Elton John wants to do away with religion.

[Rollo]

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6140710.stm




Organised religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings", he told the Observer.

But the musician said he loved the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it which he had learned at Sunday school.

And he said there were many gays he knew who loved their religion.

'Doesn't work'

His comments were made in a special gay edition of the Observer Music Monthly Magazine, where he was interviewed by Scissor Sisters' Jake Shears.

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.

"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion."

According to the singer-songwriter, 59, his solution would be to "ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it".

He added: "I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book.

"But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

He also said that the problems experienced by many gays in former nations of the Soviet bloc, such as Poland, Latvia and Russia were caused by the church supporting anti-gay movements.

'God's people'

And he called on the leaders of major religions to hold a "conclave" to discuss the fate of the world - which he said was "near escalating to World War Three".

"I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts," he said. "It's all got to be dialogue - that's the only way. Get everybody from each religion together and say 'Listen, this can't go on. Why do we have all this hatred?'

"We are all God's people; we have to get along and the [religious leaders] have to lead the way. If they don't do it, who else is going to do it? They're not going to do it and it's left to musicians or to someone else to deal with it."

He also said he would continue to campaign for gay rights.

"I'm going to fight for them, whether I do it silently behind the scenes or so vocally that I get locked up."

Thoughts? I personally agree with him to an extent that religion that promotes hate should be banned but not all religion in general, people should have the ability to talk to express themself all they want.

[The Feral Underclass]

Elton John says somethings worth paying attention to for once...

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm no fan of religion myself but banning it would be a literal impossibility, as half of society would constantly accuse the other half of "being religious", and everything from making a prayer out loud to doing any ritual before eating would be suspect.


But this quote:


...religion that promotes hate should be banned but not all religion in general, people should have the ability to talk to express themself all they want.

Good luck building a Supreme Court to determine what "promotes hate".


A. Hamilton

[Rollo]

I should have phrased that better. I extremely disagree with such faith's i.e christianity and islam.

[worldtradeisadeathmachine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:29 pm
I should have phrased that better. I extremely disagree with such faith's i.e christianity and islam.
what parts do you disagree with?

[Rollo]

The sexism, homophobia and racism generally.

[Dr Mindbender]

Im at a loss which is the worse of 2 evils- Religion or pretentious middle of the road pop!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 02:58 pm
Im at a loss which is the worse of 2 evils- Religion or pretentious middle of the road pop!
:lol:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701228_pf.html)



Let's Stop Stereotyping Evangelicals

By Joseph Loconte and Michael Cromartie
Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27

It was in 1976 -- the "year of the evangelical," according to Newsweek -- that conservative Christians burst upon the political landscape. Critics have been warning about the theocratic takeover of America ever since. Thus the plaintive cry of a Cabinet member in the Carter administration: "I am beginning to fear that we could have an Ayatollah Khomeini in this country, but that he will not have a beard . . . he will have a television program."

This election season produced similar lamentations -- Howard Dean's warning about Christian "extremism," Kevin Phillips's catalogue of fears in "American Theocracy" and brooding documentaries such as "Jesus Camp," to name a few. This theme is a gross caricature of the 100 million or more people who could be called evangelicals. But the real problem is that it denies the profoundly democratic ideals of Protestant Christianity, while ignoring evangelicalism's deepening social conscience.

Evangelicals led the grass-roots campaigns for religious liberty, the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. Even the Moral Majority in its most belligerent form amounted to nothing more terrifying than churchgoers flocking peacefully to the polls on Election Day. The only people who want a biblical theocracy in America are completely outside the evangelical mainstream, their influence negligible.

So as Jerry Falwell and other ministers were jumping into politics, leaders such as Charles Colson -- former Nixon aide turned born-again Christian -- were charting another path. In 1976 Colson launched Prison Fellowship, a ministry to inmates, to address the soaring crime problem. Today it ranks as the largest prison ministry in the world, active in most U.S. prisons and in 112 countries. "Crime and violence frustrate every political answer," he has said, "because there can be no solution apart from character and creed." No organization has done more to bring redemption and hope to inmates and their families.

Evangelical megachurches, virtually unheard of 30 years ago, are now vital sources of social welfare in urban America. African American congregations such as the Potter's House in Dallas, founded by Bishop T.D. Jakes, can engage a volunteer army of 28,000 believers in ministries ranging from literacy to drug rehabilitation. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," has organized a vast network of churches to confront the issue of AIDS. "Because of their longevity and trust in the community," Warren has said, "churches can actually do a better job long-term than either governments or" nongovernmental organizations in tackling the pandemic.

Whether or not that's true, these evangelicals -- Bible-believing and socially conservative -- are redefining social justice. They're mindful of the material conditions that breed poverty and despair, but they emphasize spiritual rebirth. Though willing to partner with government agencies, they prefer to work at the grass roots, one family at a time.

Meanwhile, churches and faith-based organizations are growing enormously in their international outreach. Groups such as World Vision are often the first responders to natural disasters. The Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations, founded in 1978, now boasts 47 member groups in dozens of countries. As anyone familiar with these organizations knows, they help people regardless of creed, race or sexual orientation -- another democratic (and evangelical) ideal.

It is surely no thirst for theocracy but rather a love for their neighbor that sends American evangelicals into harm's way: into refugee camps in Sudan; into AIDS clinics in Somalia, South Africa and Uganda; into brothels to help women forced into sexual slavery; and into prisons and courts to advocate for the victims of political and religious repression.

Indeed, probably no other religious community in the United States is more connected to the poverty and suffering of people in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that evangelicals offer moral ballast to American foreign policy. "[E]vangelicals who began by opposing Sudanese violence and slave raids against Christians in southern Sudan," he wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "have gone on to broaden the coalition working to protect Muslims in Darfur."

Of course it's true that a handful of Christian figures reinforce the worst stereotypes of the movement. Their loopy and triumphalist claims are seized upon by lazy journalists and the direct-mail operatives of political opponents.

Yet it is dishonest to disparage the massive civic and democratic contribution of evangelicals by invoking the excesses of a tiny few. As we recall from the Gospels, even Jesus had a few disciples who, after encountering some critics, wanted to call down fire from heaven to dispose of them. Jesus disabused them of that impulse. The overwhelming majority of evangelicals have dispensed with it as well. Maybe it's time more of their critics did the same.

[colonelguppy]

people are already hateful lemmings without religion

reminds me of the last southpark lol

[Pawn Power]

Maybe he'll make good music now.

[MrDoom]

I'm all for banning religion, but only in public environs.

[Sentinel]

Quite a progressive statement from mr John here. Now I definitely must look for his stuff to download. :D


I'm all for banning religion but only in public environs

I agree as in it would be impossible to go into people's heads and stop them from being religious.. my own position is that all organised religion must go, and all forms of religion must be denied 'approval' by society in forms of publicity and of course, public support/funding.

[Alexander Hamilton]

all forms of religion must be denied 'approval' by society in forms of publicity


And two kids on bikes going door to door, is this advertising?

And your friend discussing the peace she felt by praising the god of joy, is this advertising?

And one co-worker sharing a bible story with another co-worker, is this advertising?


I just may yet support the Revolution, if only to see the vanguard grapple with the simplist of doctrine, as applied to daily life.


A Hamilton

[cormacobear]

98% of the world aren't racist or sexist, yet they are religious. Elton John is just hate mongering. Apperrantly tolerance has no place in your oppinions.

So all you intolerant biggots agree with one of Englands wealthiest entertainers with, to the best of my knowledge, no academic background in theology, social society, or law I think i'll base my oppinions on thoise of experts and respect peoples rights to believe what they desire so long as it doesn't infringe on others.

Don't religious arguments belong in the biggot I mean anti-religious sub-forum.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Could you please cite the source for the 98% figure?

[cormacobear]

Here's just a couple. these sites list even more sources.

Remember those sources that site between14-16% AS Non-religious include theists in their figure but those who seperate theists from athiests usually cite figures between 2-3%.

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).


http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm


http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/stats.html

If you doubt me Google it.

[Rollo]

Explain to me how you can possibly check to see if every person is racist, sexist or a homophobe? 50% of my sources claim your sources are shit.

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 07:34 pm
Explain to me how you can possibly check to see if every person is racist, sexist or a homophobe? 50% of my sources claim your sources are shit.
68% of statistics are made up on the spot. or whatever it is people say. see, i just made that up :mellow:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 16, 2006 05:58 am

all forms of religion must be denied 'approval' by society in forms of publicity


And two kids on bikes going door to door, is this advertising?

And your friend discussing the peace she felt by praising the god of joy, is this advertising?

And one co-worker sharing a bible story with another co-worker, is this advertising?

\Yes, it's called word of mouth and depending on the product it can be a very effective marketing stratagy. In this case because you will trust people more with what to put your faith in than you would a TV or billboard advert.

The children, although I doubt their effectivness, are marketing their god brand.

Your freind is not only advertising, but giving a glowing review to her god brand.

The co-worker is advertising their god brand.

Especially in the second two examples this advertising could come from somone who holds opinions you respect and therefore you are more likley to pick up their paticular god brand.

[Keyser]

I'm not much of a fan of Elton John's music or his 17th century wigs, but he is spot on with religion.

Fuck, I never thought I'd live to see the day I had to stand up for and agree with Elton John. :wacko:

[Jazzratt]

How can you hate the dead mammal on his head?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 04:34 am
Here's just a couple. these sites list even more sources.

Remember those sources that site between14-16% AS Non-religious include theists in their figure but those who seperate theists from athiests usually cite figures between 2-3%.

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).


http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm


http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/stats.html

If you doubt me Google it.
Where exactly did you get the statistic claiming that 98% of the world population is religious but not racist or sexist.

This directly implies that religious sexists and racists plus nonreligious people make up 2% of the world population? Bullshit.

[Rollo]

So 98% of christians want to go to hell to burn in a lake of fire?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 16, 2006 05:58 am

all forms of religion must be denied 'approval' by society in forms of publicity


And two kids on bikes going door to door, is this advertising?

And your friend discussing the peace she felt by praising the god of joy, is this advertising?

And one co-worker sharing a bible story with another co-worker, is this advertising?


I just may yet support the Revolution, if only to see the vanguard grapple with the simplist of doctrine, as applied to daily life.


A Hamilton
Preach in public, go to jail.

Teaching children religion is no different than raising them to believe that black is white and 2+2=5; it interferes in their ability to percieve the material universe. It's child abuse.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Doom, you're a crack up!

You just don't understand the deapth of what you're shoveling:

Under your regime of thought, no one would be able to contemplate phiosophy and include and discuss it if someone in the group mentioned a supreme being. People on the street discuss what they believe happens to them after they die, and if one were a minor, and someone in the majority tells them their views: child abuse.

What is "preaching" versus what is "discussion" between adults?

You are acting like your steretype: 100 years ago, the expression was "godless communism", and it stuck. But no one takes that seriously, because most commies focus on the economics, which unlike 100 years ago, is NOT, in Western society, tied to the Church any longer. Commerce is conducted with or without the blessings of the Pope or any other such person. People buy cell phones from Cingular in Mobiile, Alabama, regardless of what the local town pastor has to say about the matter.

WAKE UP MAN, IT'S 2006!!!

This, "We Rule You" (political leaders of the capitalist class) and "We Fool You" (the Church promising you a superior afterlife if you accept the authority of the leaders) is dead and burried. Even the Iraq War didn't bring out church groups in pro-war demonstrations. As a further example, the Cardinal of Los Angeles has urged Catholics not to follow federal law regarding illgeal aliens in Los Angeles.

Preacher on the street is arrested. For what? What's preaching? As I wrote earlier, you'll have to buld a court to judge whether one was preaching about god, or talking about how the universe began.

You are out to lunch, man. Get with reality!


A. Hamilton

[MrDoom]

Under your regime of thought
I didn't say people can't think what they want. I said they shouldn't be allowed to preach religion in public.


no one would be able to contemplate phiosophy and include and discuss it if someone in the group mentioned a supreme being.
In public, no, they wouldn't be able to. In their own living quarters, yes, they would be able to.


People on the street discuss what they believe happens to them after they die, and if one were a minor, and someone in the majority tells them their views: child abuse.
Because nothing happens to you after you die, besides decompose and develop rigor mortis.

Teaching children that magical wizards live in the sky is akin to raising them to believe the earth is flat. It's not true and it interferes in material perception. Child abuse, and they should be removed from the abusive parents.


What is "preaching" versus what is "discussion" between adults?
Religion must be removed from ALL public life in any manifestation.


Preacher on the street is arrested. For what?
Disturbing the peace.

[Alexander Hamilton]

McDoom,

You are the first commie I've met to advocate certain things which I will mention.

But FIRST:

I wrote that YOUR thinking was all screwy, not that you believed no one could THINK. Don't worry, I perfectly understood that all that you wrote was condcuct driven, not thought driven. It is your concept of what you believe to be dangerous that I challenge.

First of all, determining what people are talking about, and what motives their thoughts, is nearly impossible to do.

Second, while I am farmiliar with Marxist appologists who believe that the State should officially support atheism, I am unfarmiliar with the duty adults owe children by not discussing religious concepts. Is there any basis from noted commentors in this regard?

Finally, and this is my favorite, you are close to being declared Restricted Member by your agument of disturbing the peace, a concept of medieval common law in practice in all 50 United States. Most commies do not believe in disturbing the peace, as their struggle IS for the disturbing of the peace in ensure revolution.

Overall, it is YOU who advocate action similar to the Church of 1000 years ago, where if you spoke contra to the Church, you were guilty of heracy. Your arguments border on their methods. Very strange for a commie.


A. Hamilton

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:22 pm

what they want. I said they shouldn't be allowed to preach religion in public.

Child abuse, and they should be removed from the abusive parents.

Now that's freedom!

:lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 05:51 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 05:51 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 05:22 pm

what they want. I said they shouldn't be allowed to preach religion in public.

Child abuse, and they should be removed from the abusive parents.

Now that's freedom!

:lol: [/b]
So parents should be free to abuse their children?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 16, 2006 06:20 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 16, 2006 06:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:51 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 05:22 pm

what they want. I said they shouldn't be allowed to preach religion in public.

Child abuse, and they should be removed from the abusive parents.

Now that's freedom!

:lol:
So parents should be free to abuse their children? [/b]
No, but teaching religious values is not child abuse.

[ReD_ReBeL]

what they want. I said they shouldn't be allowed to preach religion in public.
Child abuse, and they should be removed from the abusive parents.

Are you right in the head?
what a bunch of authoritarian shit.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by anarchy_oi+November 16, 2006 10:24 am--> (anarchy_oi @ November 16, 2006 10:24 am)
[email protected] 16, 2006 07:34 pm
Explain to me how you can possibly check to see if every person is racist, sexist or a homophobe? 50% of my sources claim your sources are shit.
68% of statistics are made up on the spot. or whatever it is people say. see, i just made that up :mellow: [/b]
57.223543% of statistics are either exaggerated or incorrect.

Like mine.


:P :P

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 06:46 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 06:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 06:20 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:51 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 05:22 pm

what they want. I said they shouldn't be allowed to preach religion in public.

Child abuse, and they should be removed from the abusive parents.

Now that's freedom!

:lol:
So parents should be free to abuse their children?
No, but teaching religious values is not child abuse. [/b]
It's impedeing their mental development and creating a flase understanding of the world. If you show them something and say "A big invisible fairy in the sky made all this", then your child should be taken away from you and taught correctly. "Values" are neither here nor there, teaching your child that this invisible fairy that will punish them if they are bad is the only reason to hold such values is abuse.

Relegion is unreasoing and illogical, as such it should not be taught to children in the same way alchemey isn't taught to children.

Few things enrage me more than seeing a child fall into the mental pit that is religion, as so few find a way of escaping it.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 16, 2006 07:35 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 16, 2006 07:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 06:46 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 06:20 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:51 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 05:22 pm

what they want. I said they shouldn't be allowed to preach religion in public.

Child abuse, and they should be removed from the abusive parents.

Now that's freedom!

:lol:
So parents should be free to abuse their children?
No, but teaching religious values is not child abuse.
It's impedeing their mental development and creating a flase understanding of the world. If you show them something and say "A big invisible fairy in the sky made all this", then your child should be taken away from you and taught correctly. "Values" are neither here nor there, teaching your child that this invisible fairy that will punish them if they are bad is the only reason to hold such values is abuse.

Relegion is unreasoing and illogical, as such it should not be taught to children in the same way alchemey isn't taught to children.

Few things enrage me more than seeing a child fall into the mental pit that is religion, as so few find a way of escaping it. [/b]
Wow, that's deep dude. In all seriousness, that made me think. Good post man. :redstar2000:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 16, 2006 01:41 pm
Commerce is conducted with or without the blessings of the Pope or any other such person. People buy cell phones from Cingular in Mobiile, Alabama, regardless of what the local town pastor has to say about the matter.
Wal-Mart doesn't sell certain types of contraceptives.


This, "We Rule You" (political leaders of the capitalist class) and "We Fool You" (the Church promising you a superior afterlife if you accept the authority of the leaders) is dead and burried.

First of all, this line of thought has nothing at all to do with which consumer goods the church advocates. It has to do with the fact that the dogmatic superstition of almost all established organised religions stiffles the struggle for greater justice and better living conditions by replacing these things with the attainment of a pardise after death through obedience to clerics and books. So religion not only impedes the quest for freedom, but it also promotes subordination.

Not to mention that it does all of this through threats of unmeasurable violence.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 07:35 pm
It's impedeing their mental development and creating a flase understanding of the world. If you show them something and say "A big invisible fairy in the sky made all this", then your child should be taken away from you and taught correctly. "Values" are neither here nor there, teaching your child that this invisible fairy that will punish them if they are bad is the only reason to hold such values is abuse.

Relegion is unreasoing and illogical, as such it should not be taught to children in the same way alchemey isn't taught to children.

Few things enrage me more than seeing a child fall into the mental pit that is religion, as so few find a way of escaping it.
I agree with your thoughts on religion.

However, I'm unsure who or what has given you, the government, or anyone else the authority to determine for others how they will meet their spiritual needs, or the spiritual traditions they will pass on to their children?

You'll have to explain that one for me.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+November 16, 2006 07:53 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ November 16, 2006 07:53 pm)
Alexander [email protected] 16, 2006 01:41 pm
Commerce is conducted with or without the blessings of the Pope or any other such person. People buy cell phones from Cingular in Mobiile, Alabama, regardless of what the local town pastor has to say about the matter.
Wal-Mart doesn't sell certain types of contraceptives.[/b]

A. That is Wal-Mart's right.
B. Other stores do, so you'll have to explain exactly what the problem is.


First of all, this line of thought has nothing at all to do with which consumer goods the church advocates. It has to do with the fact that the dogmatic superstition of almost all established organised religions stiffles the struggle for greater justice and better living conditions by replacing these things with the attainment of a pardise after death through obedience to clerics and books. So religion not only impedes the quest for freedom, but it also promotes subordination.

Do you have the right to tell others how to meet their spiritual needs, yes or no?


Not to mention that it does all of this through threats of unmeasurable violence.

And half this board doesn't advocate communism or socialism via the same route?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 08:04 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 08:04 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 07:35 pm
It's impedeing their mental development and creating a flase understanding of the world. If you show them something and say "A big invisible fairy in the sky made all this", then your child should be taken away from you and taught correctly. "Values" are neither here nor there, teaching your child that this invisible fairy that will punish them if they are bad is the only reason to hold such values is abuse.

Relegion is unreasoing and illogical, as such it should not be taught to children in the same way alchemey isn't taught to children.

Few things enrage me more than seeing a child fall into the mental pit that is religion, as so few find a way of escaping it.
I agree with your thoughts on religion. [/b]
Allow me to pick myself up off the floor.


However, I'm unsure who or what has given you, the government, or anyone else the authority to determine for others how they will meet their spiritual needs, or the spiritual traditions they will pass on to their children? I thought you weren't a libertarian cretin, just the regular kind. This question is slanted already as it assumes "rights". However I see what you're getting at and quite simply the answer is the government. I beleive firmly that as religion prevents a child from thinking as rationally as one who was not raised on religion it is a form of abuse and I also think that there should be intervention on abuse. That, at least, is how I figure it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:07 pm

Not to mention that it does all of this through threats of unmeasurable violence.

And half this board doesn't advocate communism or socialism via the same route?
Nope. The violence is quite clearly measurable.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I believe that Jazzrat has given here the authentic revolutionary left answer to your question, Twolves.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:14 pm
I thought you weren't a libertarian cretin, just the regular kind. This question is slanted already as it assumes "rights". However I see what you're getting at and quite simply the answer is the government. I beleive firmly that as religion prevents a child from thinking as rationally as one who was not raised on religion it is a form of abuse and I also think that there should be intervention on abuse. That, at least, is how I figure it.
Wow. Have you been diagnosed for your control issues?

First, that is an unimaginable intrustion of government into personal life. I'm sure you have no problem with that as it's obvious you've anointed yourself grand poobah of what's best for everyone.

Second, rationality like the technocracy you supported but later screeched about, is fool's gold. What's rational to you is irrational to others. There is no perfect rationality and if there were, we humans wouldn't be capable of grasping it.

You might say perfect rationality is like God in that way.

But that means nothing to you does it, because you know what's best for everyone, don't you?

Out of curiosity, what if I anointed myself the way you have and I was in charge?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:17 pm
I believe that Jazzrat has given here the authentic revolutionary left answer to your question, Twolves.
That would be, to paraphrase, "I know what's best for you, so sit and take it or you'll be purged as a counter-revolutionary"?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 08:21 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 08:21 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 08:14 pm
I thought you weren't a libertarian cretin, just the regular kind. This question is slanted already as it assumes "rights". However I see what you're getting at and quite simply the answer is the government. I beleive firmly that as religion prevents a child from thinking as rationally as one who was not raised on religion it is a form of abuse and I also think that there should be intervention on abuse. That, at least, is how I figure it.
Wow. Have you been diagnosed for your control issues? [/b]
Nope. I also never said I want personally to control.


First, that is an unimaginable intrustion of government into personal life. It really isn't. Unless you're prepared to support the idea that social services coming round when you've been verbally abusing your child is also unimaginable government intervention. Also I think it's fine for religion to occur amongst consenting adults, this will be especially nescessary post revolution when simply exterminating the relgious would be highly undesirable.
I'm sure you have no problem with that as it's obvious you've anointed yourself grand poobah of what's best for everyone. I never said that I personally wanted to be in power, I'm merely advocating the prevention of a form of child abuse.


Second, rationality like the technocracy you supported but later screeched about, "Screeched about"? THe fuck does that mean? Is it one of your bourgeoise terms for "stopped supporting" if so then I'm afraid you're WAY off track, I'm still a die-hard technocrat. If you're refering to the time you asserted that all socialism was based on technocracy then I was merely pointing out the absurdity of that statement.
is fool's gold. What's rational to you is irrational to others. There is no perfect rationality and if there were, we humans wouldn't be capable of grasping it. Rationality is inherently objective you thick twat. If two people have different views on what is rational then one or both of them are clearly wrong. Humans way well be unable to become perfectly rational (we have unfourtunate quirks like emotion) but we can strive to stamp out all things that are patently irrational.


You might say perfect rationality is like God in that way. If you want.


But that means nothing to you does it, because you know what's best for everyone, don't you? I never claimed that. Unless you take my claiming that child abuse is bad for children to be that assertion, rather than a tautology.


Out of curiosity, what if I anointed myself the way you have and I was in charge? Loaded question, by answering I would lend creedance to your asanine "anoited" argument. Although I will answer it if you tell me if you still beat your wife.

[t_wolves_fan]

Nope. I also never said I want personally to control.

You may not want to "personally" control, but you want government to use its authority to prevent people from doing something you don't like just because you think they're stupid or wrong for doing it.

You're kind of like the people who think gay marriage should be illegal. Different sides of the same coin.



First, that is an unimaginable intrustion of government into personal life. It really isn't. Unless you're prepared to support the idea that social services coming round when you've been verbally abusing your child is also unimaginable government intervention.

They are not even remotely the same thing. Verbal, physical or emotional abuse has easily identifiable effects on children that religion does not, other than your belief that it's stupid.


Also I think it's fine for religion to occur amongst consenting adults, this will be especially nescessary post revolution when simply exterminating the relgious would be highly undesirable.

How charitable of you, grand poobah.


Rationality is inherently objective you thick twat. If two people have different views on what is rational then one or both of them are clearly wrong. Humans way well be unable to become perfectly rational (we have unfourtunate quirks like emotion) but we can strive to stamp out all things that are patently irrational.

:lol: Another believer. You're basically religious, do you know that? It is almost completely impossible to use perfect rationality to solve any public policy question. Do you know why that is?



But that means nothing to you does it, because you know what's best for everyone, don't you? I never claimed that.

Absolutely you have.


Unless you take my claiming that child abuse is bad for children to be that assertion, rather than a tautology.

Teaching religion is not child abuse. That you claim it is is completely absurd.



Out of curiosity, what if I anointed myself the way you have and I was in charge? Loaded question, by answering I would lend creedance to your asanine "anoited" argument. Although I will answer it if you tell me if you still beat your wife.

Another trick of the trade of a hack: refuse to answer questions if the answer wouldn't look good to your cause.

You don't like religion, so you view it as abuse, so you want to use government to enforce your views and severely limit if not prohibit people from excercising their spirituality, is that or is that not true?

I shall also try another: explain specifically how you are any different from people who are opposed to gay marriage and think gays should be "reformed".

Explain how you'd react if someone tried to prohibit you from eating animals because they think it's stupid. Explain why your position is any different.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:07 pm
A. That is Wal-Mart's right.
Right.


B. Other stores do, so you'll have to explain exactly what the problem is.

That Alexander Hamilton lied.


Do you have the right to tell others how to meet their spiritual needs, yes or no?

This question doesn't refute my argument that religion is reactionary to our ends. In fact, you just completely failed to take into account what the post you're replying to is in reply to and consequently what the fuck it's all about.

So while your reply may outwardly appear to be a rebuttal or even a reply, it is not. It is a remark completely independent of the one to which it attempts to reply.

Now to answer your question: yes and no. A democratic decision-making body has every right in the world to restrict the ways in which superstitious crazies meet their "spiritual needs."

In fact, the United States, for example, tells people how to meet their spiritual needs. You cannot commit human sacrifice in the United States, for instance.


And half this board doesn't advocate communism or socialism via the same route?

This is quite a convenient question for my argument.
There exists a tremendous difference between using force to impose the political demands of the majority and using force to subdue the masses to the demands of the minority. The former involves fighting for freedom against those who monopolize power and the latter involves monopolizing power. Understand?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:45 pm

Nope. I also never said I want personally to control.

You may not want to "personally" control, but you want government to use its authority to prevent people from doing something you don't like just because you think they're stupid or wrong for doing it.

You're kind of like the people who think gay marriage should be illegal. Different sides of the same coin.
Clutching at straw(men) again? Already as well?

Do you support the government preventing murders? Rapes? Thefts? But not child abuse, obviously.





First, that is an unimaginable intrustion of government into personal life. It really isn't. Unless you're prepared to support the idea that social services coming round when you've been verbally abusing your child is also unimaginable government intervention.

They are not even remotely the same thing. Yes it is. The child has not been physically harmed but has been mentally harmed.



Also I think it's fine for religion to occur amongst consenting adults, this will be especially nescessary post revolution when simply exterminating the relgious would be highly undesirable.

How charitable of you, grand poobah. You're far too fucking irritating. If no one answers your fucking stupid "Exactly, precisly WHAT will happen after the revolution? Go on tell me exactl what will happen, depsite the fact that most people couldn't accuratley predict what would happen next fucking tuesday I expect you to tell me no only exactly what the government will look like, I want you to tell me exactly who will be in there, their names, birthdays and favourite colours." Type questions you have a fucking hissy fit. If somone does tell you vaguely what they think should happen after the revolution they have some somehow already made themselves leader of the post revolution government. It's pretty much a rock and a hard place with you isn't it.



Rationality is inherently objective you thick twat. If two people have different views on what is rational then one or both of them are clearly wrong. Humans way well be unable to become perfectly rational (we have unfourtunate quirks like emotion) but we can strive to stamp out all things that are patently irrational.

:lol: Another believer. You're basically religious, do you know that? I don't believe in some invisible sky fairy, I don't think that there is a power beyond our comprehesnion that will save or destroy us all. I have merely said that I want people to be more rational. Not even perefctly rational as your strawman would suggest.
It is almost completely impossible to use perfect rationality to solve any public policy question. Stop pretending you were ever involved in public policy making and then for some reason chose to come and troll an internet message board like a fourteen year old child.
Do you know why that is? Oh please enlighten me, great one :rolleyes:




But that means nothing to you does it, because you know what's best for everyone, don't you? I never claimed that.

Absolutely you have. Back up your stupid assertion you trolling ****.



Unless you take my claiming that child abuse is bad for children to be that assertion, rather than a tautology.

Teaching religion is not child abuse. That you claim it is is completely absurd. Denying your child a proper education is child abuse. Religion denies them the oppurtunity to learn properly, as you attack them with it while they are too young to resist it with logic.




Out of curiosity, what if I anointed myself the way you have and I was in charge? Loaded question, by answering I would lend creedance to your asanine "anoited" argument. Although I will answer it if you tell me if you still beat your wife.

Another trick of the trade of a hack: refuse to answer questions if the answer wouldn't look good to your cause. Stop using fucking 'hack', it's boring. Find a new word, variety is the spice of life after all. I noticed that you refused to tell me whether or not you still beat your wife.


You don't like religion, so you view it as abuse, so you want to use government to enforce your views and severely limit if not prohibit people from excercising their spirituality, is that or is that not true? Yes this is true. "Exercising their spirituality" by the way is a stupid term, it's like denying people from tending to an intangible girafe.


I shall also try another: explain specifically how you are any different from people who are opposed to gay marriage and think gays should be "reformed". Because one can objectivley prove that homosexuality is natural using formal logic. Another reason I think I differ strongly from anti-gay marriage bigots is that most of my sexual experiences have been with people of the same sex. Oh and finally I am actually anti-gay marriage, as discussed in the marriage thread. It would be hypocritical of me to oppose marriage yet support gay marriage. That said pragmatically I think as a temporary measure gay marriage would be a good way to prevent bigotry against my homosexual brothers and sisters.


Explain how you'd react if someone tried to prohibit you from eating animals because they think it's stupid. I'd argue with them until either they proved me wrong using formal logic or banned it anyway. In the latter case I'd probably become one of the first "Steakhouse martyrs" under whatever oppressive cappie regime brought that law in.
Explain why your position is any different. I've yet to be presented with any reason that it isn't.

[t_wolves_fan]

Do you support the government preventing murders? Rapes? Thefts? But not child abuse, obviously.

You do understand that your murders, rapes and thefts argument is a straw man itself, right? Or do you? You throw around the straw man complaint a lot but I'm not exactly confident that you actually know what it is.

The only evidence you have that religion is child abuse is that you think it's stupid, which indicates that you're interested in using government authority to prevent people from doing something simply because you think it's stupid. That's not "personal" control, but it's advocating that government further an agenda that is entirely personal to you.


If no one answers your fucking stupid "Exactly, precisly WHAT will happen after the revolution?

So you are suggesting that we should simply have a revolution, disrupt and destroy the entire political and economic order, without any detailed examination of individual, detailed events that are going to have to be dealt with? It's enough for you to just yell "viva revolution!" and spraypaint "capitalism sucks" and just hope it will all work out in the end, eh? That's quite a gamble.


If somone does tell you vaguely what they think should happen after the revolution they have some somehow already made themselves leader of the post revolution government. It's pretty much a rock and a hard place with you isn't it.


Isn't knowing what I'm in for before I make a policy choice....ready for it....rational?


I don't believe in some invisible sky fairy, I don't think that there is a power beyond our comprehesnion that will save or destroy us all.

Yet you believe that there can be widespread agreement on what essentially amounts to perfect rationality. You may as well believe in the invisible sky fairy, along with Santa and the Easter Bunny.



Do you know why that is? Oh please enlighten me, great one :rolleyes:

Gladly.

First, policy makers do not have perfect information available on pretty much any policy question. This problem is what makes a centrally planned economy so difficult, though again this is much more detailed than your sign-waving and slogan-shouting, so you may just want to tune out. Essentially, a policy-maker must go with the information they have knowing that they do not know the whole story. A lot of times this literally means going with gut feelings or relying on values (see below), which is far from rational. This is generally why policy changes are made slowly instead of radically as you propose.

Second, time. Policy-makers do not have enough time to gather all the information. People want answers, they want something done and in your fantasy land they'd want to know when they can expect bread please before they starve to death. Additionally, a good decision today is a bad decision tomorrow because the effects of time are unknown when the choice is made.

Third, values. Different people value different things. How do you reach consensus on say what to do with a national forest? The technocrats tell you that you need a lotta wood to build enough Glorious Peoples' Dormitory Complexes in the next two years. But alas a good chunk of the population is opposed to clear-cutting the Glorious Peoples' Forest because they like to camp, or hunt, or because they know the forest is important to the ecosystem or because they like furry little creatures. If you ever want a lesson in why consensus governing won't work you should check out debates over how to use public forests.





But that means nothing to you does it, because you know what's best for everyone, don't you? I never claimed that.

Absolutely you have. Back up your stupid assertion you trolling ****.

You advocate using the government to prevent people from doing something solely for the reason that you think it's stupid. That's all there is to it, ace.


Denying your child a proper education is child abuse. Religion denies them the oppurtunity to learn properly, as you attack them with it while they are too young to resist it with logic.

Who decides what "proper" learning is?

You? Explain you credentials in educating children, if you could.

If a child grows up religious and is a math whiz, say he earns a full scholarship to attend graduate school at Harvard to study physics, can you say he's not learned properly? I ask because I know of such a person.

So please, explain how that person has not learned "properly"?


"Exercising their spirituality" by the way is a stupid term, it's like denying people from tending to an intangible girafe.

What would you prefer? Would you prefer to pretend that nobody does anything spiritual, or perhaps to simply jail or shoot people who do?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 09:43 pm

Do you support the government preventing murders? Rapes? Thefts? But not child abuse, obviously.

You do understand that your murders, rapes and thefts argument is a straw man itself, right? Or do you? You throw around the straw man complaint a lot but I'm not exactly confident that you actually know what it is.
Illustrate precisly how it is. Most anarchists have an answer to how they would deal with murders and rapes without resorting to authority, but I'm not entirely confident that you do.


The only evidence you have that religion is child abuse is that you think it's stupid, which indicates that you're interested in using government authority to prevent people from doing something simply because you think it's stupid. That's not "personal" control, but it's advocating that government further an agenda that is entirely personal to you. Fine you've changed my fucking view. Parents can teach whatever bollocks they want to children on two understanidngs:
1) The children are told by all other adults in their lives, especially teachers and so on, that god is a horrible lie told by people who don't love them. and
2) That they are never taken to a church or other religious building.
Suddenly whether or not children are raised with religion becomes acedemic after a generation.



If no one answers your fucking stupid "Exactly, precisly WHAT will happen after the revolution?

So you are suggesting that we should simply have a revolution, disrupt and destroy the entire political and economic order, without any detailed examination of individual, detailed events that are going to have to be dealt with? It's enough for you to just yell "viva revolution!" and spraypaint "capitalism sucks" and just hope it will all work out in the end, eh? That's quite a gamble.


If somone does tell you vaguely what they think should happen after the revolution they have some somehow already made themselves leader of the post revolution government. It's pretty much a rock and a hard place with you isn't it.


Isn't knowing what I'm in for before I make a policy choice....ready for it....rational? You're clearly making an argument against something I haven't said.

The point I was trying to make is you berate people for having ideas about what would happen after the revolution and not having ideas about what will happen after the revolution. You have to choose one or the other. Are people with ideas about what should happen anointing themselves grand poobahs or are people without ideas about what will happen on certian specific issues post revolution in favour of just shout "viva la revolucion" and spraypainting "capitalism sucks" on walls? Well what is it you ****?



I don't believe in some invisible sky fairy, I don't think that there is a power beyond our comprehesnion that will save or destroy us all.

Yet you believe that there can be widespread agreement on what essentially amounts to perfect rationality. Where have I said that, you prick?
You may as well believe in the invisible sky fairy, along with Santa and the Easter Bunny. You may as well kill yourself.




Do you know why that is? Oh please enlighten me, great one :rolleyes:

Gladly.

First, policy makers do not have perfect information available on pretty much any policy question. This problem is what makes a centrally planned economy so difficult, That's a fault with the information systems then, not with the way in which a policy is deided. Were you born this thick or did you have to work on it?
though again this is much more detailed than your sign-waving and slogan-shouting, I'd like you to point out exaclt when I HAVE EVER SHOUTED A FUCKING SLOGAN AT YOU? you are clearly a fucking TROLL with some bizarre hard-on for words like "hack and "slogan". You've never thought through any of your thousand odd posts on here and are a worthless sack of shite to boot. Moving on to the next part of your 'argument'
Essentially, a policy-maker must go with the information they have knowing that they do not know the whole story. A lot of times this literally means going with gut feelings or relying on values (see below), which is far from rational. Or, waiting a bit until the information they need is there. The advantadge with a central system is that if the information exists it can be accessed by the economic committee.
This is generally why policy changes are made slowly instead of radically as you propose. Fair enough.


Second, time. Policy-makers do not have enough time to gather all the information. Again, their information gathering system is flawed. ot our fucking problem. That and in the cases of economic desicions and so on of course they can't get all the info because some companies may well withold it.
People want answers, they want something done and in your fantasy land they'd want to know when they can expect bread please before they starve to death. That has to be one of the silliest finishing clauses I have ever read in your long line of farcical sentences. You clearly could make up your mind on which tired old, overused, baseless attacks to go for and chose the two that most oppose each other the "utopian fantasy" one and the "everyone will starve unless they have a bussiness man there to exploit them" arguments. You then went on to craft the wonderfully humourous assertion that I fantasised about a system in which everyone starves to death, which is patently ludicrous.
Additionally, a good decision today is a bad decision tomorrow because the effects of time are unknown when the choice is made. A) Most people can make some kind of prediction based on evidence. B) We can then just make a good choice on how to deal with whatever problems arise.


Third, values. Different people value different things. How do you reach consensus on say what to do with a national forest? Simple really, if it is an important logistical choice the relevent experts, otherwise it is democratically decided.
The technocrats tell you that you need a lotta wood to build enough Glorious Peoples' Dormitory Complexes in the next two years. We'll ignore for a while that you believe they'll be making wooden dormitories for people to live in and assume that this is somehow going to occur...
But alas a good chunk of the population is opposed to clear-cutting the Glorious Peoples' Forest because they like to camp, or hunt, or because they know the forest is important to the ecosystem or because they like furry little creatures. Clear cut. Or better yet cut and replant, unless these people arguing against have a better suggestion in which case the two can be put up for a vote.
If you ever want a lesson in why consensus governing won't work you should check out debates over how to use public forests. SO what if the minority are pissed off. Everyone else is warm and comfortable in their fabulous dormitories.



Denying your child a proper education is child abuse. Religion denies them the oppurtunity to learn properly, as you attack them with it while they are too young to resist it with logic.

Who decides what "proper" learning is? I'd probably put it to the National Union of Teachers, or whatever they're called after the revolution.


You? Explain you credentials in educating children, if you could. Studying to become a teacher, parents are teachers, a few of my friends are teachers, I read the teacher's union paper - which often gives advice on how to teach children. Why do you ask? Are you making an argument from authority or something? While we're asking irrelevant questions, what are yours?


If a child grows up religious and is a math whiz, say he earns a full scholarship to attend graduate school at Harvard to study physics, can you say he's not learned properly? I ask because I know of such a person. They still have not learned the fundamental truth of the universe that it was not created by a god and there is no god within it, as this has been proved multiple times. The fact that no teacher has informed your friend of this.



"Exercising their spirituality" by the way is a stupid term, it's like denying people from tending to an intangible girafe.

What would you prefer? Would you prefer to pretend that nobody does anything spiritual, or perhaps to simply jail or shoot people who do? Public ridicule will do. It should eventually become like ridiculing people who try to turn lead into gold or believe that having a live chicken on your head cures warts.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+November 16, 2006 05:58 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ November 16, 2006 05:58 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 05:07 pm
A. That is Wal-Mart's right.
Right.


B. Other stores do, so you'll have to explain exactly what the problem is.

That Alexander Hamilton lied.


Do you have the right to tell others how to meet their spiritual needs, yes or no?

This question doesn't refute my argument that religion is reactionary to our ends. In fact, you just completely failed to take into account what the post you're replying to is in reply to and consequently what the fuck it's all about.

So while your reply may outwardly appear to be a rebuttal or even a reply, it is not. It is a remark completely independent of the one to which it attempts to reply.

Now to answer your question: yes and no. A democratic decision-making body has every right in the world to restrict the ways in which superstitious crazies meet their "spiritual needs."

In fact, the United States, for example, tells people how to meet their spiritual needs. You cannot commit human sacrifice in the United States, for instance.


And half this board doesn't advocate communism or socialism via the same route?

This is quite a convenient question for my argument.
There exists a tremendous difference between using force to impose the political demands of the majority and using force to subdue the masses to the demands of the minority. The former involves fighting for freedom against those who monopolize power and the latter involves monopolizing power. Understand? [/b]
no reply?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:07 pm
Do you have the right to tell others how to meet their spiritual needs, yes or no?
There is no such thing as "spiritual need". Notably because there are no such things as spirits.

Humanity once lived without religion or spirituality. It can get used to the condition again.

[t_wolves_fan]

QUOTE=Dr. Rosenpenis,November 16, 2006 05:58 pm]
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:07 pm
A. That is Wal-Mart's right.
Right.

You agree then?



B. Other stores do, so you'll have to explain exactly what the problem is.

That Alexander Hamilton lied.

About what, specifically? Are you trying to say that because Wal Mart has decided not to sell certain products, that's evidence that the pope has a strong influence on our consumer market? Because if you are, that's completely ridiculous.



Do you have the right to tell others how to meet their spiritual needs, yes or no?

This question doesn't refute my argument that religion is reactionary to our ends. In fact, you just completely failed to take into account what the post you're replying to is in reply to and consequently what the fuck it's all about.

I guess I see what it's about, it's your desire to discriminate against religious people to further your own desire for power, that about right ace?


Now to answer your question: yes and no. A democratic decision-making body has every right in the world to restrict the ways in which superstitious crazies meet their "spiritual needs."

Really. What then is the limit, if any, as to what a democratic decision-making body can go in setting rules for personal conduct. Sex? Abortion? Drug use? Any other kinds of thoughts?


In fact, the United States, for example, tells people how to meet their spiritual needs. You cannot commit human sacrifice in the United States, for instance.

Because it violates the rights of the person being sacrificed. Can you say the same thing about Christian, Muslim or Buddhist religious practice?


This is quite a convenient question for my argument.
There exists a tremendous difference between using force to impose the political demands of the majority and using force to subdue the masses to the demands of the minority.

Except that the majority of the United States are religious, and our choices are made via democratic means. You're not even accurately describing how most societies currently operate with regards to religion. This being the case, how credible are you on anything else?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 01:39 am

There is no such thing as "spiritual need".

Because you've decided so? Or what? On what do you base that proclamation?


It can get used to the condition again.

Again, because you've decided it should?

This is the big question: Should it not be up to individuals to decide if they want spirituality or if they're going to believe in spirits or not?

[Sentinel]

I have a feeling we can keep repeating these things to people like t_wolves_fan until the sun burns out -- they won't get it because they don't want to.


Who decides what "proper" learning is?

You are making this sound like it was about which opinions and different points of view to teach children.

It isn't.

It's about either teaching scientifically proven truth, or bullshit assumed with no evidence to back it up whatsoever.


This is the big question: Should it not be up to individuals to decide if they want spirituality or if they're going to believe in spirits or not?

And it will be. Grownup human beings can believe whatever they want privately. It would be impossible to stop them from doing it, and thus nobody as far as I know has been proposing any actual control of thought here.

What will be ensured, is that the society points out that these beliefs have nothing to do with truth, and intervenes if conmen try to claim that.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 01:39 am

There is no such thing as "spiritual need".

Because you've decided so? Or what? On what do you base that proclamation?
The body and mind have clearly been proven to be able to function without spirituality. There is no "need".



It can get used to the condition again.

Again, because you've decided it should?
Because it spreads fear, hatred, and lies.


This is the big question: Should it not be up to individuals to decide if they want spirituality or if they're going to believe in spirits or not?
You're missing the point. People will be able to believe or not. However, they will not be permitted to express religious belief in public.

No more churches.
No more holy books in publication.
No more publicly endorsed religious holidays.
No more street preachers.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 09:43 pm

Do you support the government preventing murders? Rapes? Thefts? But not child abuse, obviously.

You do understand that your murders, rapes and thefts argument is a straw man itself, right? Or do you? You throw around the straw man complaint a lot but I'm not exactly confident that you actually know what it is.
Illustrate precisly how it is.

Gladly. A straw man means substituting a weaker argument and making the other argue over that. For instance, you try to get me to admit that using government authority to punish theft, rape or murder makes it ok to punish what you call child abuse because naturally I am not going to claim that the other three crimes should not be punished.

Do you understand that that is what a straw man is? Because I really doubt that you do, so maybe you could define the inadequate sample fallacy for me, since presumably you'd be familiar with that as well.


Most anarchists have an answer to how they would deal with murders and rapes without resorting to authority, but I'm not entirely confident that you do.

Without authority I imagine it would turn to retribution or blood money. Take a look at Afghanistan today and let me know how well that is going.


Fine you've changed my fucking view.

Wow, congratulations. I feel like a proud parent.


Parents can teach whatever bollocks they want to children on two understanidngs:
1) The children are told by all other adults in their lives, especially teachers and so on, that god is a horrible lie told by people who don't love them. and

How do you enforce that first part? What if a parent chooses a school that does not teach this?


2) That they are never taken to a church or other religious building.

What other freedoms of movement and association do you plan to deny?


The point I was trying to make is you berate people for having ideas about what would happen after the revolution and not having ideas about what will happen after the revolution. You have to choose one or the other.

Wrong. I berate people who answer complex policy questions with slogans. It's as simple as that. If you have no answer but slogans, then you're either naive, ignorant, just plain stupid, or simply haven't thought it through. What I ask is for people to think things through and go beyond the slogans. I look for signs that someone has thought a policy choice through the consequences. I do this because it's my job to do so, and it's kind of fun.

Generally what I get here is slogans, more slogans, and then angry responses by people like you who are emotionally attached to your slogans and personally invested in them. So naturally when your slogans are challenged, you take it as a personal attack instead of doing some thinking. Don't worry, you're not alone in this. Bible-thumping religious loons and angry teen super-capitalists fall into the same trap.

You do understand on some level at least that making policy is slightly more complicated than chanting slogans, right?


That's a fault with the information systems then, not with the way in which a policy is deided. Were you born this thick or did you have to work on it?

It's not the information systems, it's that the information often simply does not exist. Now you'll screech "well get the information!". But we have to make a policy choice now, and it will take 3 months, 6 months, a year, 5 years to get the information. And when we get the information, there will be flaws in it. Something else will come up we didn't think to look at. Now we have to start over.

Do you get this? Very rarely is the information to make an optimal decision staring us in the face. Often the information is in the form of probabilities. One poster here said we should invest all necessary resources to prevent an outbreak of disease. What is the probability of that outbreak? 1 percent? 50 percent? Can we allocate resources to stop that disease, or should we allocate it to a more pressing need because we think the probability is extremely rare?

What slogans do you have to answer those questions, I'm curious.


Or, waiting a bit until the information they need is there.

Can't always be done.


The advantadge with a central system is that if the information exists it can be accessed by the economic committee.

It gets more inefficient the higher up the ladder you go to make policy decisions. One-size fits all solutions do not work very well. Conditions change on the ground quicker than the central authority can deal with it. Worst of all, the local level may have a good idea but if control rests in the bureaucracy (of which I am a part, so you'll have to trust me on this) it takes longer and is harder to approve changes.

Agree?


Again, their information gathering system is flawed. ot our fucking problem.

It is precisely your problem because your entire political/economic philosophy rests on having near perfect, objective information in real time, which is impossible; and a central authority acting on that information, which is inefficient due to bureaucratic inertia.


That and in the cases of economic desicions and so on of course they can't get all the info because some companies may well withold it.

And you really believe that in your communist society some union or collective won't withhold information or spin it a bit to get the central council to go their way? If you believe they won't then you need more fairy dust, friend.


A) Most people can make some kind of prediction based on evidence. B) We can then just make a good choice on how to deal with whatever problems arise.

That's what everyone thinks they're doing today, and how are things going?

Oh but sure, you'll do so much better. :lol:



Third, values. Different people value different things. How do you reach consensus on say what to do with a national forest? Simple really, if it is an important logistical choice the relevent experts, otherwise it is democratically decided.

So experts trump the people. Doesn't that create a class of experts above the people?




Denying your child a proper education is child abuse. Religion denies them the oppurtunity to learn properly, as you attack them with it while they are too young to resist it with logic.

Who decides what "proper" learning is? I'd probably put it to the National Union of Teachers, or whatever they're called after the revolution.

It's moral for a union of teachers that have never met the parents to decide for the parents how their children will be taught?


They still have not learned the fundamental truth of the universe that it was not created by a god and there is no god within it, as this has been proved multiple times.

Really. This has been proven? When? How? By who?

Evolution? Is that what you are going to claim? I believe in it, however it does not rule out the possibility that everything was begun by a higher power, does it? Ask your teacher parents if evolution has been "proven" or if it's a "theory". Let me know what you find out.


[Public ridicule will do. It should eventually become like ridiculing people who try to turn lead into gold or believe that having a live chicken on your head cures warts.

Or that being gay is immoral and hetero marriage with children is what everyone should do?

Oh I forgot, it's different when you do it, isn't it.

[MrDoom]

Or that being gay is immoral and hetero marriage with children is what everyone should do?

Oh I forgot, it's different when you do it, isn't it.
There is no scientific evidence of homosexuality being "immoral".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 03:34 am



The body and mind have clearly been proven to be able to function without spirituality. There is no "need".

How and by whom, and is it proven to be true for every single person?




It can get used to the condition again.

Again, because you've decided it should?
Because it spreads fear, hatred, and lies.

How exactly is your philosophy any different? You spread the fear of religion, the fear of economic risk in our daily lives, hatred of the rich and the religious, and "lies" born out of sheer ignorance.



This is the big question: Should it not be up to individuals to decide if they want spirituality or if they're going to believe in spirits or not?
You're missing the point.

No I'm not, answer the question.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 03:56 am

Or that being gay is immoral and hetero marriage with children is what everyone should do?

Oh I forgot, it's different when you do it, isn't it.
There is no scientific evidence of homosexuality being "immoral".
Nor is there any scientific evidence that religion is evil.

[Sentinel]

Homosexuality is a natural attribute existant both in humans and nonhuman animals. In no way can it be compared to religions, which are sets of beliefs.

Religion isn't 'evil', because calling something evil is a moral argument, something communists aren't into. We are materialists. As such we can point out that religion does make people ignorant about the real world, and most interestingly to us as members of the workingclass, the inequalities in it.

Rewards are promised to people in 'the afterlife' as long as they obey authorities in 'this world'. This is the purpose of religion; fooling people into obeying very much earthly rulers and clergy. Totally unacceptable in a post revolutionary society, of course, as everyone is meant to become equal.

We are not only going to liberate the working class from wage slavery, but also from mental slavery, to actually be able to understand and master this world themselves.

[freakazoid]

Rewards are promised to people in 'the afterlife' as long as they obey authorities in 'this world'. This is the purpose of religion; fooling people into obeying very much earthly rulers and clergy.

You don't know much about Christianity then. http://www.jesusradicals.com

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 17, 2006 03:54 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 17, 2006 03:54 am)

[email protected] 16, 2006 09:43 pm

Do you support the government preventing murders? Rapes? Thefts? But not child abuse, obviously.

You do understand that your murders, rapes and thefts argument is a straw man itself, right? Or do you? You throw around the straw man complaint a lot but I'm not exactly confident that you actually know what it is.
Illustrate precisly how it is.

Gladly. A straw man means substituting a weaker argument and making the other argue over that. For instance, you try to get me to admit that using government authority to punish theft, rape or murder makes it ok to punish what you call child abuse because naturally I am not going to claim that the other three crimes should not be punished.

Do you understand that that is what a straw man is? Because I really doubt that you do, so maybe you could define the inadequate sample fallacy for me, since presumably you'd be familiar with that as well. [/b]
Yes I do fucking understand that, I'm not creating a strawman of your argument though, I just wanted to know where you think government authority ends, and clearly it ends where a parents right to lie to their children begins.




Most anarchists have an answer to how they would deal with murders and rapes without resorting to authority, but I'm not entirely confident that you do.

Without authority I imagine it would turn to retribution or blood money. Take a look at Afghanistan today and let me know how well that is going. I'm no anarchist but I can tell you that's utter bollocks.



Fine you've changed my fucking view.

Wow, congratulations. I feel like a proud parent. I conceded a point to you, there is no need for you to become so fucking condecending.



Parents can teach whatever bollocks they want to children on two understanidngs:
1) The children are told by all other adults in their lives, especially teachers and so on, that god is a horrible lie told by people who don't love them. and

How do you enforce that first part? What if a parent chooses a school that does not teach this? How? We'd have got rid of all the sab private schools and fucking faith schools would be a thing of the past.



2) That they are never taken to a church or other religious building.

What other freedoms of movement and association do you plan to deny? The 'freedom' of children to be taken to brothels.



The point I was trying to make is you berate people for having ideas about what would happen after the revolution and not having ideas about what will happen after the revolution. You have to choose one or the other.

Wrong. I berate people who answer complex policy questions with slogans. It's as simple as that. If you have no answer but slogans, then you're either naive, ignorant, just plain stupid, or simply haven't thought it through. What I ask is for people to think things through and go beyond the slogans. I look for signs that someone has thought a policy choice through the consequences. I do this because it's my job to do so, and it's kind of fun. COuld you gie me direct quotes of these 'slogans' in relation to your questions?


Generally what I get here is slogans, more slogans, and then angry responses by people like you who are emotionally attached to your slogans and personally invested in them. So naturally when your slogans are challenged, you take it as a personal attack instead of doing some thinking. Don't worry, you're not alone in this. Bible-thumping religious loons and angry teen super-capitalists fall into the same trap.

You do understand on some level at least that making policy is slightly more complicated than chanting slogans, right? You do understand THAT NO ONE HERE is fucking chanting slogans. Not even you, with you it's more of a mantra "They are chanting slogans, They ar chanting slogans." over and over again until the person you're arguing with explodes in a burst of rage. I bet you sit there in a pool of your own ejaculate grinning.



That's a fault with the information systems then, not with the way in which a policy is deided. Were you born this thick or did you have to work on it?

It's not the information systems, it's that the information often simply does not exist. Now you'll screech "well get the information!". But we have to make a policy choice now, and it will take 3 months, 6 months, a year, 5 years to get the information. And when we get the information, there will be flaws in it. Something else will come up we didn't think to look at. Now we have to start over.

Do you get this? Very rarely is the information to make an optimal decision staring us in the face. Often the information is in the form of probabilities. One poster here said we should invest all necessary resources to prevent an outbreak of disease. What is the probability of that outbreak? 1 percent? 50 percent? Can we allocate resources to stop that disease, or should we allocate it to a more pressing need because we think the probability is extremely rare?

What slogans do you have to answer those questions, I'm curious. Clearly you know nothing of information systems, which is unsurprisning.



Or, waiting a bit until the information they need is there.

Can't always be done. Then a temporary solution that may well please no one should be put in place until the information can be found.



The advantadge with a central system is that if the information exists it can be accessed by the economic committee.

It gets more inefficient the higher up the ladder you go to make policy decisions. One-size fits all solutions do not work very well. Conditions change on the ground quicker than the central authority can deal with it. Worst of all, the local level may have a good idea but if control rests in the bureaucracy (of which I am a part, so you'll have to trust me on this) it takes longer and is harder to approve changes.

Agree? Nope. Claearly we have different meanings of 'central' there would be no global descisons in the technate, only ones made in individual urbanates.


Again, their information gathering system is flawed. ot our fucking problem.


It is precisely your problem because your entire political/economic philosophy rests on having near perfect, objective information in real time, which is impossible; No it doesn't.
and a central authority acting on that information, which is inefficient due to bureaucratic inertia. So basically authority won't do anything because you say so. Wow, I feel about ready to become a lassiez-faire capitalist with arguments as compelling as that :rolleyes:


That and in the cases of economic desicions and so on of course they can't get all the info because some companies may well withold it.

And you really believe that in your communist society some union or collective won't withhold information or spin it a bit to get the central council to go their way? If you believe they won't then you need more fairy dust, friend.


A) Most people can make some kind of prediction based on evidence. B) We can then just make a good choice on how to deal with whatever problems arise.

That's what everyone thinks they're doing today, and how are things going?

Oh but sure, you'll do so much better. :lol:




Third, values. Different people value different things. How do you reach consensus on say what to do with a national forest? Simple really, if it is an important logistical choice the relevent experts, otherwise it is democratically decided.

So experts trump the people. Doesn't that create a class of experts above the people? Depends how you define class.





Denying your child a proper education is child abuse. Religion denies them the oppurtunity to learn properly, as you attack them with it while they are too young to resist it with logic.

Who decides what "proper" learning is? I'd probably put it to the National Union of Teachers, or whatever they're called after the revolution.

It's moral for a union of teachers that have never met the parents to decide for the parents how their children will be taught? Yes, because they fucking TEACH. Parents tend to get emotionally attached to their own children.



They still have not learned the fundamental truth of the universe that it was not created by a god and there is no god within it, as this has been proved multiple times.

Really. This has been proven? When? How? By who? When? I can't quite remember the date, How? Do you know anything about the teapot argument?


Evolution? Is that what you are going to claim? I believe in it, however it does not rule out the possibility that everything was begun by a higher power, does it? Ask your teacher parents if evolution has been "proven" or if it's a "theory". Let me know what you find out. Evolution is neither here nor there in this argument. Things like occam's razor (the argument positing the least number of entites ect...) and the teapot do.



[Public ridicule will do. It should eventually become like ridiculing people who try to turn lead into gold or believe that having a live chicken on your head cures warts.

Or that being gay is immoral and hetero marriage with children is what everyone should do?

Oh I forgot, it's different when you do it, isn't it. Yes. Because beleiving that there is a magical invisible fairy in the sky and beleiving you can turn led into gold are actually somewhat analogous.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 11:55 pm
You agree then?
How can I not? It's an undeniable fact.


About what, specifically? Are you trying to say that because Wal Mart has decided not to sell certain products, that's evidence that the pope has a strong influence on our consumer market? Because if you are, that's completely ridiculous.

He posted that religion doesn't influence comerce, which is a lie.


I guess I see what it's about, it's your desire to discriminate against religious people to further your own desire for power, that about right ace?

It was about why religion is an enemy of the worker.


Really. What then is the limit, if any, as to what a democratic decision-making body can go in setting rules for personal conduct. Sex? Abortion? Drug use? Any other kinds of thoughts?

Infringing upon the rights of others.
Indoctrinating children, public religious manifestations which seek to enslave people and which are a threat to socialism and the workers' republic.


Because it violates the rights of the person being sacrificed. Can you say the same thing about Christian, Muslim or Buddhist religious practice?

Yes. See above.


Except that the majority of the United States are religious, and our choices are made via democratic means.

Funny.
Have you learned nothing at all?
Tell me how the ownership and control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie is democratic?
How is religion democratic?

[ZX3]

Too bad Enver Hoxha is not running Albania anymore. Mr. John would have had the perfect country to migrate to to satisfy these ideals.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 06:55 am

Rewards are promised to people in 'the afterlife' as long as they obey authorities in 'this world'. This is the purpose of religion; fooling people into obeying very much earthly rulers and clergy.

You don't know much about Christianity then. http://www.jesusradicals.com
Christianity is as reactionary as they come. Wanting to do away with all human government and replacing the Magic Sky Wizard as the supreme authority (and the "neccessary" "priests" to "interpret" "His" "will") isn't radicalism. It's clerical fascism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 09:04 pm

How charitable of you, grand poobah. You're far too fucking irritating. If no one answers your fucking stupid "Exactly, precisly WHAT will happen after the revolution? Go on tell me exactl what will happen, depsite the fact that most people couldn't accuratley predict what would happen next fucking tuesday I expect you to tell me no only exactly what the government will look like, I want you to tell me exactly who will be in there, their names, birthdays and favourite colours." Type questions you have a fucking hissy fit. If somone does tell you vaguely what they think should happen after the revolution they have some somehow already made themselves leader of the post revolution government. It's pretty much a rock and a hard place with you isn't it.

[/quote]

if the objective for next Tuesday is a revolution to overthrow society, then yes, it is quite reasonable to ask the rebels what will be happening the following Wednesday. The inability to describe it, to even speculate upon it, is not a sign of strength. Its a sign of weakness.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Doom Wrote:

Humanity once lived without religion or spirituality. It can get used to the condition again.


There is no evidence this was the case. At any rate your arguments become mere symantics:

It makes sense that the first humans thought just about the nature of the universe as anyone else does today. If you ban religion, you ultimately have to ban the questions, "Is there something greater than ourselves? Does it have a consiousness? Are good and evil powers beyond our existence? Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Your responses that all things are only random, and that we are only the sum of our existence on Earth during our lifetime, and your belief that this should be codified into law, evenually removes any person from discussing questions of this kind.

It must be presumed that as soon as humanity began to exist, these questions were on their minds.

Doom: Have you ever read, "Interview with the Vampire"?

Let's say both you and I agree that a society can have laws against murder, arson, rape, with out religion. (Something I believe to be true.)

One of the more compelling aspects of the novel was that the vampire creatures eventually had to accept that immortality meant the loss of a certain amount of morality. If one does not die, life is not so precious. If life is not precious, morality can be "bent". The vampires never questioned about an afterlife, because they would never have one.

There is a link between our questioning what happens to us after this life, and the way we conduct ourselves during our lifetime.

I don't belive one can end these questions, and therefre, I don't believe you can draw a distinction between the moment one questions life, and one contributes to religous thought.

Many American Indian tribes have rituals that honor past lives, and perform these rituals at certain times of the year. According to your views, the mere honoring of the dead is religion, and would be illegal.

We can go on, but if you fail to grasp what a 10 year old understands, there's no point in the discussion.


A. Hamilton

[MrDoom]

There is no evidence this was the case. At any rate your arguments become mere symantics:

Religion is a human invention. It did not exist before humans created the idea of the Magic Sky Wizard.


It makes sense that the first humans thought just about the nature of the universe as anyone else does today.
True. However, they lacked the capability to see the universe as clearly as we do (ie, the scientific method). When something we don't understand happens, we don't attribute it to an invisible man in the sky, we apply science and observe the results.


If you ban religion
The banning of religion is not what is desired. The removal of all religion from the public sphere is.

That means:

Demolish all churches.
Rename all landmarks with religious connotations.
Remove all holy works out of publication.
Prohibit all street preaching.




you ultimately have to ban the questions, "Is there something greater than ourselves?
Religion has had over 6000 years to prove this. Enough opression. It's time is up.


Does it have a consiousness?
There is nothing supernatural out there.


Are good and evil powers beyond our existence?
The natural forces of the universe do not discriminate between "good" and "evil".


Why do bad things happen to good people?"
Natural processes of the material universe, perhaps? THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT CARE.


Your responses that all things are only random, and that we are only the sum of our existence on Earth during our lifetime, and your belief that this should be codified into law, evenually removes any person from discussing questions of this kind.
In public, yes. Because there is no God and there is no supernatural entity of any kind!


One of the more compelling aspects of the novel was that the vampire creatures eventually had to accept that immortality meant the loss of a certain amount of morality. If one does not die, life is not so precious. If life is not precious, morality can be "bent". The vampires never questioned about an afterlife, because they would never have one.
Hey, I'm not the one quoting a book about vampires in a discussion on material reality.


I don't belive one can end these questions, and therefre, I don't believe you can draw a distinction between the moment one questions life, and one contributes to religous thought.
People can question all they want. However, they can do so in public through scientific means. You know, stuff that actually is real, unlike invisible sky wizards.

[freakazoid]

Magic Sky Wizard

Its real easy to mock something that you know nothing about.


Christianity is as reactionary as they come. Wanting to do away with all human government and replacing the Magic Sky Wizard as the supreme authority (and the "neccessary" "priests" to "interpret" "His" "will") isn't radicalism. It's clerical fascism.

I see that you haven't read anything or posted any questions over at http://www.jesusradicals.com :(

Do you people that want to ban religion also want the religion of science banned to?

re‧li‧gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


Demolish all churches.
Rename all landmarks with religious connotations.
Remove all holy works out of publication.
Prohibit all street preaching.

Why? Are you afraid that you might change your mind about what it is that they are teaching? Also if you demolish all churches then you would have to demolish a lot of houses becuase that is where "church" meatings should be taking place, not in some huge building. Also how would you feel if the government decided to prohibit all street preaching of communism, because they felt that it is harmful and it is "child abuse" to teach your children communism?

[MrDoom]

Magic Sky Wizard

Its real easy to mock something that you know nothing about.
How is your god any different from an invisible magician that lives in the sky?

God is not real. You've had millenia to prove this.



Christianity is as reactionary as they come. Wanting to do away with all human government and replacing the Magic Sky Wizard as the supreme authority (and the "neccessary" "priests" to "interpret" "His" "will") isn't radicalism. It's clerical fascism.
I see that you haven't read anything or posted any questions over at http://www.jesusradicals.com
Because Christian Anarchism is a contradictory term.

Existence of God, a supreme being, implies hierarchy. Anarchism denies hierarchy.


Do you people that want to ban religion also want the religion of science banned to?
I wish not to ban religion. I wish to remove it from all public influence. What you do in your own living space is none of my concern.

Science is not a religion. It does not set out to "prove" anything. It observes and makes conclusions.

Example:

Hypothesis: There is a supernatural entity that acts as Supreme Being.

Evidence: There is no evidence to prove the existience of a supernatural being.

Conclusion: There are no supernatural entities.



Demolish all churches.
Rename all landmarks with religious connotations.
Remove all holy works out of publication.
Prohibit all street preaching.

Why? Are you afraid that you might change your mind about what it is that they are teaching?
I do not understand your question.


Also if you demolish all churches then you would have to demolish a lot of houses becuase that is where "church" meatings should be taking place, not in some huge building.
What people and their friends do in their own houses is of no concern to me. If you want to worship in your house, take out your holy apparatus, do your thing, and put it away. Do not disturb your neighbors about it, though.


Also how would you feel if the government decided to prohibit all street preaching of communism, because they felt that it is harmful and it is "child abuse" to teach your children communism?
You make two errors.

1: False premise: Marxism is a religion or belief. This is incorrect.

2: In the time period we are talking about, communism WILL BE the social order.

[freakazoid]

God is not real. You've had millenia to prove this.

The evidence is out there if you really wanted to find it.


Because Christian Anarchism is a contradictory term.

No its not.


I wish not to ban religion.

I wasn't necesarilly implying you, there are other who do want to ban it.


Science is not a religion.

Yes it is,
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, Science has all of that.


False premise: Marxism is a religion or belief. This is incorrect.

Marxism is to a belief.


I do not understand your question.

You wish to remove all public awareness of religion, if you truly belive that believing in a God is stupid then why would you wish to suppress others from expresing there belief?

[MrDoom]

God is not real. You've had millenia to prove this.

The evidence is out there if you really wanted to find it.
If it's so easy to find, then provide one morsel of evidence in your Sky Magician's favor.



Because Christian Anarchism is a contradictory term.

No its not.
Yes, it is. Just like a "communist state" is an oxymoron.



Science is not a religion.

Yes it is,
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, Science has all of that.
Pretty weak argument if you ask me. Science is not about "belief", it is about PROOF!



False premise: Marxism is a religion or belief. This is incorrect.

Marxism is to a belief.
It is a way of applying scientific method to history.



I do not understand your question.

You wish to remove all public awareness of religion, if you truly belive that believing in a God is stupid then why would you wish to suppress others from expresing there belief?
They CAN express their beliefs. In private.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 10:37 pm
They CAN express their beliefs. In private.
I completely agree. People can express their beliefs (when their alone in their darkened room looking away from the telescreen).

This whole idea of censoring religion is nonsense. Let the people be the decision-makers. If atheism is truly a superior system of thought, religion would fade away.

There is no need for censorship if your ideas are superior. Just think of it as Darwinism; Good ideas survive, bad ideas don't.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 10:37 pm
They CAN express their beliefs. In private.
I completely agree. People can express their beliefs (when their alone in their darkened room looking away from the telescreen).
Telescreens? There are no telescreens in Communism Land. What people do in private is their own concern.

What next, I'll be called a Stalinist/PAB drone?

*Laughs*


If atheism is truly a superior system of thought, religion would fade away.
If capitalism is a truly inferior system, it would fade away.

Unfortunately, that's not true, and it requires public intervention.

The same applies to racism, sexism, and the like.

[freakazoid]

First you said,


It does not set out to "prove" anything.

Then you said,


Science is not about "belief", it is about PROOF!

Which is it? Those contradict each other.

Also again Christian Anarchy are not contradictions. We believe in no human hierarchy, but there is a God to follow. "Pretend" for a moment that there is a God, would it not be right to follow Gods will?
Why don't you go ask questions at http://www.jesusradicals.com ?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 07:14 pm
First you said,


It does not set out to "prove" anything.

Then you said,


Science is not about "belief", it is about PROOF!

Which is it? Those contradict each other.
I don't know what our confused friend here meant but I know that it is the latter.


Also again Christian Anarchy are not contradictions. We believe in no human hierarchy, but there is a God to follow. "Pretend" for a moment that there is a God, would it not be right to follow Gods will?
Why don't you go ask questions at http://www.jesusradicals.com ? No gods, no masters? Against ALL authority? Autonomy for the people?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15, 2006 09:39 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701228_pf.html)



Let's Stop Stereotyping Evangelicals

By Joseph Loconte and Michael Cromartie
Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27

It was in 1976 -- the "year of the evangelical," according to Newsweek -- that conservative Christians burst upon the political landscape. Critics have been warning about the theocratic takeover of America ever since. Thus the plaintive cry of a Cabinet member in the Carter administration: "I am beginning to fear that we could have an Ayatollah Khomeini in this country, but that he will not have a beard . . . he will have a television program."

This election season produced similar lamentations -- Howard Dean's warning about Christian "extremism," Kevin Phillips's catalogue of fears in "American Theocracy" and brooding documentaries such as "Jesus Camp," to name a few. This theme is a gross caricature of the 100 million or more people who could be called evangelicals. But the real problem is that it denies the profoundly democratic ideals of Protestant Christianity, while ignoring evangelicalism's deepening social conscience.

Evangelicals led the grass-roots campaigns for religious liberty, the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. Even the Moral Majority in its most belligerent form amounted to nothing more terrifying than churchgoers flocking peacefully to the polls on Election Day. The only people who want a biblical theocracy in America are completely outside the evangelical mainstream, their influence negligible.

So as Jerry Falwell and other ministers were jumping into politics, leaders such as Charles Colson -- former Nixon aide turned born-again Christian -- were charting another path. In 1976 Colson launched Prison Fellowship, a ministry to inmates, to address the soaring crime problem. Today it ranks as the largest prison ministry in the world, active in most U.S. prisons and in 112 countries. "Crime and violence frustrate every political answer," he has said, "because there can be no solution apart from character and creed." No organization has done more to bring redemption and hope to inmates and their families.

Evangelical megachurches, virtually unheard of 30 years ago, are now vital sources of social welfare in urban America. African American congregations such as the Potter's House in Dallas, founded by Bishop T.D. Jakes, can engage a volunteer army of 28,000 believers in ministries ranging from literacy to drug rehabilitation. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," has organized a vast network of churches to confront the issue of AIDS. "Because of their longevity and trust in the community," Warren has said, "churches can actually do a better job long-term than either governments or" nongovernmental organizations in tackling the pandemic.

Whether or not that's true, these evangelicals -- Bible-believing and socially conservative -- are redefining social justice. They're mindful of the material conditions that breed poverty and despair, but they emphasize spiritual rebirth. Though willing to partner with government agencies, they prefer to work at the grass roots, one family at a time.

Meanwhile, churches and faith-based organizations are growing enormously in their international outreach. Groups such as World Vision are often the first responders to natural disasters. The Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations, founded in 1978, now boasts 47 member groups in dozens of countries. As anyone familiar with these organizations knows, they help people regardless of creed, race or sexual orientation -- another democratic (and evangelical) ideal.

It is surely no thirst for theocracy but rather a love for their neighbor that sends American evangelicals into harm's way: into refugee camps in Sudan; into AIDS clinics in Somalia, South Africa and Uganda; into brothels to help women forced into sexual slavery; and into prisons and courts to advocate for the victims of political and religious repression.

Indeed, probably no other religious community in the United States is more connected to the poverty and suffering of people in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that evangelicals offer moral ballast to American foreign policy. "[E]vangelicals who began by opposing Sudanese violence and slave raids against Christians in southern Sudan," he wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "have gone on to broaden the coalition working to protect Muslims in Darfur."

Of course it's true that a handful of Christian figures reinforce the worst stereotypes of the movement. Their loopy and triumphalist claims are seized upon by lazy journalists and the direct-mail operatives of political opponents.

Yet it is dishonest to disparage the massive civic and democratic contribution of evangelicals by invoking the excesses of a tiny few. As we recall from the Gospels, even Jesus had a few disciples who, after encountering some critics, wanted to call down fire from heaven to dispose of them. Jesus disabused them of that impulse. The overwhelming majority of evangelicals have dispensed with it as well. Maybe it's time more of their critics did the same.
All of you here dodged the article I posted.

Any comments? Agree or disagree?

[MrDoom]

First you said,


It does not set out to "prove" anything.

Then you said,


Science is not about "belief", it is about PROOF!

Which is it? Those contradict each other.
No, they do not. Science observes natural phenomena, and based on observed EVIDENCE and PROOF, makes a conclusion. Religion, on the other hand, makes a conclusion, and attempts to draw facts to support it, the antithesis of the scientific method.


Also again Christian Anarchy are not contradictions. We believe in no human hierarchy, but there is a God to follow.
Where is the "anarchy" in that? Your sky wizard is the biggest capitalist of them all.


"Pretend" for a moment that there is a God, would it not be right to follow Gods will?
When a voice in my head commands me to rape, murder, enslave, and burn human and animal sacrifices, I tend to disobey.


Why don't you go ask questions at http://www.jesusradicals.com ?
Because the answers I'd get would not be reliable. When someone suggests to you that elves and dwarves exist, do you believe them? No.

[freakazoid]

Science is not about "belief", it is about PROOF!

No, they do not. Science observes natural phenomena, and based on observed EVIDENCE and PROOF, makes a conclusion. Religion, on the other hand, makes a conclusion, and attempts to draw facts to support it, the antithesis of the scientific method.

If it is about proof then that means that it seeks proof, which means that it sets out to prove things.


Where is the "anarchy" in that? Your sky wizard is the biggest capitalist of them all.

How is God a capitalist? That makes no sense. In Luke 16:13 Jesus says, "13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."" Again how is God a capitalist?


When a voice in my head commands me to rape, murder, enslave, and burn human and animal sacrifices, I tend to disobey.

*sarcasm* Yeah that sure is Gods will. *sarcasm* :rolleyes: You kind of ignored my question. You threw out a response that looked like you answered me but really you didn't answer it.


Because the answers I'd get would not be reliable. When someone suggests to you that elves and dwarves exist, do you believe them? No.

In that case you might as well not ever ask anyone anything because if they believe something different than you than they are "unreliable". Way to be open to others ideas and to grow as a person.


When someone suggests to you that elves and dwarves exist, do you believe them?

*sarcasm* Not only do I not believe them I also mock them by making up funny names for elves and dwarves, because that is the mature thing to do. *sarcasm*

[Sentinel]

Freakazoid, it has been done before.. Comrade-Z and violencia.Proletariat from our forums visited jesusradicals and 'asked some questions'.

Link (http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=2182)

And the forum admin was proven to know zero about class war anarchism and revolutionary leftism:


Originally posted by Andy Alexis-Baker
Most of us are pacifists, including myself. That is the most consistent Christian position. Most anarchists who are not Christian are also pacifist though...

:lol: Right..

Now, please, stop linking to that superstitious joke of a 'radical' forum, ok?

[freakazoid]

I thank you much for posting that link. Hurray! I'll have to read it later though, 3 pages long :( . Actually I think that at least alot of anarchist are a little pacifist, look at PA, :P . In that I mean that violence is prefered to be the last resort, not the first choice. Also not all Christian Anarchists are completely pacifists. While I believe that pacifism is the prefered choice I also believe that there are times for violence, to quote from the book of Ecclesiastes 3,

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Which was turned into a great The Byrds song. And there are others like me who believe the same thing. http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic....er=asc&start=25 (http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=2145&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25) here are some posts on pacifism, I post on the second page. Also here is another. http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic....1842&highlight= (http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=1842&highlight=) There are more I think and I will post them if I find them.

[MrDoom]

Actually I think that at least alot of anarchist are a little pacifist, look at PA
PA renounced pacifism. He's also shown quite a bit of naivité.


How is God a capitalist?
Now that I think of it, the fact that religion is a con game, God is lumpenproletariat. <_<


Yeah that sure is Gods will.
God commands much murder and rape in the Bible.


Way to be open to others ideas and to grow as a person.
The problem with religion is, its mind is so open the brain fell out.

[freakazoid]

lumpenproletariat, what is that?


God commands much murder and rape in the Bible.

Really? When does God command MURDER and RAPE?

[MrDoom]

lumpenproletariat, what is that?

Lumpenproletariat is the "raggedy" underclass of prostitutes, con men, and other seedy types who depend on the market system for their survival but exist outside of it. It "refer[s] to those they see as the victims of modern society, such as welfare recipients, beggars, and homeless people, who exist outside the wage-labor system, or people who make their living through disreputable means (prostitutes and pimps, swindlers, drug dealers, bootleggers, and operators of illegal gambling enterprises), but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence."

Since God is the great con man, and his priests are the hustlers, that makes him a lumpen. If no one believed, God would "die" as a social construct.



God commands much murder and rape in the Bible.

Really? When does God command MURDER and RAPE?

Plenty of times.

God commands Abraham to kill his son:

Originally posted by (Genesis 22:1&#045;18)+--> ((Genesis 22:1&#045;18))"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you."[/b]
True, it was only a test; but he&#39;s still commanded someone to murder.

God commands slaying of daughters:

Originally posted by (Judges 11:29&#045;40 NLT)+--> ((Judges 11:29&#045;40 NLT))"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter&#33;" he cried out. "My heart is breaking&#33; What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah&#39;s daughter."[/b]

God commands more death and plunder:

Originally posted by (Deuteronomy 20:10&#045;14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

God makes rape victims marry their attackers:

Originally posted by (Deuteronomy 22:28&#045;29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

God commands death of rape victims:

Originally posted by (Deuteronomy 22:23&#045;24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

God commands a "damsel" for each plunderer:

Originally posted by (Judges 5:30 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera&#39;s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

God&#39;s laws on sexual slavery:

Originally posted by (Exodus 21:7&#045;11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl&#39;s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

God commands death of atheists and those of other religions:

Originally posted by (2 Chronicles 15:12&#045;13 NAB)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

God says to kill a whole town if there is one nonbeliever:

Originally posted by (Deuteronomy 13:13&#045;19 NLT)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."

God says "Kill gays", and other groups:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man&#39;s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)


Originally posted by (2 Kings 2:23&#045;24 NAB)
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead&#33;" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.


Originally posted by (1 Kings 20:35&#045;36 NLT)
Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me&#33;" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.

God commands death of children:

Originally posted by (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.


Originally posted by (Hosea 9:11&#045;16 NLT)
The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don&#39;t give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."


Originally posted by (Ezekiel 9:5&#045;7 NLT)
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity&#33; Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple&#33;" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill&#33; Go&#33;" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

Rape and merciless baby-killing from God:

Originally posted by (Isaiah 13:15&#045;18 NLT)
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

This one&#39;s kind of funny; guy kills 30 and commits arson, God lets him kill even more with a jawbone:

(Judges 15:14&#045;15 NAB)@
When he reached Lehi, and the Philistines came shouting to meet him, the spirit of the Lord came upon him: the ropes around his arms become as flax that is consumed by fire and the bonds melted away from his hands. Near him was the fresh jawbone of an ass; he reached out, grasped it, and with it killed a thousand men.

"Saint" Peter the Murderer:

(Acts 5:1&#045;11 NLT)
There was also a man named Ananias who, with his wife, Sapphira, sold some property. He brought part of the money to the apostles, but he claimed it was the full amount. His wife had agreed to this deception. Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money for yourself. The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren&#39;t lying to us but to God." As soon as Ananias heard these words, he fell to the floor and died. Everyone who heard about it was terrified. Then some young men wrapped him in a sheet and took him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Was this the price you and your husband received for your land?" "Yes," she replied, "that was the price." And Peter said, "How could the two of you even think of doing a thing like this – conspiring together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Just outside that door are the young men who buried your husband, and they will carry you out, too." Instantly, she fell to the floor and died. When the young men came in and saw that she was dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear gripped the entire church and all others who heard what had happened.

That&#39;s just the tip of the iceberg.

[Delta]

You can&#39;t ban an idea. You can oppress those who claim to believe it, if that&#39;s what you want to do, but you can&#39;t ban the idea really.

Religion can be dismantled with education and massive mainstream propaganda ridiculing it. These will be possible before leftists ever have the possibility of banning it.

[freakazoid]

Thanks for the definition.

lol, wow. You really try to reach out to anything that even sounds like He is commanding rape or murder. Even if some of those things God didn&#39;t command, and the others you either take out of contexts or simply don&#39;t understand.


God commands Abraham to kill his son:
True, it was only a test; but he&#39;s still commanded someone to murder.

Yes it is true that God had commanded Abraham to kill his son as a test. But it was only a test of faith, not something that God had intended him to actually do though. So he really didn’t command Abraham to murder.


God commands slaying of daughters:

Really, God had commanded him to say that? You might want to reread that part. No where did God command Jephthah to do that.


God commands more death and plunder:

Why do you stop short? Its like you are trying to hide something. Here is more that you should of have quoted.


15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Specifically what you left out is why God had commanded that, verse 18.


God makes rape victims marry their attackers:
God commands death of rape victims:


These I shall shoot down together, J Again you left out a part, this time in between your two examples.


25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

In your example she wasn’t really raped. Like the saying “you can’t rape the willing”.


God commands a "damsel" for each plunderer:

You do realize that that was taken completely out of context right? That is part of a song, which starts on Judges 5:1 “On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song:” No where does God commanding anyone to do this thing, it is merely repeating an event that had happened. Also on a side note, Deborah, the person who this song is by, is also a WOMAN Judge. For all of you who say that the bible is sexist how do you explain that?


God&#39;s laws on sexual slavery:

Sexual slavery? Where is sexual slavery even mentioned?


God commands death of atheists and those of other religions:


God says to kill a whole town if there is one nonbeliever:

Only one nonbeliever? You might want to reread that one also. “that SOME worthless rabble among you have led THEIR fellow citizens astray by encouraging THEM to worship foreign gods.”

Those words, some, their, and them, imply more than one person. They don’t destroy the town because of one nonbeliever, they destroy the town because it has been turned into a town of nonbelievers.


God says "Kill gays", and other groups:

Kind of funny, but not surprising, that you specifically pick out the part about homosexuality and then say, “and other groups.” Like the other groups aren’t even worth mentioning. Anyways see my last response at the bottom.


God commands death of children:

Isaiah 14, See the part about “Rape and merciless baby-killing from God“, because it is from the same part.

Hosea 9, You do realize that that is part of a prophecy right? It is from the prophet Hosea. To really get an idea of what is going on you should start at the beginning of the book. Basically it is a punishment on Israel for having turned away from God.

Ezekiel 9, This section is actually part of a vision/prophesy that an Spirit/angel is showing him. It starts on Ezekiel 8. And again you cut it short. Here is what comes right after what you posted,


7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go&#33;" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD&#33; Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"
9 He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, &#39;The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.&#39; 10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done."

Ezekiel is crying for what God is about to do saying, “Ah, Sovereign LORD&#33; Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?” And God had responded saying that it is needed because “The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great”


Rape and merciless baby-killing from God:

This is also from a prophecy. And it is not just any prophecy but a prophecy of what is going to happen to Babylon. Also the prophecy against Babylon begins on Isaiah 13 and ends with Isaiah 14:23


This one&#39;s kind of funny; guy kills 30 and commits arson, God lets him kill even more with a jawbone:

When does he commit arson. Is this what you are talking about?, “the ropes around his arms become as flax that is consumed by fire and the bonds melted away from his hands.” If it is then you really misread it. It doesn’t say that he started a fire. It says that the ropes that were tied around him melted away as IF they had been on fire.


"Saint" Peter the Murderer:

Murderer huh? Explain to me on how he murdered those two people. Also, you do realize what it is that they had done right?

You must understand that all of this is before Jesus is around. For example when God calls for the sacrifice of animals. When Jesus died for us it was like the final ultimate sacrifice needed. One that encompasses all sin. And animal sacrifices are no longer needed. And all of those things that are said in the books like Deuteronomy are not really relevant anymore, kind of… can‘t think of the right word, because like what Jesus said in John 8:7, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus’ most basic law is the law of love.

Also I would like to ask for your forgiveness. I was being a bad Christian when I did the *sarcasm* bit. That when I had accused you of mocking I myself was being mean, and for that I am sorry.

[Comrade J]

You really try to reach out to anything that even sounds like He is commanding rape or murder. Even if some of those things God didn&#39;t command, and the others you either take out of contexts or simply don&#39;t understand.

Way to go about responding, tell them they don&#39;t understand it. :huh:
What&#39;s not to understand? Is God so stupid that he can&#39;t &#39;inspire&#39; people to write something literal and coherent, that isn&#39;t open for interpretation? Did he employ fools to write the Bible, knowing that they would make it seem as though he advocated murder and rape? If, in the extremely unlikely case there is a God, he can&#39;t be omnipotent or omnibenevolent as he would not have then allowed the production of this dire, laughably contradicting and ridiculous book.


You must understand that all of this is before Jesus is around. For example when God calls for the sacrifice of animals. When Jesus died for us it was like the final ultimate sacrifice needed. One that encompasses all sin. And animal sacrifices are no longer needed. And all of those things that are said in the books like Deuteronomy are not really relevant anymore, kind of… can‘t think of the right word, because like what Jesus said in John 8:7, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus’ most basic law is the law of love.

Why were animal sacrifices needed in the first place? Is God so weak, powerless and pathetic that he needs a &#39;mere human&#39; to burn a cow for him? If God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to die for our sins anyway, surely God could simply just erase all sin, without the need to punish his son (who incidentally is also himself... :unsure: ) or anybody else?

[MrDoom]

God commands Abraham to kill his son:
True, it was only a test; but he&#39;s still commanded someone to murder.

Yes it is true that God had commanded Abraham to kill his son as a test. But it was only a test of faith, not something that God had intended him to actually do though. So he really didn’t command Abraham to murder.
I hope for your sake "God" doesn&#39;t command you to stab yourself in the face as a "test of faith".

If this happened in our day ol&#39; Abe would be in jail for child abuse. It doesn&#39;t matter if it was a "test". He COMMANDED A MAN TO KILL HIS INNOCENT SON.



God commands slaying of daughters:

Really, God had commanded him to say that? You might want to reread that part. No where did God command Jephthah to do that.
If you God is all-knowing, he accepted the pact knowing full well an innocent would die from it.



God commands more death and plunder:

Why do you stop short? Its like you are trying to hide something. Here is more that you should of have quoted.


15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Specifically what you left out is why God had commanded that, verse 18.
Whatever happened to "though shall not kill"?

This is basically saying, "Join Christ or DIE"&#33;



God makes rape victims marry their attackers:
God commands death of rape victims:


These I shall shoot down together, J Again you left out a part, this time in between your two examples.


25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

In your example she wasn’t really raped. Like the saying “you can’t rape the willing”.
WTF&#33; How is that "not really raped"?&#33; Do you think a woman being raped and silenced at weapon-point is "asking for it"?&#33;

And what does your passage change in all of this?



God&#39;s laws on sexual slavery:

Sexual slavery? Where is sexual slavery even mentioned?

"If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

It would be hard to imagine the sexual relations mentioned as voluntary on the part of the slave. There is a particular reason that one buys a man&#39;s daughter.

So a man can legally enslave a young woman so long as he feeds, clothes, and has sex with (rapes) her. :unsure:



God commands death of atheists and those of other religions:


God says to kill a whole town if there is one nonbeliever:

Only one nonbeliever? You might want to reread that one also. “that SOME worthless rabble among you have led THEIR fellow citizens astray by encouraging THEM to worship foreign gods.”
I don&#39;t know about your dialect, but the use of "some" and "their" can refer to the singular, especially in possessive.


Those words, some, their, and them, imply more than one person. They don’t destroy the town because of one nonbeliever, they destroy the town because it has been turned into a town of nonbelievers.
"Some" is not "all".

And how is killing people (which though shalt not doeth) who don&#39;t buy into the con game justified?

We are the Church. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.



SNIP

Ezekiel is crying for what God is about to do saying, “Ah, Sovereign LORD&#33; Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?” And God had responded saying that it is needed because “The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great”
Killing babies is needed?



Rape and merciless baby-killing from God:

This is also from a prophecy. And it is not just any prophecy but a prophecy of what is going to happen to Babylon. Also the prophecy against Babylon begins on Isaiah 13 and ends with Isaiah 14:23
Regardless, it&#39;s God plotting to kill the innocent and bathe in their blood.



This one&#39;s kind of funny; guy kills 30 and commits arson, God lets him kill even more with a jawbone:

When does he commit arson. Is this what you are talking about?, “the ropes around his arms become as flax that is consumed by fire and the bonds melted away from his hands.” If it is then you really misread it. It doesn’t say that he started a fire. It says that the ropes that were tied around him melted away as IF they had been on fire.
The arson is committed beforehand.

And why would a rational God allow a man to kill a THOUSAND with a FUCKING JAWBONE?&#33;



"Saint" Peter the Murderer:

Murderer huh? Explain to me on how he murdered those two people. Also, you do realize what it is that they had done right?
Be rational about this. Peter was the only person mentioned in the couple&#39;s house upon their deaths. They died. How? Peter MURDERED THEM.


And all of those things that are said in the books like Deuteronomy are not really relevant anymore, kind of… can‘t think of the right word, because like what Jesus said in John 8:7, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
The OT is still "valid". Your pal Jesus said so.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)


You must understand that all of this is before Jesus is around. For example when God calls for the sacrifice of animals. When Jesus died for us it was like the final ultimate sacrifice needed. One that encompasses all sin. And animal sacrifices are no longer needed.
Why does your God need sacrifices and blood to begin with? He got so hungry for gore he sent his own "son" to be killed.


Jesus’ most basic law is the law of love.
Love of the opressor? Sorry, I&#39;d rather be a free man.

[freakazoid]

Way to go about responding, tell them they don&#39;t understand it.

But I didn’t just say that he doesn’t understand and then not help him to understand. I posted on everything that he brought up as God being cruel.


knowing that they would make it seem as though he advocated murder and rape?

But it doesn’t seem as if he did that.


laughably contradicting

How?


without the need to punish his son

He wasn’t punishing his son.


If you God is all-knowing, he accepted the pact knowing full well an innocent would die from it.

That pact wasn’t needed to begin with.


Whatever happened to "though shall not kill"?

Actually its murder, not kill.


WTF&#33; How is that "not really raped"?&#33; Do you think a woman being raped and silenced at weapon-point is "asking for it"?&#33;

And what does your passage change in all of this?

It doesn’t say anything about a weapon. What it means is that she wasn’t forced to have sex, she willingly did it. And I posted that passage that you have left out because it shows that your interpretation of the passage that you posted was wrong, you are saying that it is ok to punish the woman who was raped when the passage that I posted clearly shows that that is not the case.


So a man can legally enslave a young woman so long as he feeds, clothes, and has sex with (rapes) her.

“or fail to sleep with her as his wife.”

That isn’t saying that he must rape her. It is saying that he mustn’t not sleep with her just because there is another. Since when is having sex with your wife rape?


There is a particular reason that one buys a man&#39;s daughter.

You do and you don’t buy his daughter. You don’t buy her as property, you are paying a kind of restitution for his daughter.


I don&#39;t know about your dialect, but the use of "some" and "their" can refer to the singular, especially in possessive.

True but the word “some” isn’t being used in that way. I says, “some worthless rabble”, not “a worthless rabble”. Which would then mean that the word “their” is being used in the plural form. And what about the word “them”, that is definitely plural.


"Some" is not "all".

Yes “some” isn’t “all”, but it is the “some” that had turned the “all” into nonbelievers.


Killing babies is needed?

The destruction is needed.


Regardless, it&#39;s God plotting to kill the innocent and bathe in their blood.

Innocent? What’s next, that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was wrong?


22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [e] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you&#33; Will not the Judge [g] of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."


Genesis 18:16 - 19:29 is the whole story.


The arson is committed beforehand.

Oh I see, you didn’t post the passage about the arson.


And why would a rational God allow a man to kill a THOUSAND with a FUCKING JAWBONE?&#33;

What does how someone kills someone have to do with “rationality”. And why have you resorted to cussing?


Be rational about this. Peter was the only person mentioned in the couple&#39;s house upon their deaths. They died. How? Peter MURDERED THEM.

He wasn’t in the couples house. And he wasn’t alone, he is just the only one mentioned by name:


5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

He is the only one mentioned by name unless it takes place at the same time as this:


36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles&#39; feet.

Then he is also mentioned by name as being there. Again, you don’t say how Peter had supposedly murdered them, which is because he didn’t.


The OT is still "valid". Your pal Jesus said so.

Yes I know that it is still valid, that is why I said that the word “relevant” isn’t really the word that I am looking for, but it is the closest word that I can think of.


Why does your God need sacrifices and blood to begin with? He got so hungry for gore he sent his own "son" to be killed.

The sacrifice of animals was symbolic.


Love of the opressor?

How is Jesus an oppressor?


Sorry, I&#39;d rather be a free man.

You only think that you are free.

Also on a side note about God being a capitalist:
Acts 4:32-35

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles&#39; feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

How is that capitalism?

I would also like to ask you if you believe that Jesus was a real person?

[MrDoom]

If you God is all-knowing, he accepted the pact knowing full well an innocent would die from it.

That pact wasn’t needed to begin with.
Yet he still accepted it, knowing where it would lead: the death of an innocent.



Whatever happened to "though shall not kill"?

Actually its murder, not kill.
Whatever happened to "though shall not murder"?



WTF&#33; How is that "not really raped"?&#33; Do you think a woman being raped and silenced at weapon-point is "asking for it"?&#33;

And what does your passage change in all of this?

It doesn’t say anything about a weapon. What it means is that she wasn’t forced to have sex, she willingly did it. And I posted that passage that you have left out because it shows that your interpretation of the passage that you posted was wrong, you are saying that it is ok to punish the woman who was raped when the passage that I posted clearly shows that that is not the case.
Your passage is under completely differing conditions.

Where are you getting the idea that a woman "willingly did it"? Coerced sexual intercourse is RAPE.



So a man can legally enslave a young woman so long as he feeds, clothes, and has sex with (rapes) her.

“or fail to sleep with her as his wife.”

That isn’t saying that he must rape her. It is saying that he mustn’t not sleep with her just because there is another.
And what do a husband and wife do when they sleep with one another...?


Since when is having sex with your wife rape?
When it is coerced. Particularly when she was sold to you as a slave.



There is a particular reason that one buys a man&#39;s daughter.

You do and you don’t buy his daughter. You don’t buy her as property, you are paying a kind of restitution for his daughter.
Paying a "restitution"? For "his daughter"? THAT IS A SALE, PROPERTY TRANSFER, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Under no circumstances is selling your daughter into sexual slavery acceptable.



Killing babies is needed?

The destruction is needed.
How is destruction of helpless and innocent babies needed?



Love of the opressor?

How is Jesus an oppressor?
He teaches the masses to quietly accept tyranny, pinning all of their hopes on an unproven afterlife utopia.



Sorry, I&#39;d rather be a free man.

You only think that you are free.
I do not. So long as capitalism dominates the earth, no one is free.


Also on a side note about God being a capitalist:
Acts 4:32-35

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles&#39; feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

How is that capitalism?
I&#39;ve already rescinded my view that God is a capitalist. He is a con man, and thus lumpenproletariat.


I would also like to ask you if you believe that Jesus was a real person?
Perhaps he was. But he was a person, and nothing more.

[dogwoodlover]

I agree with the notion that much of mainstream Christian theology is incompatible with anarchism. However, I do strongly identify with anarchism, and I do consider myself a Christian. I sit so far from most Christians in the beliefs department that I sometimes avoid the term because it often gives people pre-conceived notions about me that simply are not true.

The famous anarchist&#39;s slogan "No God, No Masters", follows the predominant view of religion in mainstream anarchism. However, that does not exclude those believing in a God from anarchist discussion, just like anarchists outside the dominant anarcho-communist/syndicalist views do not warrant exclusion.

The faith vs. science debate has been going on since the two have existed, and there will be no "winning" it from either side&#39;s perspective, because neither can claim objective truth.

Religious fundamentalists have long tried to impose their views on others, but anyone considering themselves to be a "Christian-anarchist" would abandon that practice completely.

Most Christian anarchists that I&#39;ve spoken to advocate anarchism much like their secular contemporaries, but personally concede a belief in Jesus Christ, in which I find no contradictions.

I find much agreement with the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends). Here is an excerpt from wikipedia on Quaker Egalitarianism:


Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)"Quakers hold a strong sense of spiritual egalitarianism, including a belief in the spiritual equality of the sexes—which was remarkable for the mid-1600s. Both women and men were granted equal authority to speak in meetings for worship."

"[The Quaker&#39;s] attitude towards egalitarianism was also demonstrated by their refusal to practice "hat honor"; meaning that Quakers refused to take their hats off or bow to anyone regardless of title or rank, and refused to address anyone with honorifics such as "Sir," "Madam," "Your Honor," or "Your Majesty." This testified to the Friends&#39; understanding that, in the eyes of God, there was no hierarchy based on birth, wealth, or political power - such honors they reserved only for God."[/b]

I want to also comment that I believe Marx had it right with his Base and Superstructure theory, and that the prevalent, mainstream Christian theologies show that it still holds true. It should be noted, that I am no Marxist, and that my knowledge of Marx is limited, so forgive me if I&#39;ve misunderstood or misinterpreted his theory.


MrDoom
They CAN express their beliefs. In private.
I completely agree. People can express their beliefs (when their alone in their darkened room looking away from the telescreen).[/b][/quote]
Telescreens? There are no telescreens in Communism Land. What people do in private is their own concern.[/b][/quote]

If people took that same argument and applied it to dissidence no anarchist nor libertarian would hesitate even for a moment to declare it a totalitarian conception. From what I understand you advocate freedom of expression of those that agree with you.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by MrDoom+November 18, 2006 03:33 am--> (MrDoom @ November 18, 2006 03:33 am)

[email protected] 17, 2006 10:37 pm
They CAN express their beliefs. In private.
I completely agree. People can express their beliefs (when their alone in their darkened room looking away from the telescreen).
Telescreens? There are no telescreens in Communism Land. What people do in private is their own concern.

[/b]
Will people literally be arrested if they&#39;re preaching in a public park?

Now that&#39;s freedom&#33;

:lol: