[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The "Who is God?" Tirade



>Mark,
>
>maybe living in the Bible Belt - certainly one of the worst places of religious
>intolerance in the western hemisphere - has somehow influenced your point of
>view towards religion in general and Christian believes in particular.  But
>even if I consider this background of yours, I can hardly believe that an
>intelligent being like you can publicly write such mindless and hateful
>statements like you did.

Bernd:

I'm also not in any way trying to attack you or your choice of religion.
Don't take it personally.
Of course, I AM in the Bible Belt and therefore must have been
influenced...but not in a bad way. I sought and found. You, of course, have
a right not to agree or even particularly like what I've found...but
"mindless" might be a bit strong and not at all accurate. Especially since I
can defend every statement I've made.
Oh yeah, and I only hate individuals, not religions.

>Remember that I do not want to promote any form of belief, but I am willing to
>defend my and other people's religious background against nonsense like you
>spread recently.

Nonsense it also it is not. Observations...that is more like it. And I also
reserve the right to defend myself against a group whose stated purpose is
to bring all mankind into the "fold," which historically they've done by
force when the people are unwilling. Which they are doing at this very
moment in this country, by inflicting their beliefs on us all as law.

>Mark, no religion possesses an objective truth because all statements about
>supernatural beings, life after death, etc. are in no ways provable.  (I know
>that there have been many attempts to prove the existence of God, but none of
>them can withstand a sceptical logic.)  Religions can only offer consistent
>teachings about supernatural matters, nothing more.  It is up to you whether to
>believe them or to doubt.

Oh, yes...I know this. But they CLAIM to have the truth, and also that all
other beliefs are NOT truth...therefore it is indeed the standard to hold
them too.

>So, if some official or some follower of a religion claims to know the `truth'
>when speaking to a non-believer, then he/she is either a) naive or b) a blind
>fanatic.  If you have encountered such preachers of truth all too often in your
>life, then I feel sorry for you, but this bad experience doesn't give you the
>right to generalize and to attack all followers of certain believes at once.

In fact, the Xtian religion claims to be THE truth. By its very nature. And
yes, they do claim to have the one and only answer. In fact, in the `70s
there was a popular slogan: One Way. As in "one and only one."

>As for the word `gospel':  I think everybody knows that it means `good spell'
>which is supposed to be a translation of Latin `evangelium' (or better: Greek
>`eu-angelion').  The ethymological legend that `gospel' = `God's spell' is
>again an issue of the narrow-minded brains of your preachers of truth.

Here's the exact meaning according to the Random House dictionary:

1) the teachings of Jesus and the apostles 2) any of the first four books of
the new testament 3) something regarded as true and implicitly believed 4)
pertaining to or proclaiming the gospel or its teachings.

Nothing about "good spells" or "God's Spell" at all. This is the meaning
here...perhaps you have another there. I can only go by what I've been able
to work with. I've never seen any evidence that the Catholic Church is any
different abroad.
Now perhaps the word came from these things...but just as I said before, the
form was changed and NOW its meaning has been twisted and corrupted.
You could also say that the word "God" came from "good" and "Devil" from "evil."

>If there really were only one truth and only one way to express it, then you
>might argue that changes of religious rites (or dilutions, as you put it),
>lessen the value of the religion in question.  But this isn't the case.  There
>are many ways to express the same teachings, and even if also the teachings
>differ somehow, they still can refer to the same spiritual value.

While I might agree with that, I can tell you right now that you'd get in
big trouble telling an American preacher that. I did say, as you will
recall, that there are many paths to God. He/she/it would make it easy.

>Thus, a change of rite will never make a religion null and void, unless perhaps
>for fanatic followers or fanatic enemies of that religion.

Given your interpretation, but that is NOT the one practiced here. It's hard
to believe (given the historical evidence I've seen, coupled with the
attitude of the Pope when he speaks here) that the Xtians over there hold
such varying views. I do know that Xtians inflicted their views upon my
people American Indians), and killed the ones who wouldn't accept them...as
well as killing a lot who did. How nice.

>A change of rite isn't a lie at all.  It is only a new convention, nothing
>else.  No one ever claimed that every Christian rite was invented by Christians
>- quite the contrary.  Hence, detecting similarities to other religions or even
>tracing back certain elements of rite to them doesn't affect the value of
>Christian belief at all.  It is interesting to know, yes, but not of any
>importance.

I DO think that if you mislabel something, and also mispractice it, it
changes meaning...and therefore is no longer the thing it was to be. Take
the word "gospel," for instance...

>`Truth' is perhaps the words some idiots in the Bible Belt use way to often.
>It should be handled with care when comparing different religions.

Not just by the BB people. The entire country, and as far as I know the
entire Xtian world.

>You are completely wrong, perhaps because you have missed the word
>`inevitable'.  No one tells you not to make use of your umbrella only because
>the rain is God's will.  Quite the contrary, you are obliged to avoid all
>unnecessary suffering, and to defend yourself and your family if possible.  But
>once you have no chance to escape an evil, then - according to the philosphy
>mentioned above - you should bear it with grace. 

"Turn the other cheek" is the philosophy of sheep. I make no apology for
being a predator; I was built that way. So were you. We were built to strive
forward, in order to survive as a race. This much is obvious....so any
denial of it is contra-survival, and therefore not the method the Creator
intended. I DO believe that I was made this way on purpose. There is a
divine plan. And it does not involve denying what humans are. In fact,
denying that retards spiritual growth. Do you not find it strange that
Xtians haven't progressed any on the spirital ladder in 2000 years?
Think about this: if I were to act according to those teachings, then I
would still be miserable at my old job, unable to go to MSG to see The Who
(this time of year...they'd have a heart attack), making life terrible for
my family...secure in the belief that I would be "repaid" in the afterlife.
Whereas now I'm happy, going forward, my family is happier, and I'm going to
see QUAD live and maybe even meet you there.

>I agree with you that there have been a lot of misinterpretations of the
>philosophy mentioned above in Christian history.  I will tell you the story of
>the most prominent example:  By interpreting the letters of Apostle Paul too
>literally, Luther indeed taught that you have to obey secular authorities no
>matter what.

And the odds are that had the Xtians not been wrestling with their faith,
they would have gotten Hitler. And saved (at least) 6 million people. Had
they gone with their first instinct...but they didn't.
Of course, Hitler claimed to be an Xtian too...lots of people do, including
the Pope who sent the kids off on the Children's Crusade. How many wars and
how many people have been killed in the name of Xtianity? How many more must
die? Ask someone in Northern Ireland...

>The answer to your question is no.  If your government makes nonsense, show
>resistence.  Show legal resistence as long as the government itself doesn't
>behave illegally.  In extreme cases like described above, kill your tyrants.
>But if you don't have a chance to withstand your government's injustice, then
>bear it with grace.

Since the government has the power to define illegal behavior, this argument
has no meaning. Sorry.
Do you find it strange that the Xtians (at least over here) will not
tolerate abortion but are for the death penalty? I do. You may not have
heard, but a member of an Xtian group killed an abortion clinc doctor...and
when taken to jail, he asked for the Bible. The group also condoned his
actions (since abortion is legal, his actions were not) AND said it was
justified because it saved lives.

>Total misinterpretation of yours.  When you are a helpless victim of torture
>and get slapped in the face, turn the other cheek.  Don't curse your torturer
>but trust in a higher justice than the secular one.  That's it.

I think you might be getting a bit specific here. I don't remember anything
about "only while getting tortured" in there. I'd say what was meant by
"turn the other cheek" was: "Take it and don't fight back. Vengence is mine..."
Now it appears (and I'm not accusing you of it, but the appearance is
certainly there) that you are interpreting the Word. That's got to be a
dangerous thing to do...*I* wouldn't do it. I'm taking it all at its literal
meaning.

>> The Universal Mind gave us instincts and the means to survive. And the Xtian
>> faith says to deny these things.
>
>Not at all.  Only to handle them with care, because sometimes they might be
>mistaken.

You're missing my point. A man's instinct tells him (for instance) that he
should impregnate as many women as he can. Of course, having sex with
someone you aren't married to is a sin...so there you are. A basic
difference that cannot be reconciled.
Of course, there IS that pesky line about being fruitful and multiplying...
There are many other examples, as I'm sure you can figure out easily enough.
All that it takes is a simple examination of a human's reactions to a situation.
You know, you should read Letters From Earth by Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens. I
think you'd find it insightful, as well as damned amusing.

>Firstly, Christianity has three main holidays, the third one being Whitsunday.

Uh...we don't have that one here. I wonder if you mean Ash Wednesday. When
is this Whitsunday? It must be called something else here.

>So, if your whole tirade against Christianity is based only on Christmas
>trees in and Easter fires in front of churches, then it really is a poor one.

No, those were only obvious and easy targets. It goes a LOT deeper, and
unless it's celebrated quite differently over there, I think you already know.

>> Here's an easy one for you: proof of evolution (which is denied by the Xtian
>> faith).
>
>Nonsense.  Most Christian denominations accept the results and the reasonable
>theories of modern science.  Science doesn't affect religion at all, because
>the two of them are dealing with completely different subjects:  Science deals
>with matter whereas religion cares for the welfare of human souls.

Ha!! Not here! The Xtians are fighting (and some are winning, like in
Georgia) to teach Creation in school as science! They competely deny
evolution, and claim the Earth is MUCH younger than it has been proven to be.
Understand what I'm saying here: I have nothing against it being taught as
philosophy or theology...but they're teaching it as science. Talk about
being "blinded with science!"
I can see science being accepted in Germany, though. It only makes sense.
You guys are so realistic.

>Time for you to meet some open-minded Christians.  Here is one.

Bernd, I'm glad you're open minded. So am I. And believe me, there was a
time when I believed in that stuff. I was a Jesus Freak for a week, as I
like to say. I wore the little dress thing and carried a cross up to the
pulpit, and lit the candles, and all of that. But further study began to
point out the obvious flaws...and then as I got deeper, I found evidence
that proved that some things that are totally at odds with Xtianity were
undeniably true. Without getting into a really long note, and for the sake
of letting you find your own path in the proper manner, let me just tell you
that it's been proven to me without any doubt. Against my will, you might
say...since I resisted the logic to the end. It's not comfortable to have
your beliefs shattered...but in the end, I couldn't deny what I couldn't
deny and stay honest.
Tell me this: what do you make of the findings of the Jesuits, who found
Genesis to be an ancient play? The Jesuits are no pikers, you know. And why
are the Dead Sea Scrolls hidden away in the Vatican, not to be seen by the
public? And why do they store such riches beyond the thought of man while
people are starving?
Here's a little parable/joke to lighten this discussion:

A guy dies and goes to heaven. St. Peter meets him at the gate, and says:
"Come in, I'll show you around. Over here we have the Muslems, those are the
Buddists over there, that group is the Hare Kristnas..."
After a while, the guy asks: "Who are those people behind that big wall?"
St. Peter shushes him, and replies: "They are the Xtians. They think they're
the only ones here."

Uh, yeah...that speaks volumes...



                   Cheers                   ML

"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
                                                                 Pete Townshend