Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

It is isn't it, that's why RL repeats it so often. All I know about Lincoln is what he got up to in Star Trek.


When I think of Lincoln I think of imps.

I am not putting Lincoln down because I think that what he was at that time was moral in the eyes of many people.
Lincoln said,
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.[25]

You like to point out Lincoln's racism all the time, it's like some sort of revelation/put down for you. I don't see Lincoln as anything else than a historical figure, he didn't really figure much in my history lessons. I first became aware of him when I watched that particular Star Trek episode when I was a kid. Robin Hood was a far more realistic, and significant figure, to me. Whether or not Lincoln was racist means very little to me.

Like I said, Lincoln means imp.

You live on the wrong side of the pond to get it. He was taught to many of us as a person that was very moral in history class. It seems that we were only taught his good qualities.

If that's the case why have you thrown Lincon's racism in my face in the past?

I am not aware that I have done that. I may have mentioned him once but I am not sure why I would have mentioned him to you unless you just happen to have thrown your face in front of everywhere I posted.

Do they? All? Spades has made it clear that whilst he reads it, and is trying to understand it, he has his own "beliefs" as well and disses some things...He for instance is trying to "understand", me, I made it clear, no Churches, no Bible, but I do believe that there are other existances why shouldn't I, and that it's nice to think that there is good because we darn well know that there is evil....

sully, in-depth knowledge of much of what is contained within a bible (any bible) leads to skepticism and doubt and finally, after being "coached" to interpret these things by the company rules, One often becomes a full blown heretic in the eyes of the company. And then the company goes all ot to disgrace anything you subsequently stand for because it is A-Theist (Thats pretty much the horse I rode in on)

I believe that the reason "Spades" became annoyed with me was my interpretive statement that implied that his god was a rather petty and arbitrary entity. Unfortunately I cant unring my bells of the bunches of years of fun Id had(before I gave up any pretense of "faith") reading Variora texts that use the Vulgate as the comparative "true" bible and provided opinions from a higher ground about the incomplete or erroneous texts of "separated bretheren" and "anti-Catholic cults". Im being totally fascetious about this because Ive found that ALL Christian religious doctrines are pure hokum, and merely exchanging one line for another doesnt seem to be satisfying for me, maybe for "spades" .

The Jews have it pretty together when they recognize that all these texts arent necessarily "divine" but inspired divinely and that their texts are foundations of moral lessons from which are derived their Talmudic laws which dont just sit and gather dust but are reinterpreted through the ages in excruciating detail . Of course I find all rital and beliefs without evidence as a waste of time on the face of it. It only gives a hired clergy something to dwell on and the laity a sense of "belonging' with a well defined "chain of command". People need that and I am certainly not against it, Im just a non-participant who hs to, in most public situations, go nder cover as an atheist for fear of being bood out of a gathering. Thats the hipocrisy I experience. When I ran for public office on an idea of expanding open-space programs, I was cat as a godless atheist who really shouldnt (for some reason that the smug religious never explain) be engaged in the public trust. I lost handily and whether the godless atheism was the key factor or not, it played a role in muddying the water and totally denutted the main issues.
So spades comments about "guys like me" who lie in wait for guys like he to just criticize and belittle is total crap.
The truth of the matter is that I am publically unarmed almost in every circumstance, whereas he is not. SO this is my fun and a bit of my vengeance against the smug hypocrites that parade under crosses .

The problem with fm's preen is that Spades gives up something for his beliefs and fm gets a benefit from his unbelief.

Spades is restricted by his belief in regard to sexual activities whereas fm has granted himself licence.

Disentangling the motives is very difficult. And, to be fair, in both cases.

It is a nifty facility to grant oneself sexual licence and general indiscipline simply by declaring that Christian doctrines are "hokum".

Andre Malraux in Man's Fate deals with this sort of entanglement of motives in extreme form. A revolutionary is required to assassinate people in the service of the cause. But he discovers that he enjoys the killing for its own sake. "There was a world of murder and he was staying in it as if in a warm place."

The public persona presents the cause as the motive but it is a facade for obscure, irrational compulsions, assuming it is irrational to enjoy killing people.

I have little doubt that fm is a fine, upstanding Christian gentleman in general. His problem in preaching that Christian docrtine is "hokum" is that few of us are such paragons of virtue as he is.

So we have a choice. Do we live according to Spades' discipline or are we all to accept that whatever is "satisfying to me", grounded on the proposition that Christian doctrine is "hokum", is a satisfactory mode for our social organisation. It is not the belief that it is "hokum" that matters. It is the preaching of it. There are 310 million "me"s in the USA.

It may be that it is so difficult to practice discipline in these matters that the ceremonials and rituals are there to reinforce the determination which would obviously falter if we all accept that Christian doctrines are "hokum". Hokum being a code word for what saps believe and as nobody wants to be thought a sap the usage is encouragement to only accept discipline in sexual matters, or in financial matters, that is imposed by the State. Which presents us all with a somewhat alarming range of possibilities. It can be argued that we have a duty to ourselves to try everything legal. Freud argued something like that.

It's "hokum" jumping up and down when a crew of fatties score a touchdown for the Eagles.

Religion is about sacrifice. The means to get the sacrifice made are only "hokum" if the objective is "hokum.

No wonder you get booed out of gatherings. Little lads your age should be booed all the time. If you don't believe me try 310 million tweeting egos all thinking their tweeting is respectable because Jesus didn't walk on water or the Pope burned a few heretics at the stake in an age you have no chance of ever getting the faintest understanding of.

Even companies stage ceremonial events in the service of imposing company discipline. Exercises in togetherness and unity of objectives. All "hokum" of course.

It is not an argument that the doctrines are "hokum". The only argument, as evolutionists should know, is the result in terms of survival and competition with other "hokums".

Once again, fm has conveniently set aside Kant's Categorical Imperative.

You're the smug hypocrite. Not for believing as you do but for preaching it when you know full well what it logically leads to.

You say, "finally, after being "coached" to interpret these things by the company rules.....and then, that the company goes all out to disgrace, anything you subsequently stand for because it is A-Theist....

And, go onto say that you gave up any pretense of faith.

It sounds to me that you were "forced" into the attempt to believe and that didn't work, so you gave up, having been outed on it.

Same for when you ran for public office. You shared your non-belief and so you were again outed.

That has to create "bitterness" so what, others have to suffer, whilst you now have fun because fun was made against you?

I hope you caught my simple analogy in that I used the term "company" when I refer to my childhood religion (Catholicism). I was never a big fan of most religions to start, because my fathers family, lived in the Area around Kiev during the reign of Tsar Nicky's father.They pretty much all converted from Judaism to the Eastern Orthodox Chrch when threatened with inconvenience. My maternal grandmothers side, being from Poland, was already Roman Catholic and so easily converted my expat paternal grandfather (the Orthodox Catholic) to convert to RCC (or he wouldnt "get any"). I felt that my entire family was fairly rational about how deeply they kept their religions. Threaten them and they convert.
BAck to the actual topic so I dont appear to be wandering around the Pole


I live in the USA where it is expected that ALL elected officials believe in some form of a deity and a deity's "game plan". Those who preach fealty to the "Revealed truth" have little respect for those who express no basis in which to believe as they. (I am one of those) We are second class citizens in the public arenas. I hope that changes over the centuries because the days of religious prctices are nmbered as we learn more and more about our world and its mechanics.

I enjoy being "instructed" in the revealed "truths" , espeially with all the ritual and offices reqired to accomplish it. I distanced myself from the bllshit of the CAtholic Church well before it became known as a haven for sex deviant priests. I never was that forgiving of the more Fundamentalist sects. Those people merely deny all that is common sense and physically evidenced, so Ive always wondered what the hell makes them tick, and have only concluded that it is some need for control .

But you having concluded something is not scientific evidence that the conclusion is correct as regards others.

It's interesting as well as "logical" that, people derive their opinions based on experience.

I'd like to think that people can go past that and be smarter and understand that what occurs for one person doesn't occur for another, necessarily and that you can make up your own mind based on your own individuality.

I'd also like to think that people whom merely believe that there is an existance, outside of 'Earth' and there is, we are not the only planet in the Universe, and believe also in a "form" of God, good who are not following the sheep, or are not preaching, who are not blinded by a book that was written by man, or a Church that man "hides" within to do evil, have a right to do so.

After all, you have a "right" ...

If someone comes to my door to preach I send them away. If someone in my life attempts to preach I tell them I have my own beliefs..

Spades has a right to his beliefs. I have a right to mine, and you have a right to yours.

I find it stupid that there is conflict over "beliefs" where power is concerned, politics but again that is "man made" is it not?

Like it was pointed out in another thread, our Prime Minister is Athiest, and so be it...

We all have a right to our beliefs FS. It is not possible to prevent us having. Even the KGB allowed that.

But preaching them to persuade others to adopt them is another matter entirely. It is a political act. Not a personal one.

Your PM is not much of a PM if he hasn't closed all the churches unless he is guilty of patronising the religious. Like one might with an elderly relative who has gone gaga or a baby that has plastered the high chair with jam.

I totally agree with preaching to persuade others, ask Spade, I would come on this thread, purely to accuse him of that, at first... And, when you say political, I say "Man and greed" because that is what I see as far as political goes.

He's a she:) I don't understand what you mean? She won't be in power for ever, I doubt, she in my opinion, was cunning to get the past one out and her in... Again, greed.

I however, think any Prime Minister that is Athiest would be outed in 2 seconds if she/he attempted to close Churches, the strength of believers verses non is too great as well as the greed... I wonder sometimes though how much if any the Government get from Churches, that's a different topic.

But Spade is defending a status quo. fm is a revolutionary. It is up to fm to show that his views are useful. Spade doesn't need to do that.

An atheist PM must think that churches are a waste of resources and a separate power centre. Why would an atheist PM tolerate that? She must be no more than a functionary.

Interesting... She won't do anything because she is in power by default. Not, by the choice of people. Like everyone who likes "power" they only show so many cards. Her way of thinking, I think, is so, I am an Athiest by telling you this, I am being honest and you want an honest PM, by doing nothing I am showing you that you have choice... Now bloody vote for me:)

As for the other... I'll leave it to them.

"How's that working for you?

Well , in the US, sch a stand would almost guarantee him NOT being elected. We are a curious bunch of folks. We guarantee in our Constittion the freedom of and from religion, yet we , in our everyday indstries, regard only those positions that are backed by some deity as being valid. (Thats why being an academic is like bveing a serial killer to many GOPers)
I find our institutions to be fascinating in that respect. Remember, we are an experiment that was set up to be based on most things British but with a stated prpose to "avoid" the mistakes that Britain made. Well, as you see, we are more conspicuous in our practices of and from religion , AND (I feel) that we, as a nation are very self conscious about it.

Give us another few hundred years and maybe we will work it out and we will have an atheist president . We have had, through our history and today do have a few members of congress who are atheists or those passive agressive atheists, agnostics. (They just wont admit it, except for one Vt Senator)

not to derail this deep intellectual discussion, but jesus was ok with sheep and shepherds and all that...

do you know anything about hair sheep? We were discussing them on my thread, but I doubt you read my stuff much...

Hair sheep. I checked yor "Moosecave" thread and it was all about cabbage farts so I dont know where to search out the topic. Send me a PM. We had a few hair sheep a few years back