The Sick And Degenerate Mind Of St. Paul

[Rainie]

Not long after Jesus' death, the apostle Paul counseled total obedience to the state (the very Roman state that had crucified his savior), claiming in Romans 13.1 that "The powers that be are ordained by God." Since there exists no authority save by the act of God, it follows that those who do not submit to earthly rulers are in effect resisting celestial authority "and shall receive to themselves damnation." Preaching while that homicidal autocrat, Nero, was sitting on the throne, Paul assures his followers that the ruler is both virtuous and benign, working for the good of all and ready to punish evidoers. He deserves obedience not only out of fear "but also for conscience sake" "for he is the minister of God." So should people "render tribute" (taxes) to the authorities, for they do God's service. Soon after this, at the instigation of a rival Christian faction, Paul himself [along with Peter and a number of other Christians] is said to have been arrrested and executed by the divinely secular authorities.

By Dr. Michael Parenti, History As Mystery


Romans 13:1-7 (New International Version)
Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

[La Comédie Noire]

Very Interesting. I always point that quote out to people when they don't take me seriously on religion being a form of societal control.

Thats some real cooky shit. :wacko:

[Freigemachten]

This is somewhat related though not really. I had a very interesting discussion with a very interesting individual by the name of Simon that I met on the streets of Columbia, SC. He and two of his friends live out of a van. I have no idea where they get gas money because the only work they do is voluntary, or for food. They will take money if offered but they don't seek it. They dumpster dive and go binning for food, they are freegans, and they are christians. They say that they are living the life Christ lived. They've sold everything they own, given all the money to the poor, and when the do settle down they live in a commune. For the most part though, they drive around the country and talk to people.

I began discussing anarchsim with him and socialism and things like that and he's a very sharp guy. bought him and his friends some food and we sat down and had a talk about religion.

They are all willing to completely disregard the divinity of Christ, if people are willing to admit that the way he lived and what he taught would really lead to a better way of life, free of control and all that.

Naturally i brought up the classic quote "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give onto God what is God's".

To this he answered "What this means is that nothing is Ceasar's. don't give the rulers anything, and do it best by not having anything to give. All we give God is gratitude for the things we need. We don't need money, we don't need food, we don't need the fucking yuppie life, we don't need the zombie life you see every day. You're awake, you know what I mean. When we need food, we find it, I don't worry about it, it doesn't control me, if I don't find food, I don't need it rightnow, I'll find it later, my faith is in love, if I flip a shit because some trashbin doesn't have food in it, my faith is in that trashcan, and it has failed me. I love you as a human being, my faith is in that love, you love too, you call it something different, but I've got a bag full of burgers here that says it mate."

I thought the whole encounter was very interesting and they are by far some of the coolest people I've ever met. The abhor organized religion, despise classist society and revolt against it in their every day life. Money is an obsurdity to them, their currency is love and good will.

I don't support their Christian faith, but if you happen to meet them, three guys, one is British, one is from somewhere in Africa, I can't remember where, and I Don't know where the other is from, their names are Simon, Ezrah, and something else which I've also forgotten, I think they're heading north, the sent me an email saying they were in North Carolina, but I don't know how long they'll stay, have a talk with them, they're good people.

This ended up being a lot more unrelated than I meant it to be.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:56 am
To this he answered "What this means is that nothing is Ceasar's. don't give the rulers anything, and do it best by not having anything to give. All we give God is gratitude for the things we need. We don't need money, we don't need food, we don't need the fucking yuppie life, we don't need the zombie life you see every day. You're awake, you know what I mean. When we need food, we find it, I don't worry about it, it doesn't control me, if I don't find food, I don't need it rightnow, I'll find it later, my faith is in love, if I flip a shit because some trashbin doesn't have food in it, my faith is in that trashcan, and it has failed me. I love you as a human being, my faith is in that love, you love too, you call it something different, but I've got a bag full of burgers here that says it mate."
That's pretty accurate. I don't know why people say otherwise; it is known that that comment pissed the romans off (according to the testament, at least). It is pretty much saying, "Give whatever is Caesar's to him, and whatever is God's - everything - to him." In other words, give nothing to Caesar; submit only to God.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:56 am

Naturally i brought up the classic quote "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give onto God what is God's".

To this he answered "What this means is that nothing is Ceasar's. don't give the rulers anything, and do it best by not having anything to give. All we give God is gratitude for the things we need. We don't need money, we don't need food, we don't need the fucking yuppie life, we don't need the zombie life you see every day. You're awake, you know what I mean. When we need food, we find it, I don't worry about it, it doesn't control me, if I don't find food, I don't need it rightnow, I'll find it later, my faith is in love, if I flip a shit because some trashbin doesn't have food in it, my faith is in that trashcan, and it has failed me. I love you as a human being, my faith is in that love, you love too, you call it something different, but I've got a bag full of burgers here that says it mate."
You see, this is the problem with scripture of any kind. It's meaning can be interpreted into whatever shape you choose to twist it into, one of the many reasons that makes scripture ultimately useless.

Meet the New Testament, same as the Old Testament...

Biblical Morality: Did Jesus Fix It? (http://creationtheory.org/BiblicalMorality/JesusFix.shtml)

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:57 am
You see, this is the problem with scripture of any kind. It's meaning can be interpreted into whatever shape you choose to twist it into, one of the many reasons that makes scripture ultimately useless.

Meet the New Testament, same as the Old Testament...

Biblical Morality: Did Jesus Fix It? (http://creationtheory.org/BiblicalMorality/JesusFix.shtml)
Hey, a site devoted to belittling nonsensical ideas. I'm really going to trust their small - minded crap.

At least the Christians believe in the bullshit they obsess over; these people are just trying to be hateful.

I tend to trust people who have done exhaustive studies on the old biblical texts more than someone who randomly picks at it.

You know, lenin and marx said sexist things as well as feminist things. Perhaps I'll stop reading their works, since it is then left to interpretation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey, a site devoted to belittling nonsensical ideas. I'm really going to trust their small - minded crap.

THe "non-sensical ideas" that website is belittling happen to be held by about 50% of the American public.

Not so much "small-minded crap" now is it?


At least the Christians believe in the bullshit they obsess over; these people are just trying to be hateful.

That's right, forget reasoning and critical skills, just blindly believe and everything will be OK. That's a shit way of looking at things, to be frank.

And if you were paying any fucking attention at all, you would see that the author of that website was trying to make a point, and wasn't "being hateful" as you so asininely put it.

Please do me a big, big favour and point out the parts of that website that you find "hateful" and I'll bring them up with the author.


I tend to trust people who have done exhaustive studies on the old biblical texts more than someone who randomly picks at it.

Exhaustive studies have already been done - modern copies of religious writings are the result of that. The author of that site just went a step further down the critical route and pointed out how the Bible is totally shit source of morality that does not reflect what we as a society actually consider moral or not.

But since you haven't realised that by now, it's obvious you didn't even bother to properly read the link and just dismissed it based on your pre-determined prejudices.


You know, lenin and marx said sexist things as well as feminist things. Perhaps I'll stop reading their works, since it is then left to interpretation.

The main and the most important difference is that Marx and Engels were only human and made no claims to divinity - so it is perfectly reasonable for us to accept and reject different parts of what they said. But the Bible (and most other holy books) is supposed to be an infallible source of morality direct from God himself. It is not consistent or reasonable to only accept parts of what is supposedly God's will.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:27 am
THe "non-sensical ideas" that website is belittling happen to be held by about 50% of the American public.

Not so much "small-minded crap" now is it?
Attacking ideas that are mostly innoculous for the American people, not for the reason of developing a valid argument but to make a vague, moral one is hardly going to win over any converts. I tend to not judge Christians for being Christian.



At least the Christians believe in the bullshit they obsess over; these people are just trying to be hateful.

That's right, forget reasoning and critical skills, just blindly believe and everything will be OK. That's a shit way of looking at things, to be frank.

And if you were paying any fucking attention at all, you would see that the author of that website was trying to make a point, and wasn't "being hateful" as you so asininely put it.

Please do me a big, big favour and point out the parts of that website that you find "hateful" and I'll bring them up with the author.
Yes, making a point can't be hateful. Smart argument. As I was saying, at least the Christians obsess over bullshit because they believe it; these people just want to dismiss it's validity but still obsess over it. It's like they're ex-christians who still can't escape their fetishes.



I tend to trust people who have done exhaustive studies on the old biblical texts more than someone who randomly picks at it.

Exhaustive studies have already been done - modern copies of religious writings are the result of that. The author of that site just went a step further down the critical route and pointed out how the Bible is totally shit source of morality that does not reflect what we as a society actually consider moral or not.

But since you haven't realised that by now, it's obvious you didn't even bother to properly read the link and just dismissed it based on your pre-determined prejudices.
No, I did read it. It had some points, but was not very objective and at mayn times ignored basic Christian theology, which, as a criticism of it, should at least take it into account.



You know, lenin and marx said sexist things as well as feminist things. Perhaps I'll stop reading their works, since it is then left to interpretation.

The main and the most important difference is that Marx and Engels were only human and made no claims to divinity - so it is perfectly reasonable for us to accept and reject different parts of what they said. But the Bible (and most other holy books) is supposed to be an infallible source of morality direct from God himself. It is not consistent or reasonable to only accept parts of what is supposedly God's will.
Well this great criticism of the Bible didn't do shit for you either, apparently. If you knew anything about the bible, you'd know first off that not all of it is considered the word of Christianity's God (the entire new testament comes to mind, jackass) and that the books are taken in the context of knowing it was written "by proxy" and by different people.

Christians who believe that God wrote the bible, or that it's his word, are idiots who don't know one thing about their own religion. People like you that claim it to be part of Christian theology are just as idiotic in your criticism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:08 pm
Attacking ideas that are mostly innoculous for the American people, not for the reason of developing a valid argument but to make a vague, moral one is hardly going to win over any converts. I tend to not judge Christians for being Christian.
I think, perhaps, you meant "innocuous" - which is an odd word for you to choose to describe religion when it's better described as malignant, pernicious, cancerous or dangerous.


I tend to not judge Christians for being Christian.

Then you're an idiot, they choose to believe in their mystical sky-daddy.


As I was saying, at least the Christians obsess over bullshit because they believe it; these people just want to dismiss it's validity but still obsess over it. It's like they're ex-christians who still can't escape their fetishes.

Either that or they have recognised the inherent problems of the christian religion and wish to fight it and help others with a similar goal. As leftists we should support most attacks on religion.


No, I did read it. It had some points, but was not very objective and at mayn times ignored basic Christian theology, which, as a criticism of it, should at least take it into account.

Which parts of basic christian theology did it ignore? The parts you just made up in your desperation to defend this reactionary superstition?


Well this great criticism of the Bible didn't do shit for you either, apparently. If you knew anything about the bible, you'd know first off that not all of it is considered the word of Christianity's God (the entire new testament comes to mind, jackass) and that the books are taken in the context of knowing it was written "by proxy" and by different people.

Ah, you've finally managed to make an actual point, have a fucking banana. The problem is, as you should know being the main apologist for reactionary belief systems, that most christians start by declaring the bible infallible and moving on from there.


Christians who believe that God wrote the bible, or that it's his word, are idiots who don't know one thing about their own religion. People like you that claim it to be part of Christian theology are just as idiotic in your criticism.

"Scotsmen that put sugar on their porridge, or don't eat haggis, aren't real Scotsmen. People like you that claim sugar to be in a True Scotsman's porridge are idiotic in your criticisms"

[bezdomni]

lol is this a clever allusion to that crappy MIMite thread "the sick and degenerate mind of Leon Trotsky"?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 04, 2007 04:29 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 04, 2007 04:29 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 04:08 pm
Attacking ideas that are mostly innoculous for the American people, not for the reason of developing a valid argument but to make a vague, moral one is hardly going to win over any converts. I tend to not judge Christians for being Christian.
I think, perhaps, you meant "innocuous" - which is an odd word for you to choose to describe religion when it's better described as malignant, pernicious, cancerous or dangerous.


I tend to not judge Christians for being Christian.

Then you're an idiot, they choose to believe in their mystical sky-daddy.


As I was saying, at least the Christians obsess over bullshit because they believe it; these people just want to dismiss it's validity but still obsess over it. It's like they're ex-christians who still can't escape their fetishes.

Either that or they have recognised the inherent problems of the christian religion and wish to fight it and help others with a similar goal. As leftists we should support most attacks on religion.

[/b]
how about "not interesting, stimulating, or significant; pallid; insipid" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=innocuous)

Yes, those ideas are insignificant and irrelevant. Obsessing over them once you've recognized that they're untrue is ever more small - minded.



No, I did read it. It had some points, but was not very objective and at mayn times ignored basic Christian theology, which, as a criticism of it, should at least take it into account.

Which parts of basic christian theology did it ignore? The parts you just made up in your desperation to defend this reactionary superstition?
Hmm, what did I just make up?


Ah, you've finally managed to make an actual point, have a fucking banana. The problem is, as you should know being the main apologist for reactionary belief systems, that most christians start by declaring the bible infallible and moving on from there.
Well, good job at arguing a point that brings down the entire relevance of another by simply claiming it is not so. Too bad those Christians and theologians I know, one of whom has written books on the bible, would agree with my claim that the bible is falliable, and written by men, and would refute yours as idolatrous and very much against the Christian ideology.

But, do tell me how religion is reactionary. My impression is that is is conservative; they don't seek a return to the old order, they are generally happy with living in a conservative, irreligious society. Also, in what context am I the "main apologist" for religion? In my nation? Among the left? Just at RevLeft? I would think those who are religious and actually argue the ideas themselves would be more apologists.

Opps, forgot that you're just another pseudo-marxist troll. Everything not fully in agreeance with your soulless, anti-humanist "Marx" worship is reactionary.



Christians who believe that God wrote the bible, or that it's his word, are idiots who don't know one thing about their own religion. People like you that claim it to be part of Christian theology are just as idiotic in your criticism.

"Scotsmen that put sugar on their porridge, or don't eat haggis, aren't real Scotsmen. People like you that claim sugar to be in a True Scotsman's porridge are idiotic in your criticisms"
Stupid != improperly labelled. Like you. You're stupid, but it's not incorrect for me to label you a writer.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, those ideas are insignificant and irrelevant. Obsessing over them once you've recognized that they're untrue is ever more small - minded.

Expressing concern over the fact that 50% of Americans hold beliefs that are false about material reality is far from small-minded.

Seriously, this means that 50% of the American population are deluded to a greater or lesser degree.


No, I did read it. It had some points, but was not very objective and at mayn times ignored basic Christian theology, which, as a criticism of it, should at least take it into account.

What basic Christian theology did it ignore? Fess up. It's simply not good enough just to say so.


Well, good job at arguing a point that brings down the entire relevance of another by simply claiming it is not so. Too bad those Christians and theologians I know, one of whom has written books on the bible, would agree with my claim that the bible is falliable, and written by men, and would refute yours as idolatrous and very much against the Christian ideology.

Anecdotes and vague references to "people you know" are not a replacement for hard data. It is clear that Christian fundamentalists, who have significant influence in America, believe the Bible to be infallible.

And if it is fallible, you've cut out pretty much the basis of the entire Christian religion.


But, do tell me how religion is reactionary.

Religion requires you to suspend your reason and instead take bronze age fairy tales for truth without any evidence whatsoever. Also, most religions have extremely sexist, racist and homphobic elements in them.

Tell me how that is not reactionary.


My impression is that is is conservative; they don't seek a return to the old order, they are generally happy with living in a conservative, irreligious society.

A significantly vocal portion of religious believers think we as a society are far too damn irreligious for their liking. Have you heard the Pope's whinging about it recently? And he's not the only one.


Also, in what context am I the "main apologist" for religion? In my nation? Among the left? Just at RevLeft? I would think those who are religious and actually argue the ideas themselves would be more apologists.

You're certainly gunning for the title of Head Religious Apologist here on Revleft. Plus you don't have to actually hold a belief system or ideology in order to be an apologist for it.


Opps, forgot that you're just another pseudo-marxist troll. Everything not fully in agreeance with your soulless, anti-humanist "Marx" worship is reactionary.

Extra fail points for getting it completely wrong.


Christians who believe that God wrote the bible, or that it's his word, are idiots who don't know one thing about their own religion. People like you that claim it to be part of Christian theology are just as idiotic in your criticism.

I don't recall anyone saying that "god wrote the bible". When we say that Christians believe the Bible to be infallible, it makes no presumptions as to who actually put pen to paper. In any case, the Bible is supposedly "divinely inspired" with God guiding the hand of the human writer.

[Dean]

Originally posted by NoXion+September 11, 2007 04:37 pm--> (NoXion @ September 11, 2007 04:37 pm) Expressing concern over the fact that 50% of Americans hold beliefs that are false about material reality is far from small-minded.

Seriously, this means that 50% of the American population are deluded to a greater or lesser degree. [/b]
I share that concern. But I am not so frightened by it to create a website solely attacking that issue.



What basic Christian theology did it ignore? Fess up. It's simply not good enough just to say so.
While I don't remember the exact thing that struck me at the time the following ignores Christian theology:

How many Christians do you know who don't quote the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments are the source of Judeo-Christian hatred of other religions, and if Christians continue to quote the Ten Commandments, they must also answer for their inherent bigotry.
This has little to do with the question, "did Jesus contradict / fix the old testament?". It is merely a statement on how certain Christians interpret the Bible, which has relevance when considering church opinion, but certainly not much when considering new testament morality.


Anecdotes and vague references to "people you know" are not a replacement for hard data. It is clear that Christian fundamentalists, who have significant influence in America, believe the Bible to be infallible.

And if it is fallible, you've cut out pretty much the basis of the entire Christian religion.
The basis is that the New Testament is correct in saying Jesus was the son of God and a few other points. But here's the proof for my "vague reference:"
One of the books he's written, a copy of which he recently gave to me (http://www.amazon.com/First-Second-Chronicles-Interpretation-Commentary/dp/0804231109/ref=sr_1_5/103-8719098-0001429?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189548186&sr=8-5)

A quote in the book which points to a contradiction in the bible:

[email protected] 2001
Now, Chronicles lists the sons of Jehoiakim (3:16), who are also the last two kings in David's line: Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin [2 Kgs. 24:6-17; 2 Chr. 36:8-9] and Coniah [Jer. 22:24]) and Zedekiah (see 2 Chr. 36:10, which also describes Zedekiah as Jeconiah's brother). Note that this is in conflict with 2 Kings 24:17, which says it was Jehoiachin's uncle Zedekiah (see 3:15; originally named Mattaniah, according to Kings), who was installed by Nebuchadnezzar of Bablylon as king in place of his exiled nephew.

He repeatedly refers to a Chronicler, explaining that this was not God, but a person writing this, often copying lists from other texts.


Religion requires you to suspend your reason and instead take bronze age fairy tales for truth without any evidence whatsoever. Also, most religions have extremely sexist, racist and homphobic elements in them.
O.K., how is that reactionary (besides the second statement)? I can see where it's wrong, but not reactionary.


A significantly vocal portion of religious believers think we as a society are far too damn irreligious for their liking. Have you heard the Pope's whinging about it recently? And he's not the only one.
Sure, but is that a majority opinion? It seems to me that in most cases religion is a minor factor in human ideas of social change, at best.


You're certainly gunning for the title of Head Religious Apologist here on Revleft. Plus you don't have to actually hold a belief system or ideology in order to be an apologist for it.
I don't apologise for religion, I defend those who are wrongly accused of holding certain ideas, etc.

In other words I'm a realist and it pisses me off to see people who have humanist ideals blanketed as "the enemy."


I don't recall anyone saying that "god wrote the bible". When we say that Christians believe the Bible to be infallible, it makes no presumptions as to who actually put pen to paper. In any case, the Bible is supposedly "divinely inspired" with God guiding the hand of the human writer.
Apparently not, according to what is in the book I quoted.

I'd like to find better quotes but I just started reading it. I can't "prove" that I know Steven Tuell, but I can quote what he wrote in the book he gave me:
"For Dean, our fourth son, with all our love and prayers. God's Peace, Steve Tuell"

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Dean+September 04, 2007 04:08 pm--> (Dean @ September 04, 2007 04:08 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 09:27 am
THe "non-sensical ideas" that website is belittling happen to be held by about 50% of the American public.

Not so much "small-minded crap" now is it?
Attacking ideas that are mostly innoculous for the American people, not for the reason of developing a valid argument but to make a vague, moral one is hardly going to win over any converts. I tend to not judge Christians for being Christian.

[/b]
Good for you, I really mean it. In fact, I just wish people like Jazzratt would be of the same opinion and realize that it is extremely counter-productive to ridicule beliefs that are held dear to billions of people around the world.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:13 am
Not long after Jesus' death, the apostle Paul counseled total obedience to the state (the very Roman state that had crucified his savior), claiming in Romans 13.1 that "The powers that be are ordained by God." Since there exists no authority save by the act of God, it follows that those who do not submit to earthly rulers are in effect resisting celestial authority "and shall receive to themselves damnation." Preaching while that homicidal autocrat, Nero, was sitting on the throne, Paul assures his followers that the ruler is both virtuous and benign, working for the good of all and ready to punish evidoers. He deserves obedience not only out of fear "but also for conscience sake" "for he is the minister of God." So should people "render tribute" (taxes) to the authorities, for they do God's service. Soon after this, at the instigation of a rival Christian faction, Paul himself [along with Peter and a number of other Christians] is said to have been arrrested and executed by the divinely secular authorities.
That is indeed the logical conclusion of taking Romans 13:1-7 at face value. It is a very odd conclusion indeed - how on Earth could Paul be preaching submission to the state that had crucified his saviour? How on Earth could he say that secular authority was divinely ordained and just when the Emperor at the time - Nero - was clearly insane? To take things one step further, if all authority is divinely ordained, does that mean that if I kill one ruler (who had God's protection) and take his place, I will also have God's protection? Under this view, God supported the rule of the aristocracy, until its authority passed to the bourgeoisie. Then God began supporting the bourgeoisie; and if the authority of the bourgeoisie passes to the proletariat, God will then support the proletariat instead. And, of course, God supports all sides in all wars, all at the same time!

Yes, you are perfectly right - this view of God does not make any sense, and no one in his right mind could possibly hold such a view. You may believe that Paul was not in fact, in his right mind. But the problem with that is that his other writings look very much like the thoughts of a rational man, not the ravings of a lunatic. The far more common belief among Biblical scholars is that Romans 13:1-7 should not be taken at face value. Non-Christians generally argue that Paul wrote those lines because he was afraid his letter might be read by agents of the Emperor, and he wanted to sound as non-subversive as possible in order to be allowed into Rome. Christians basically argue that Paul was talking about legitimate authority rather than any and all authority. Thus his message becomes "legitimate authority is ordained by God" rather than "any and all authority is ordained by God". What is or is not "legitimate" is a matter of debate, of course. I would argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat is "legitimate authority".

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by NoXion+September 11, 2007 06:37 pm--> (NoXion @ September 11, 2007 06:37 pm) Expressing concern over the fact that 50% of Americans hold beliefs that are false about material reality is far from small-minded.

Seriously, this means that 50% of the American population are deluded to a greater or lesser degree. [/b]
I would argue that the vast majority of people hold at least some beliefs about material reality that happen to be false. In fact, we are all probably among them. Can you say with complete certainty that everything you believe is the absolute, unvarnished Truth? I can't.

A certain statement by Socrates comes to mind...


Originally posted by [email protected]
...Christian fundamentalists, who have significant influence in America...
Heh. No, they don't. Christian fundamentalists don't have influence over the US government. Rather, the US government has influence over Christian fundamentalists. Fundies don't command the American bourgeoisie; they take orders from [a section of] the American bourgeoisie.


NoXion
A significantly vocal portion of religious believers think we as a society are far too damn irreligious for their liking. Have you heard the Pope's whinging about it recently? And he's not the only one.
Yes, whining. Very good choice of words. The Pope is indeed whining. He is not actually taking any action to make society more religious, because he has no power to do so. All he can do is complain about it.

Now you tell me how religion (or Christian religion in particular) can be so damn dangerous when its leading figure can't do much more than complain about the things he doesn't like.

[Jesus H.]

Organized religions are basically systems of mind control. In company run mining towns there were company supplied preachers who made all their hardship bearable.

Religion is a darce as far as i am concerned, and unless it is a totally personal experience between yourself and what is then it can be very harmful. IMO.

As far as that quote of St. Paul. He was a great appeaser. That is what he was doing to mollify the Romans at that time in order to not bring them down on the Christian sect that was being eyed suspiciously by the Roman state.

I do not agree with him in principle, but I believe it was an expediency that he undertook for what he understood to be a larger good.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 12, 2007 06:19 am--> (Edric O @ September 12, 2007 06:19 am)
Originally posted by NoXion+September 11, 2007 06:37 pm--> (NoXion @ September 11, 2007 06:37 pm) Expressing concern over the fact that 50% of Americans hold beliefs that are false about material reality is far from small-minded.

Seriously, this means that 50% of the American population are deluded to a greater or lesser degree. [/b]
I would argue that the vast majority of people hold at least some beliefs about material reality that happen to be false. In fact, we are all probably among them. Can you say with complete certainty that everything you believe is the absolute, unvarnished Truth? I can't.

A certain statement by Socrates comes to mind... [/b]
Exactly how does the fact that everyone has an imperfect picture of reality excuse 50% of the population for holding false beliefs about what is empirically verifiable?

This isn't some philosophical discussion about whether we all see red the same colour or some other inconsequential matter, it is about science and how it's being attacked in a modern world built on that science, all because of some vicious, outdated and cruel bronze age beliefs and morality tales.



[email protected]
...Christian fundamentalists, who have significant influence in America...

Heh. No, they don't. Christian fundamentalists don't have influence over the US government. Rather, the US government has influence over Christian fundamentalists. Fundies don't command the American bourgeoisie; they take orders from [a section of] the American bourgeoisie.

In modern "democracies" inflience is money, and the Christian fundamentalist nhave plenty of that thanks to the despicable money-grubbing behaviour of televangelists. Not to mention the fact that some members of the US government are fundamentalists themselves, like Rick Santorum, Senator for Pennsylvania, and Jeb Bush, who was governer of Florida until quite recently.

Do you think fundamentalists would get anywhere in the US administration if they had no influence?

The ideas of the ruling class are the ideas of the time, and the ruling class are fundamentalists.



NoXion
A significantly vocal portion of religious believers think we as a society are far too damn irreligious for their liking. Have you heard the Pope's whinging about it recently? And he's not the only one.
Yes, whining. Very good choice of words. The Pope is indeed whining. He is not actually taking any action to make society more religious, because he has no power to do so. All he can do is complain about it.

And of course, being the head of the largest established church in the world, some people are bound to take notice and take action.


Now you tell me how religion (or Christian religion in particular) can be so damn dangerous when its leading figure can't do much more than complain about the things he doesn't like.

Maybe the Pope himself can't really do much, Papal authority not being what it used to be (thank goodness), but Catholics in influential positions are likely to try and "stem the tide of godlessness". Granted, not all of them will do that, but some will do it for the non-believers' "own good" and to save their immortal souls. Hence, crap results.

Note that the Catholic Curch itself is far from powerless - thanks to catholic clergy making all sorts of wild claims about condoms and even retro-viral drugs, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is much worse than it could be.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:32 pm
lol is this a clever allusion to that crappy MIMite thread "the sick and degenerate mind of Leon Trotsky"?
My own sick and degerate mind wants to ask if it is there anyone whose mind isn't sick and degenerate.

Luís Henrique