as the christians do or not, wouldn't it be worse for them to just let the nonebelievers go about their way, when they know their ultimate end? Wouldn't it be good for them to try and show them the better way into heaven?

Me personally, I try my best to respect everyone's opinions and beliefs. For example, I use to have a really good muslim friend. I respected her beliefs, but if religion came up, we debated and I tried to get her to understand my side of the story, and she did the same. Why did I try to convert her? It wasn't to 'prove that I was right' or to 'gain power', but because I cared about her and wanted her to be in heaven with me.

Wouldn't it be wrong for an individual to allow someone to do something bad if they can prevent it? That's the situation with christians. It'd be horrible for them NOT to try and convert people. If they left people alone, then in their minds they'd just be letting them go to hell on their own.

Just food for thought in a rambling fashion.

It's one thing to tell about those things it's another to force people to follow because christians encode their morality into law. If tomorrow a law would be introduced that would forbid me to have sex out of wedlock I would ignore it no matter the consequences it's my decision to make not the one of the law makers or the biggest religion.

And as things are currently going the christian half of america behaves more like the taliban than informed enlightened people of the western world.

 

[Daisy]

Our only knowledge of Jesus comes from the Bible.
In the Bible's accounts, Jesus taught ALL the time. Sometimes with parables, sometimes directly.
You either believe the records of Jesus teachings (that would make you a "Christian") or you don't.

You still interpret his teachings.

You also may choose the recognize that Jesus was teaching in a particular context, to people in a particular place, with a particular culture, history, etc., at a particular time. What was relevent to them, or lessons presented in a way that made sense to them, may not to us.

And that doesn't even begin to get into the who issue of translations and copies (which as far as we know is all we have - there are no 'original' documents). Then again, there may be, and the gospels may not have actually been written by those to whom they are attributed - and therefore may not be first-hand accounts of Christ's teachings at all.

 

[jaguarr]

Thinks of it from the christian's point of views. They believe and love God. They believe in heaven and they believe in hell. They also believe that people who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell if they choose not to believe. So then, is it good for them to ignore these people and allow them to continue in their ways and go to hell when they could do something about it? Whether you believe as the christians do or not, wouldn't it be worse for them to just let the nonebelievers go about their way, when they know their ultimate end? Wouldn't it be good for them to try and show them the better way into heaven?

Me personally, I try my best to respect everyone's opinions and beliefs. For example, I use to have a really good muslim friend. I respected her beliefs, but if religion came up, we debated and I tried to get her to understand my side of the story, and she did the same. Why did I try to convert her? It wasn't to 'prove that I was right' or to 'gain power', but because I cared about her and wanted her to be in heaven with me.

Wouldn't it be wrong for an individual to allow someone to do something bad if they can prevent it? That's the situation with christians. It'd be horrible for them NOT to try and convert people. If they left people alone, then in their minds they'd just be letting them go to hell on their own.

Just food for thought in a rambling fashion.

If people say they aren't interested and don't want to hear about it, yet the attempts to convert them persist, then YES, it's wrong and disrespectful of someone's right to believe what they want to believe.

And organized religion throughout history has always been about power and control. Power and control by the church leaders over their congregations thoughts and actions (and often times, their financial and real estate holdings).

Back to the topic at hand regarding this statue, which is obviously meant to spite secular America, I find it ironic that some Christians will jump to defend it as something that honors God and try to validate it when I know full well the moment I post a picture of Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ" they will freak out about it and decry it as an affront on their beliefs. The Jesus Of Liberty statue is an affront on my beliefs about freedom and what America is about, and yet I support their right to erect that statue. When Maplethorpe showed "Piss Christ" to the world, Christians were up in arms about it (which really just proved the point he was trying to make to begin with). The hypocrisy is intoxicating.

jag

 

[Addendum]

I'm in no way threatened by people who believe in some god-claim from the bible.

The statue means nothing to me, since I've no reason to believe in a god-claim

 

[cass]

Don't I know it! Part of the problem is that many of these people don't actually, um...READ.


"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."


"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world." "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D. Cardi - John Adams

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln

"He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard." - Benjamin Franklin

"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” - George Washington



​

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

And then there's the counterpart.

 

[Sofa]

i disagree...ANY time you READ anything you INTERPRET it, right? thats how reading WORKS, isn't it? And you can decide how literally or metaphorically, how universally or intimately you want to take it.

You're right.
What Jesus "said" in the bible may not really have been said by Jesus at all.

But in that case Wilhelm-Scream can interpret Jesus's speeches as real, could he not?