The greatest irony...

Quote:

I would think that a proper definition of Christian would be a prerequisite for such a statement. There were no Christians in the Old Testament.

I would think that the same, perhaps, could be said for those who call themselves Republicans. See how silly it is?

I don't care about the old or the new testament. I am talking about christianity, the religion that was founded years after the supposed death of jesus. The religion that was used to rule europe through lies and terror for hundreds of years and right up to our day and age. The religion that sought to abolish free thought and burnt the books of free thinking europeans, forced them to take back their heretical findings, such as that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. The religion that was responsible for the burning of witches, the torture of infidels, the crusades and countless other horrors, all in the name of jesus and god.

If I said I was a nazi most people would assume that I support what hitler did in WW2. Why shouldn't it be the same with christianity?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

If I said I was a nazi most people would assume that I support what hitler did in WW2. Why shouldn't it be the same with christianity?

Then if one says he is a Christian, it should be assumed he supports the teachings of Christ, not of Joe and Bill who also claimed to be Christians.

If you said you were a Nazi, should I assume that you support what Dietrich B , who was also a Nazi , did?

Well, you would say, it depends on what Dietrich B did. Did he follow the Nazi philosophy and put it into action?

If I say I am a Christian, it would be silly for you to say, 'ah then I assume that everything Suzy M, ( my neighbor who also says she is a Christian) does, you will then approve of?

You are trying to confound the concept of 'association' with the concept of 'authority'. It's a classic bait and switch that you are engaged in.

0 Replies

What real life said

0 Replies

read my post again and stop quacking like idiots.

0 Replies

I read it again. Reads the same the second time.

Quack.

Again....what RL said.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
If I said I was a nazi most people would assume that I support what hitler did in WW2. Why shouldn't it be the same with christianity?

Then if one says he is a Christian, it should be assumed he supports the teachings of Christ, not of Joe and Bill who also claimed to be Christians.

If you said you were a Nazi, should I assume that you support what Dietrich B , who was also a Nazi , did?

Well, you would say, it depends on what Dietrich B did. Did he follow the Nazi philosophy and put it into action?

If I say I am a Christian, it would be silly for you to say, 'ah then I assume that everything Suzy M, ( my neighbor who also says she is a Christian) does, you will then approve of?

You are trying to confound the concept of 'association' with the concept of 'authority'. It's a classic bait and switch that you are engaged in.
read my post again and stop quacking like idiots

This bait and switch on the part of Cyracuz shouldn't surprise , I suppose. It was he who gave this definition of the function of language:

Cyracuz wrote:

(Language) serves to strengthen illusions we retain so that we can continue to believe in our lies.

His Orwellian twisting of language is , in his mind, not his fault.

That's just the way language operates. It's inherently deceitful.

Classic liberalism. Nothing is ever the fault of the individual. All problems are systemic. The individual is but a cog trapped in the machine.

0 Replies

Hi Cyr,

Funnily enough, I side with the Christians on this one. The acts of terror of early christianity (that is mostly the Roman version of Christianity), aren't justified by the bible.

Jesus when asked which is the Greatest commandment, mentioned the Golden Rule - love your neighbour as yourself - which by the way is a spiritual quest, which the Eastern Mystics / Buddha having come closest to it (as far as I can tell - I only have a very basic knowledge of what a mystic is). Doh, back on track...as everything should be filtered through that lens, and as the disciples did not use bloodshed to spread the word, and as Jesus showed great tolerance especially with 'sinners', it should be patently obvious that any christian killing in the name of God is not actually practicing christianity - even though they professed belief and used the name.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Classic liberalism. Nothing is ever the fault of the individual. All problems are systemic. The individual is but a cog trapped in the machine.

Nonsense propaganda.

If conservatives were all about individual accountability, Bush would have resigned, instead of sending others to the firing squad.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

Funnily enough, I side with the Christians on this one. The acts of terror of early christianity (that is mostly the Roman version of Christianity), aren't justified by the bible.

I haven't mentioned the bible in this case.

My point is simply this:
Nazism today is associated with the wicked acts of the nazis of ww2.

Communism is associated with the tyrrany of old russia.

But christianity isn't associated with the cruelties of said religion. There is an inconsistency here.

What started this rot with rl and intrepid huffing and puffing their nonsense was the remark that I cannot understand why someone would want to associate their spiritual quest with centuries of bloodshed, oppression and lies, by naming it after the religion that was responsible for it all.

I guess there is a pick and chose mentality to christianity which we all are supposed to respect that doesn't apply to any other ideologies. Why the special treatment?

0 Replies

Quote:

But christianity isn't associated with the cruelties of said religion. There is an inconsistency here.

Hmmm...many have pointed out in these forums the association, so it is certainly viewed by those as associated.

Quote:

I guess there is a pick and chose mentality to christianity which we all are supposed to respect that doesn't apply to any other ideologies. Why the special treatment?

There is certainly a push to respect peoples religious beliefs, as opposed to what are seen as peoples ideological beliefs.

Quote:

What started this rot with rl and intrepid huffing and puffing their nonsense was the remark that I cannot understand why someone would want to associate their spiritual quest with centuries of bloodshed, oppression and lies, by naming it after the religion that was responsible for it all.

I can understand not wanting to be associated with so much bloodshed, though I doubt christians see any true association with christianity in those historical acts of violence..

Are you suggesting that christians who base their belief on the bible (mostly new testament it seems) and christ should call themselves something other than Christian? Or that they shouldn't base their spiritual queston on the new testament christ at all?

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you suggesting that christians who base their belief on the bible (mostly new testament it seems) and christ should call themselves something other than Christian? Or that they shouldn't base their spiritual queston on the new testament christ at all?

I am suggesting that those who follow christ do so, instead of climbing on his cross looking down on all those who they deem lost or in ignorance of the truth.

Jesus was (wether he was real or not) portrayed as an enlightened character. Those who follow him are too often too much like sheep, their reason and intellect suspended so they can believe in the interpretation of the bible that was taught to us by a church that seeks to dominate and rule, not lead us towards enlightenment.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that christians who base their belief on the bible (mostly new testament it seems) and christ should call themselves something other than Christian? Or that they shouldn't base their spiritual queston on the new testament christ at all?

I am suggesting that those who follow christ do so, instead of climbing on his cross looking down on all those who they deem lost or in ignorance of the truth.

Jesus was (wether he was real or not) portrayed as an enlightened character. Those who follow him are too often too much like sheep, their reason and intellect suspended so they can believe in the interpretation of the bible that was taught to us by a church that seeks to dominate and rule, not lead us towards enlightenment.

And, you know this how? Why are you so enlightened while the rest of us sheep are merely ignorant zombies with no intellect?

0 Replies

From what I've seen, yes. The sheep being some specific individuals herein.

But there are others who work towards an enlightened mind here as well. Just not any of the christians I've met.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am suggesting that those who follow christ do so, instead of climbing on his cross looking down on all those who they deem lost or in ignorance of the truth.

Quote:

Jesus was (wether he was real or not) portrayed as an enlightened character. Those who follow him are too often too much like sheep, their reason and intellect suspended so they can believe in the interpretation of the bible that was taught to us by a church that seeks to dominate and rule, not lead us towards enlightenment

I'll qualify that not every christian is like this before I make the following statement :

- Your quotes - those were my two biggest problems with christianity when I was one.

To paraphrase in my own words :

-there was a great deal of hypocrisy in relation to the christian values of love & acceptance in general (a generalised christian thing as far as I could see, though worse in some congregations than in others);

- and a lack of curiosity about the principles on which their beliefs are founded, a lack of questioning about the beliefs taught to them, a lack of understanding that the world offered as much (if not more) information about God than the bible and that the bible should be balanced against the lessons of the world, and a general lack of knowledge of why they believed what they believed....of course, my view of religion and God has changed now.

I still believe in God (though not the christian version), and it bothers me not at all what he/it is, whether he/it is real etc. I certainly don't believe, if God exists, that God interferes int he world in any way. Among other things, he just seems to me a nice belief.

0 Replies

vikorr
That I can understand.

I too have a concept of god. But to me god is the system, existence and everything in it though of as one singularity. Basically, "god" is the ultimate conceptual counterpoint to "self".

0 Replies

Quote:

I too have a concept of god. But to me god is the system, existence and everything in it though of as one singularity. Basically, "god" is the ultimate conceptual counterpoint to "self".

Hi Cyracruz,

That God is the system is an interesting concept, and I have considered the Universe as God a possibility. I've no problem with the concept of singularity, except I would add that, because I believe in balance, that singularity is also balanced by individualism (which only makes sense to me, and should makes sense in the 'system' idea - otherwise the system wouldn't have components)

0 Replies

That is my point when I say that "god" is the conceptual counterpart to "self"

All dualisms exist within god. God is the idea of the myriad of percieved individuals within the system operating simultaneously to create and sustain the singularity. Self is the individuals sense of doing so.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

From what I've seen, yes. The sheep being some specific individuals herein.

But there are others who work towards an enlightened mind here as well. Just not any of the christians I've met.

You did not answer the question. You were asked how you actually know this. Not your guess or opinion.

0 Replies

That's a secret. Not because I won't share, but because if you had the capacity to know you would know without anyone telling you.

0 Replies

The greatest irony...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know