There's bound to be, right? I mean, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a reverend. He was driven by faith, and spoke of it often in public. And yet, there's a National Holiday in tribute to him. There are pictures, monuments, posters alike displayed at state capitol buildings across the nation.
I'm certain that Atheists will be out in mass today, protesting the government sponsership of organized religion as displayed through Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., signage brandishing his name and image, and the Federal Holiday in his name. Aren't you?
No?
Hmmm. How interesting. How ironic. How transparent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
LOL. To me. it is celebrating who he was and what he did for the country, not his religious beliefs.
We also celebrate Presidents on Presidents day and some of them were Agnostic (Lincoln), some were Atheists (Jefferson), a lot were were Deists, a lot were Christians, one was Catholic etc...
I don't see MLK day to be a religious observance but more of an omage to a great man who did use religion to bring people together.
I don't think you'll find any Atheists complain about this day, let me know if you do.
Happy MLK day Mad Hoosier ;o)
He was a religious man. He was a pastor, for crying out loud. And putting up a display on his day is no different than putting up a display honoring Jesus Christ. If one finds a manger to be a endorsement of religion, then one must find any display Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to be an endorsement of religion in the exact same nature.
In my mind, of course Dr. King deserves the honor and respect this country gives him. He gave glory to God and when he spoke about seeing the promised land, he knew that it was God that promised those rights to all people, not men. But there will be no protesting or complaints from Atheists about this. That's they hypocracy of it all, and it a perfect show of how many Atheists pick and choose where they decide to show their anger of government supporting/endorsing religion. Because just as Proposition 8 opponents are afraid to attack black churches, Atheists are afraid to attack the nation celebrating a black pastor.
You have a great MLK day too, Rocket. I'm sure you've had your fill of snow already in Colorado, but here in southwest Indiana, last night was the first snow of the winter, so the kids and I will have fun playing in it today. :)
Jesus IS a religion/god etc… MLK is just a man who were honoring for his work for Civil Rights etc… We are not honoring him as a religious leader but as a civic leader. As you always say to refute Bible passages, it’s all about interpretation ;o)
“That's they hypocracy of it all, and it a perfect show of how many Atheists pick…”
--- Again, we are not celebrating a God or religion, we are celebrating the actions and successes that MLK had within the realm of civil rights/civic duty etc… not because he was a preacher or a Christian.
I had to laugh when you said Atheists “pick and choose” as that is what almost all religious folks do with their holy books. ;o)
“Atheists are afraid to attack the nation celebrating a black pastor.”
-- Atheists are not afraid of anything but our persecution. We are not celebrating his religion; we are celebrating his civic actions.
You appear to be saying that we are honoring MLK because he was religious and I do not agree with that at all. He happened to be a black pastor but that is not what we are celebrating.
WOW, first snow in Indiana, is that odd, it seems odd so far into Winter. Yeah, coming from MN, we love to play in the snow but it melts here pretty quick.
You're completely ignoring the fact that his very message of civil rights came from his faith in God. He believed that freedoms and civil liberties don't come from men, but from God. In fact, men enslave and opress. To ignore the fact this his very message from a place of faith is to pick and choose.
When Atheists complain that nativity scenes in state capitol buildings or on city courthouse lawns is a endorsement of religion but ignore that Dr. King's message is one of religion and say nothing about displays of him in the same places, that's hypocracy or a lack of convictions.
I'm not aware of situations where I've said that the Bible is about interpretations. I only remember interpreting Bible passages in full context and as they were literally written. I could be forgetting something though.
And I think much of nothern and even central Indiana has already had some snow this year...it just hasn't hit us in the southern tip until this weekend. I miss Indianapolis...it had a much more full scope of the seasons.
Boy, this is a good one ;o) I need to start posting on stuff we agree on. ;o)
You're completely ignoring the fact that his very message of civil rights came from his faith in God. He believed that freedoms and civil liberties don't come from men, but from God. In fact, men enslave and opress. To ignore the fact this his very message from a place of faith is to pick and choose.
-- Where he got his inspiration is immaterial to the discussion in my view of “IF Atheists should be bothered by this”. The gov. didn’t create any crosses or nativity scenes with MLK in it on gov. property etc… We are celebrating his civic actions, not celebrating that they were inspired by his religion. Can MLK be seen as a very positive example of a religious person who did a lot of good for civil rights, of course but again, we are not celebrating Christianity or any other religion or celebrating that he was religious. We are celebrating his civic actions. Just because the man was and found his inspiration from his religion doesn’t make celebrating his civil rights successes a religious issue of gov. and religion. This is a religious man who was able to use his religious views to create equal rights for all. Atheists believe in equal rights for all.
When Atheists complain that nativity scenes in state capitol buildings or on city courthouse lawns is a endorsement of religion but ignore that Dr. King's message is one of religion and say nothing about displays of him in the same places, that's hypocracy or a lack of convictions.
--- A nativity scene or Jesus on the cross on gov property is an entirely different subject in my view. MLK’s message may align with some religious values but those values are NOT distinctly or exclusively religious. Atheists believe in equal rights. Young children who know nothing of religion display basic moral fundamentals. Religion does not have exclusive rights to the message; it is a universal message, one that all or most religions and non religious people adhere to.
You're right...there has to be something we can agree on, right? :)
With MLK day, we are celebrating the man, hence "Martin Luther King Jr. Day"; it's not..."The civic duties inspired by Martin Luther King Jr. Day".
So when we celebrate the man, we celebrate everything about him...his views, his faith, his contribution to society, etc.
Those values he spoke of are distinctly religious. Who is it that gives all people the inalienable right to be equal?
No man possesses the power to dole out such a right...not Barack Obama, not George Bush, not George Washington, no man. God does. Or in the all emcompassing term that our religious forefathers coined, our Creator does.
Our young children are incapable of displaying morals without someone teaching it to them. If there were no one to teach the young morals, we'd be staring at an Animal Farm situation. A perfect and universal example: last week, my youngest daughter came home from preschool with tons of toys of the school's in her backpack. She's three. She has no reference point that it is immoral to take things that don't belong to her. If we did not teach her that moral lesson on the spot and make her return the toys, she'd grow up thinking it was ok to take things that don't belong to her...to steal. Extrapolate that out to a country full of children with no adults to teach them that stealing is wrong, and it's a completely immoral country in one generation.
So when we celebrate the man, we celebrate everything about him...his views, his faith, his contribution to society, etc.
-- I agree we are celebrating the man and part of that man is a pastor. I still don’t see this as the government celebrating religion. It’s about what he did for the country, not his religious beliefs. If you watch all of the shows about MLK recently in History channel and such, the day is about what he did for African Americans, not that he was a pastor.
Those values he spoke of are distinctly religious. Who is it that gives all people the inalienable right to be equal?
-- Human rights are universal throughout the world, regardless of which religion or the absence of religion.
Our young children are incapable of displaying morals without someone teaching it to them.
-- Studies have shown (I can track them down if you would like) that little toddlers display moral values. Maybe not all them but they do display some basic moral values like helping others in need, showing empathy when someone is hurt etc…
A perfect and universal example: last week, my youngest daughter came home from preschool with tons of toys of the school's in her backpack. She's three.
--- I agree, most morals are taught but they neither require religion nor came from religion. Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. Humans have been around for at least 100-150 thousand years and humans before Jesus displayed morals. So if morals didn’t exist before religion, how did the human race even get to this point? To not kill, hurt, steal, etc… is basic human nature. In order to live communally, these rules need to be abided by. Did religion help push many morals, sure but that is not to say that religion is the starting point for our moral nature.
Sure, I'd love to see studies that show how children display morality absent any outside influence...though I doubt any such study exists, because all kids have morals taught to them by their parents.
As far as Human Rights goes, who decides what Human Rights are? Who has deemed that all people are equal? You are not the sole decider of what constitutes human euqality any more than I am. Slaves existed for just as long as human existance. Why did it take thousands of years to finally decide that slavery was wrong? Was it one person that decided that slavery was wrong? Is Abraham Lincoln the king human equal rights? Or did he believe, as our founders did, that our Creator made all "men" equal.
And speaking of kings...prior to Jesus, it was kings, pharoahs, and rulers, that decided the moral code of their kingdom through what they punished their people for. Steal a King's horse, you die. Human conditioning deemed that stealing was undesirable. Rulers dictate what the basic human nature of the day was...some acted honorable, others like the Huns, were not so nice and did not stand up to any kind of modern definition of morailty.
Sure, I'd love to see studies that show how children display morality absent any outside influence...though I doubt any such study exists, because all kids have morals taught to them by their parents.
-- Even Chimpanzees and Apes display moral behavior, they know nothing of religion. So that points to the fact that animals do not need religion to be moral, it is about being around other human beings. We learn basic morals by being around other humans first, then we move into the educational aspect of morality through our parents, religion, laws etc… My claim is that morals predate religion. Religion certainly added to our moral code but was not the catalyst of morals themselves.
Just doing a couple quick searches… Here is one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080711080957.htm and another: http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overviewtext.html
As far as Human Rights goes, who decides what Human Rights are?
-- We do. As a human race, as a community we create the definition of Human rights.
Who has deemed that all people are equal?
-- Well, we are not all equal, we are all different. ;o) but we all deserve basic human rights.
Slaves existed for just as long as human existence. Why did it take thousands of years to finally decide that slavery was wrong?
--- And the ownership of slavery received quite a bit of legs from the Bible. ;o) I agree, our moral code has evolved over time as societies have evolved. When the bible was written, slave ownership was normal but as we evolved as a human race we have realized that it is wrong.
And speaking of kings...prior to Jesus, it was kings, pharoahs, and rulers, that decided the moral code of their kingdom through what they punished their people for.
-- But even as the human race just began to evolve away from cro-magnon into homo sapiens about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, these human’s had communities and these communities would have never survived without basic moral values.
Here is where we may agree, maybe ;o) As humans, we have lived in communities from the start of our existence and there existed basic moral values to ensure the community survived. Religion and the fear of a supernatural “Judger” did obviously add/amend our moral codes but religion is not the catalyst for morals in general. The bible has many, many immoral teachings (giving up your daughter
I'll also need to take issue with the fact that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist...not that I'd have a problem with that, persay.
In scanning a book that I have yet to read on Thomas Jefferson, here is one of the first quotes from him, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny against the mind of man."
I don't think an atheist would be swearing upon the altar of God, but I could be wrong. As I've said, I've yet to delve into the book, but that's one thing I found scanning it through.
I think it is a very debatable issue on both sides. At the time to be an Atheist woudl have been suicide. He may have been a diest but a Christian, I would disagree and here are some things he said about religion:
I'll start with this one:
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
I think this was actually against teh clergy's power, I think:
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Very telling:
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
But he did say this, so most likley a Deist which at the time could be considerd an Atheist.
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
If I had to bet, I would classify him a Deist at the time and if he were alive today, he woudl be an Atheist
Response to my prevous comments, before the quotes..
I forgt to ask which book?
Christopher Hitchens also wrote a great book on Jefferson:
http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Author-America-Eminent/dp/0060598964/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232468762&sr=1-3
-- We do. As a human race, as a community we create the definition of Human rights.
Now you're talking about mob mentality. If one person doesn't give me the self evident right of eqality, hundreds or thousands certainly don't decide that I'm equal. And we are talking about equality, which encompasses human rights. Of course we're all different, that's self evident as well...but just as self evident is that we are all measured in the same way...equal in our basic human rights.
If it was merely human rights, the world over would be equal. Certainly the United States constitutes a large enough "community" to make the decision that worldwide freedom would prevail, no? But that's not the case...because it's not enough for the "community" to decide the basic rules of the universe.
-- Even Chimpanzees and Apes display moral behavior, they know nothing of religion. So that points to the fact that animals do not need religion to be moral, it is about being around other human beings.
As I've argued before. Morality is a uniquely human characteristic. Animals do not possess the concept of morailty. They act on instincts and learned behaviors. Sometimes the instincts of a goose taking turns in the lead position during migration may be attributed to kindness, but make no mistake. It is merely a survival instinct in which one front goose tires and must be relieved of the lead burden for the flock to thrive. It is so with the closest of our kin...apes, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangatangs. They naturally take care of the young, not of some moral obligation, but because it's a natural law of parents to take care of children.
--- And the ownership of slavery received quite a bit of legs from the Bible. ;o)
I'm quite certain that the Bible did not promote slavery, and am compelled to vehemantly defend any assertion that it did. It may have shown where slaves were used, that's merely factual reporting. So to say that the Bible promoted slavery is severly slanted. Many times the Bible spoke ill of kings many of whom used slaves. If, as you claim, that many of the founding fathers were Agnostic at best, then you can't point to the Bible to show that slavery was promoted...that moral decision of the founding fathers must have come from some other place.
And if all of the founding fathers were Agnostic at best, then why would these brilliant men, who were responsible for the creating of this great nation, be fearful at all of calling themselves Atheists?? They would have nothing to fear at all of making that claim. These brave and brilliant men, leading the nation at it's creation, had the opportunity to proclaim that Atheism is the best thing for the country...or at least the best thing for a leader of our country. Yet they didn't do so. Why? Because they didn't believe it to be the case...because they weren't Atheists. They were brilliant founders who, as the Bible calls us to do, question and explored their faith regularly.
The book is called The Real Thomas Jefferson by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, co-authored by Cleon Skousen.
It seems pretty clear to me that first quote you put up by Jefferson that he is calling Atheism heresy. He is saying that he can not reason otherwise that calling the human soul, angels, and god immaterial, is to say they are nothings...but to say that these things are immaterial, which he calls masked Atheism, is heresy.
Your second quote is used by believers regularly. It is Jefferson saying exactly what the Bible tells us to do...to question with boldness, the existence of God. That is not a quote denying God. It's actually exactly what God wants us to do. For example, you've questioned the existence of God with boldness, and you've personally found that there is no God. Millions of others, many of which have questioned boldly(me for one), have personally foud that there is a God.
The third quote seems to be saying that countries ruled by religion display how religious leaders do not allow for freeness of a free country. It doesn't seem to be an attack on religion, but religious leaders.
I won't go through the rest of the quotes and put my view on them, but I thank you for putting them there.
I know this thread started as an attack on Atheism, Rocket, but I'm glad that you've taken up the call to challenge me on it. I really do like our debates. In my mind, I think we each do our fair share of persuading someone who may be on the fence.
I hope I don't necessarily come across as trying to persuade people to hate Atheism, because that's not my purpose. I was/am preturbed at how some Atheists, in my view, attack Christianity(and not other religions) only during Christmas, but ignore other events that are religious in nature.
But my overarching point is to try to convince those that do believe not to be afraid to stand up for what they believe. In my mind, I think that, with the loudness of the media, some believers are afraid to stand up and argue their point of view.
I know I don't persuade you. We have lots of conversations/debates that seem to go in circles to each of us, but I think they are very helpful to others...be it someone who isn't sure if they believe and may be afraid to say they don't believe(which to me is ok), or someone who isn't sure of how to debate someone like yourself who confidently and poignantly argues against religion.
Having our many discussions with each other has given me much respect for Atheists. I may not respect the actions of some Atheists in what I view as attacking religion, but I have never felt as though I dislike Atheists in any way. As my very first post on the subject said well over year ago...I just didn't understand Atheism.
Morality is a uniquely human characteristic. Animals do not possess the concept of morailty. They act on instincts and learned behaviors.
-- Are you saying that humans do not have instinctual moral values? Our basic moral values also are part of our survival instinct. If we were not born with the moral value that one should not kill his brother, we wouldn’t be here as I have said before, humans existed before religion and survived. They may have not held all of our moral values of today, but they still possessed basic moral values.
They naturally take care of the young, not of some moral obligation, but because it's a natural law of parents to take care of children.
--- And we do not naturally care for our young. I wonder if we are agreeing and not realizing it or we are stuck on the examples rather than the concept.
I'm quite certain that the Bible did not promote slavery,
---- I am wrong here to use the word promote but it surely accepted slaves or as the bible calls them “servants”. There are also passages that denounce it.
If, as you claim, that many of the founding fathers were Agnostic at best, then you can't point to the Bible to show that slavery was promoted...that moral decision of the founding fathers must have come from some other place.
-- Slavery has existed forever, you are correct. I didn’t mean to say slavery was the bibles fault, just that it can be used in defense of slaves as it was in this country.
And if all of the founding fathers were Agnostic at best, then why would these brilliant men, who were responsible for the creating of this great nation, be fearful at all of calling themselves Atheists??
-- I never said all of the founding fathers were Atheists or Agnositc. I said there were many. Because they would have been labeled as blasphemers and shat upon as the majority of the country as is today, believes in god.
Your second quote is used by believers regularly. It is Jefferson saying exactly what the Bible tells us to do...to question with boldness, the existence of God.
--- It’s the second part that tells me that he meant if we used reason, we wouldn’t believe in God. But that is my interpretation. I wish we could ask Jefferson. ;o)
I won't go through the rest of the quotes and put my view on them, but I thank you for putting them there.
-- I know, without Jefferson here, it is all up to ones reading the meaning into them, as with all old texts, like all ancient religious texts ;o) Who knows what he really thought as it appears he spoke against both sides which makes me believe he was a deist.
I know this thread started as an attack on Atheism, Rocket, but I'm glad that you've taken up the call to challenge me on it. I really do like our debates. In my mind, I think we each do our fair share of persuading someone who may be on the fence.
-- Agreed ;o)
I hope I don't necessarily come across as trying to persuade people to hate Atheism, because that's not my purpose. I was/am preturbed at how some Atheists, in my view, attack Christianity(and not other religions) only during Christmas, but ignore other events that are religious in nature.
-- I hear ya. Atheism, just like left wing ecomaniacs, just like right wrong Christians, feminist wackos etc… have those that give the movement as a whole a bad name. As a whole all of these groups have good goals but are tarnished by the wackos of the group.
Having our many discussions with each other has given me much respect for Atheists.
-- And me of you as well.
As my very first post on the subject said well over year ago...I just didn't understand Atheism.
-- Which brings me to the question that I don’t think you answered yet. What if you were born in Saudi Arabia into an Islamic family or were born into a Hindu family in India, would the current evidence of Christianity be strong enough to make you believe it wa fact and that Jesus was the son of God or would you feel that Hindu Gods created the universe/humans etc…? Doesn’t it appear that ones religious beliefs are due to their location of birth? All religions have their ancient books written by their gods, stories of witnesses etc… but which one is true?
This has been a good one for me as well.
Did you see the speech by Obama, I think it was a good speech, especially him mentioning us heathen non-believers. ;o)
-- Are you saying that humans do not have instinctual moral values? Our basic moral values also are part of our survival instinct. If we were not born with the moral value that one should not kill his brother, we wouldn’t be here as I have said before, humans existed before religion and survived. They may have not held all of our moral values of today, but they still possessed basic moral values.
That is what I'm saying. Survival instinct is not morality...they are two completely different things. Since Adam and Eve were the first humans ever on this planet, they knew God and religion, and He guided them morally even though they were cast out of Eden. I am not aware of any human civilization where every adult died and all remaining persons were children, devoid of any taught morals with which to abide by...thereby proving your theory that humans have instinctive morals that are not taught to them by an authorative figure. I figure you'll shoot that Adam and Eve reference down real quick, but I had to throw it in there. :)
--- And we do not naturally care for our young. I wonder if we are agreeing and not realizing it or we are stuck on the examples rather than the concept.
How do we not naturally take care of our children? Were you taught that it is morally acceptable to take care of your daughters? Or was it mere instinct that you know you loved your daughters more than life itself and would do anything for them? That is natural, of course, I did not have to read a book or be taught or have some magical wave come over me the moment my daughter was born.
---- I am wrong here to use the word promote but it surely accepted slaves or as the bible calls them “servants”. There are also passages that denounce it.
I'm unaware of any passages that says anything to the affect of "go and gather as many servants as you can." Again, it did refer to them, in context of painting the picture of whatever story it was telling. It didn't promote or say that having servants was acceptable.
-- Slavery has existed forever, you are correct. I didn’t mean to say slavery was the bibles fault, just that it can be used in defense of slaves as it was in this country.
Clearly slavery is an abomination and anyone who would try to use the Bible to defend anyone that had slaves is equally abominable.
-- Which brings me to the question that I don’t think you answered yet. What if you were born in Saudi Arabia into an Islamic family or were born into a Hindu family in India, would the current evidence of Christianity be strong enough to make you believe it wa fact and that Jesus was the son of God or would you feel that Hindu Gods created the universe/humans etc…? Doesn’t it appear that ones religious beliefs are due to their location of birth? All religions have their ancient books written by their gods, stories of witnesses etc… but which one is true?
I certainly see your point here. I would hope that my current view would broadly hold regardless of where I was born or family was raised. Though many religions disagree sometimes emmensely, most of them start with the beginnings of the heavens and earth in similiar fashion. This is why I personally believe in a singular god(though some of what I'm reading thind of God as a duality...male and female...which I'll probably post more on soon) who is a loving god, who like any parent can be strict at times, but would never banish us to a hell of any kind. My view is to be all encompassing, such that He would love hindus and islamists just as much as christians, wiccans, atheists, etc. I think, and hope, that religion will start to progress and view things similar to this as opposed to how it is today.
I haven't caught all of Obama's speech yet. I was trying to feed my screaming kids at the time he was making his speech. I recorded it though, and will definitely go back and watch it again.
Just the parts I heard between screams, I mostly liked. There was a mention or two that I though was kind of a hit on Bush, but that may be my conservative take/spin on it. I'm certain that there will be conservative talk shows that make a bigger deal about some of those parts, so I want to make sure and rewatch it so I don't get caught up in that train of thought.
I was watching it on Fox News...I couldn't stand to watch it on the network channels. The part that I didn't like is Chris Wallace pointing out on several occasions about the little mix-up at the beginning of the oath. He was trying to suggest that he may not have 100% taken the oath correctly and may not be President. That's just crazy and irresponsible. I pray, but won't hold out hope, that other crazy right-wingers won't make the same assertion.
That is what I'm saying. Survival instinct is not morality...they are two completely different things.
--- Instinctual in the sense that it’s pretty instinctual to realize that with basic morals (killing, stealing, hurting others etc…) we wouldn’t survive long as a species. Maybe instinct is the wrong word.
I figure you'll shoot that Adam and Eve reference down real quick, but I had to throw it in there. :)
-- I should but I will let it go. One question, if Adam and Eve are true then that means that the human race was born out of incest and the tons of evidence of homo sapiens evolving is wrong.
How do we not naturally take care of our children?
-- I don’t know where that “not” came from, fat fingered. ;o)
I'm unaware of any passages that says anything to the affect of "go and gather as many servants as you can."
---- However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 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'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. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
There are more…. Not promoting it per se but certainly seems to be ok with it.
location = religious beliefs..
I certainly see your point here. I would hope that my current view would broadly hold regardless of where I was born or family was raised. Though many religions disagree sometimes emmensely, most of them start with the beginnings of the heavens and earth in similiar fashion. This is why I personally believe in a singular god(though some of what I'm reading thind of God as a duality...male and female...which I'll probably post more on soon) who is a loving god, who like any parent can be strict at times, but would never banish us to a hell of any kind. My view is to be all encompassing, such that He would love hindus and islamists just as much as christians, wiccans, atheists, etc. I think, and hope, that religion will start to progress and view things similar to this as opposed to how it is today.
-- I certainly hope you are right on that last sentence. I think Atheists would have much less issue with religion if it was so. I wish all believers were of your kind.
--- But to push this one point a little more… You believe in a God that loves all, but you also believe in the Jesus/God theory to be that one God. IF the evidence was so completely irrefutable, would not all of the world believe in Jesus? They do not, not because they lack intelligence but because the evidence they have for their religion is just as valid as the Christian evidence. They have ancient holy books, stories of miracles by their gods, religious holy locations of their gods etc…, etc… So if Jesus/God wanted us all to follow and believe in him, why provide such poor evidence? Evidence that is interpretable in SOOOO many different ways etc… And even if he’ll accept us all in the end no matter our faith as long as we are loving, then he obviously doesn’t mind seeing humans slaughtered due to these different interpretations of who God is.
It’s just appears to me that one believes in the God that they were raised under, plain and simple.
There was a mention or two that I though was kind of a hit on Bush, but that may be my conservative take/spin on it.
-- He did take some shots at his admin/policies in general a couple of times but not at Bush the person. But there were a few obvious “shots”. He has to play to his followers ;o)
I was watching it on Fox News...I couldn't stand to watch it on the network channels.
-- I actually watch Fox and the others, try to mix it up as they all have slanted viewpoints, this was I get a mix.
The part that I didn't like is Chris Wallace pointing out on several occasions about the little mix-up at the beginning of the oath. He was trying to suggest that he may not have 100% taken the oath correctly and may not be President. That's just crazy and irresponsible. I pray, but won't hold out hope, that other crazy right-wingers won't make the same assertion.
-- Yeah, it was funny, Obama caught that Roberts screwed up, Roberts but the word faith at the end and not the beginning where it should have been. Didn’t they rehearse this? ;o)
--- But to push this one point a little more… You believe in a God that loves all, but you also believe in the Jesus/God theory to be that one God. IF the evidence was so completely irrefutable, would not all of the world believe in Jesus? They do not, not because they lack intelligence but because the evidence they have for their religion is just as valid as the Christian evidence. They have ancient holy books, stories of miracles by their gods, religious holy locations of their gods etc…, etc… So if Jesus/God wanted us all to follow and believe in him, why provide such poor evidence? Evidence that is interpretable in SOOOO many different ways etc…
This kind of goes to your point of location, location, location....which is a great reason that I don't disperage other religion's beliefs. It's my opinion that they are worshiping the same entity as I am, just calling him a different name. He can only do so much, after all. We are all human, with human flaws and free will. Just as with a large human family: some children will break off and do their own thing, but at the end of the day, as it were, they all love the same parent(s).
---And even if he’ll accept us all in the end no matter our faith as long as we are loving, then he obviously doesn’t mind seeing humans slaughtered due to these different interpretations of who God is.
I strongly disagree with this. God cares very much how his children act. But in His role, which ours is to mirror His, He can't protect His children for every moment of their lives. They will never be able to learn and do things for themselves. AND, in our own soul of souls, I don't think we want Him to step in and prevent all suffering. I believe we are hear to learn. Learn lessons which we can take back to Him and show our love for Him by making ourselves the most complete soul that we can to honor Him. Just as many of our own kids want to do the best they can...to please and honor their own parents.
--(referencing Obama's speech) He did take some shots at his admin/policies in general a couple of times but not at Bush the person. But there were a few obvious “shots”. He has to play to his followers ;o)
I agree...even Fox news contributors were saying this. Obama ran on change and the quote/unquote anti-Bush...so in some sense regardless of how well Bush may have treated him in the past month, he did have to make some statements to remain congruent on his platform of how he ran for President.
Great day, over all though. Just a great day.
He can only do so much, after all.
-- He his God afterall, he can do anything, so how about a bit of 2009 evidence that he exists ;o)
---And even if he’ll accept us all in the end no matter our faith as long as we are loving, then he obviously doesn’t mind seeing humans slaughtered due to these different interpretations of who God is. MH - I strongly disagree with this. God cares very much how his children act. But in His role, which ours is to mirror His, He can't protect His children for every moment of their lives. -- Why not??
--- My point here is this. God provided the evidence for himself right, but he did a really poor job at providing actual irrefutable evidence THEN we wouldn't have people killing each other over what God is/wants/was etc...
I don't think we want Him to step in and prevent all suffering. I believe we are hear to learn. Learn lessons which we can take back to Him and show our love for Him by making ourselves the most complete soul that we can to honor Him.
---- I want him to stop all of the suffering. If I could I woudl wave the magic wand right now and stop suffering. I don't beleive we need suffering to learn. And again, the lessons we are to learn and the morals we are to follow, God did a pretty poor job of letting us know what those are as religions have all different takes on moral values and good behavior. So let's say i was born on a remote island and was raised without knowledge of the rest of the world. Whcih religion, rules. morals etc... should I follow? Which religion is the right one that has the right lessons that God wants me to learn? Which commandments do I live by, Muslim, Christian, Baptist, Lutheran, Hindu etc... because they are not the same.
-- He his God afterall, he can do anything, so how about a bit of 2009 evidence that he exists ;o)
There was the plane landing in the Hudson river, which was called a miracle. He won't part the red sea every day. :)
He wants us to live by trust and faith, so he isn't going to provide universal irrefutable proof of his existance. It's a hard for some to do, live by faith, but when you allow yourself to let go and not insist that we must know and control everything...life does change.
Most of our real learning, particularly learning the hard lessons, comes from hardship...and sometimes that hardship comes in the form of suffering.
In your situation, for example: Obviously I don't know the particulars, so I could be way off, but I'm guessing that aren't there some great lessons you learned from moving to Colorado? Perhaps you could have done the easy thing and stayed in Minnesota(perhaps not since I clearly don't konw the particulars) but you may not have learned those lessons unless you moved all that way.
I wish we could learn all we needed from books and lectures. Heck, we can't even learn from the mistakes of others throughout history.
If we could, or if that were the case, obviously we would have no wars, no conflicts, no disagreements. There'd be books to teach us, and that would be that. That place is utopia...which doesn't exist...except in Heaven, of course.
Unfortunately things in real life don't happen the way books say and/or predict. If we would have been students of the Great Depression we would already know the way out of our current economic situation...or at least know that what we are doing now is exactly what was done back then. It didn't work then either.
Most real life situations recognize this, otherwise CEO's could be born right out of college, without the aid of real world experience and application of knowledge. Unfortunately, when we deal with real world experience, you deal with suffering. God knows this...it's not something he desires, but it's necessary for us to learn. Perhaps it's the reason he gave us empathy...to do our best to minimize suffering.
There was the plane landing in the Hudson river, which was called a miracle. He won't part the red sea every day. :)
--- Don’t get me started on miracles ;o) Ok, I can’t resist. That plane’s awesome landing was due to the skills and courage of those pilots. To say that God did it is to say that God doesn’t care that a women in this country gets raped every hour, that young kids are dying/starving everyday, that children are kidnapped and violated for months on end etc… IF God performs miracles, then he can perform an endless amount of miracles so why doesn’t he stop rape from happening? I can not get on board this notion that God performs miracles because if he does he is one sick bastard. Any lesson that we could learn through suffering could be learned without suffering, he is God afterall, if he can’t think of another vehicle of learning other than human suffering, he is sadistic.
He wants us to live by trust and faith, so he isn't going to provide universal irrefutable proof of his existence.
--- Why is faith so valuable? Belieiving without evidence. Why does he play such games? Why not come down, let himself be irrefutably known and tell us to stop the killing, suffering etc…? What is wrong with allowing humans to know he exists beyond a shadow of a doubt, end suffering and create true universal love between all humans?
but I'm guessing that aren't there some great lessons you learned from moving to Colorado?
-- I have but it didn’t include human suffering. For example, what lesson can a women learn from being raped? If you can come up with something, is there another way that same lesson could be learned without rape?
---Any lesson that we could learn through suffering could be learned without suffering, he is God afterall, if he can’t think of another vehicle of learning other than human suffering, he is sadistic.
Time to flip it on you. Please provide examples of lessons that have been learned through suffering and how that lesson could have been learned without the suffering.
Having not been a rape victim, I can not give accurate lessons learned from such an action. Lessons learned are often personal nature and vary from person to person.
The fact of the matter is, there will never be an end to all suffering. It just won't happen. As I've said, this is due to free will.
A life without struggles is no life at all. It's utopia and simply does not, could not, and should not exist.
Time to flip it on you. Please provide examples of lessons that have been learned through suffering and how that lesson could have been learned without the suffering.
-- But it was you that said we learn through suffering and I don’t think that there is much to learn from needless human suffering
The fact of the matter is, there will never be an end to all suffering. It just won't happen. As I've said, this is due to free will. So if free will is the cause of human suffering, why did God give us Free Will? He is all knowing and had to have known it would cause suffering
--- Suffering won’t end because God does not want it to end. I guess God is not smart enough to come up with alternate non-suffering means of teaching his children lessons. I certainly do not use human suffering to teach my children lessons. Grounding them, removing TV privileges etc.. is not human suffering ;o)
I do EVERYTHING in my power to help them avoid all suffering, why does not God do the same for his children? Free will is not an answer in my opinion. My kids have free will and I still try to save them from human suffering.
A life without struggles is no life at all. It's utopia and simply does not, could not, and should not exist.
-- So I guess Heaven is no life at all because there is no suffering in heaven, right? So heaven should not exist? ;o)
A free will post by me a while ago...
http://rocketstarinmpls.blogspot.com/2006/11/free-will-or-omnipotent-god.html
--- Why is faith so valuable? Belieiving without evidence.
The very fabric of our existance hinges on faith that the trust we put in others will not fail. This community that you speak of that will define what morals are, it all hinges on the fact no group of people turns bad and kills everyone that is "moralistic" and redefines the new norms. If the Aztecs or the Huns ruled the world, their community would have created an entirely different set of morals...likely untimately ending with survival of the fittest.
-- I should but I will let it go. One question, if Adam and Eve are true then that means that the human race was born out of incest and the tons of evidence of homo sapiens evolving is wrong.
If your pointing to incest as being the sole moral judgement here, then every single arguement loses. Scientifically, at some point, a single living organism had to split into two, which had to mate at some point. Since they came from the same original organism, incest occurs.
--- Suffering won’t end because God does not want it to end. I guess God is not smart enough to come up with alternate non-suffering means of teaching his children lessons.
I shouldn't dignify this with a response, but it's ironic since you refused to come up with an example of how to teach people without learning from suffering.
--I do EVERYTHING in my power to help them avoid all suffering, why does not God do the same for his children?
Then your children will be deprived of some very valuable life lessions and lots of fun. Will your kids never date? Will they never know a broken heart? Will they never learn to ride a bike because they may suffer scrapes, bruises, or maybe even broken bones? Will they never go to school, because they may be teased, made fun of, or called names? Will they never get a job, because they may wind up with a horrible boss who makes their life at work miserable?
As you can see...suffering is inevitable. We do what we can as parents to minimize suffering, but to eliminate suffering...to put them in a bubble...well that's cruelty and deprivation, plain and simple.
And you got me on the Heaven one. Clearly I mispoke and/or have an argument flaw somewhere. Give me a break, I'm only human...and you are a formidable opponent after all. :)
The very fabric of our existance hinges on faith that the trust we put in others will not fail.
--- But that kind of faith is backed up by evidence (our experience0 as well as backed up by laws/regulations etc… It is not just blind faith that my ancient book is the right one and all of the others are not the right one.
Scientifically, at some point, a single living organism had to split into two, which had to mate at some point. Since they came from the same original organism, incest occurs.
--- You got me on that. When those one celled organisms merged/divided/merged/divided in the “evolutionary soup” it was incestual, those dirty little bastards. I was just thinking that God most likely doesn’t believe in incest or it is wrong (doesn’t the bible say anything about sleeping with your sister, I have no idea) and would have found another way to create us rather than using incest.
Rocket - Suffering won’t end because God does not want it to end. I guess God is not smart enough to come up with alternate non-suffering means of teaching his children lessons. MH - I shouldn't dignify this with a response, but it's ironic since you refused to come up with an example of how to teach people without learning from suffering.
--- Really? God should be able to come up with a non-human suffering teaching method, shouldn’t he? He is all powerful after all. I can easily come up with a way to teach people without suffering. Here are some examples: verbally, through demonstration, via pictures, moving pictures, stories, examples from others etc… etc… I didn’t give examples because it was you that are claiming there are good examples of learning through human suffering that can’t be taught another way, or so I thought.
Rocket --I do EVERYTHING in my power to help them avoid all suffering, why does not God do the same for his children? MH -Then your children will be deprived of some very valuable life lessons and lots of fun. Will your kids never date? Will they never know a broken heart? Will they never learn to ride a bike because they may suffer scrapes, bruises, or maybe even broken bones? Will they never go to school, because they may be teased, made fun of, or called names? Will they never get a job, because they may wind up with a horrible boss who makes their life at work miserable?
--- Ok, I think we need to define human suffering or what I mean when I say human suffering. I don’t mean broken hearts etc… I mean violent human suffering like rape, kidnapping, etc… or needless human suffering like losing limbs, disease, starvation etc…
And NO may daughters will never date, at least until they are 25 or so ;o) I wish that was true.
And you got me on the Heaven one. Clearly I mispoke and/or have an argument flaw somewhere. Give me a break, I'm only human...and you are a formidable opponent after all. :)
-- As you are ;o)
I wish God would come down and settle these differences we have ;o)
---I wish God would come down and settle these differences we have ;o)
As do I Rocket, as do I. :)
Post a Comment