THIS DISCOURSE [below] WON'T MAKE ANY SENSE, AT ALL, TO AN ATHEIST.
TO AN ATHEIST, THE FEELING OF 'GUILT', IS ANATHEMA.

IN HIS HEART, HE SAY'S,

"I am in charge of my own life.
I myself, determine what is good and what is evil.
What serves my interests, is clearly good.
What acts against my interests, is clearly evil."



+++++



MAN IS NOT RIGHTEOUS.

Our very nature precludes it.

This deck of cards is stacked against us!

Its a fixed game!
...but for a purpose!

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee [Israel], but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.


Man's burden in this life is to suffer the demands upon him, of this world.

That is our pitiful fate.

In fulfilling those 'worldly' demands, every man makes the choice to be sometimes Cain, or, to be sometimes Abel.

Indeed, the burden which every man [and woman] in this world must suffer, is a life full of [moral] choices!

Genesis 4:6
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.




WHO IS RIGHTEOUS BEFORE GOD?

God despises formal religion which is the product of a false and insincere heart.

God despises man's religion ['worship'] which is performed without a contrite heart - towards God.

The offering ['worship'] which God requires of man, is a worship, where man seeks to establish [God's] righteousness, as a tenet of [and within a] man's own life.

The Old Testament Mosaic covenant of sacrifices did not establish or confirm, the form of righteousness which God wishes to see in man.

But rather, PERFORMING covenant sacrifices for sin, was established before God, to point to the requirement of a contrite heart in man - before God.

But men are dumb!

For all men, life does involve sometimes acting sinfully, selfishly - after all, its a 'dog eat dog' world out there!

But God knows that we are weak - in the flesh.

Matthew 26:41
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Lamentations 3:31
For the Lord will not cast off for ever:
32  But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.
33  For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.
34  To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,


God requires merely a recognition from man [within his heart!], of his own pitiful condition.

God requires that men, individually, acknowledge their nature, acknowledge their many poor choices, and after reflection, express sincere regret or remorse,
....and God's mercy towards man will be forthcoming.

That is the 'deal', which God offers to ALL of his prodigal 'children',
....both to 'Israel', and to the 'Gentiles'.

Exodus 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

All mankind can choose to be a part of the house of 'Israel'.

The choice is ours.

Ezekiel 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?


Repentance, not 'religion'.

Isaiah 1:11
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
12  When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
13  Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
14  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
15  And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
16  Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17  Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Isaiah 61:8
For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering;....





MORE.....

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST.....





A righteous heart is required.

Not works, ....so as to 'prove' our righteousness.

Performing good works, to prove our righteousness, is having the cart, before the horse.

If man first, first, first, seeks righteousness [within his life], his works will be acceptable to God.

Psalms 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
7  Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
8  I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
9  I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.
10  I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.


Psalms 51:14
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
15  O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16  For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.


Psalms 34:13
Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
14  Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
15  The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.
16  The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.
17  The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.
18  The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.


God's people in times past [the Children of Israel], began to imagine their own righteousness [before God], was being established [before God], was coming from their own hands [through the Mosaic covenant of sacrifice],

Romans 10:1
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2  For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3  For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4  For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5  For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.





What did Jesus say, about how to worship God?

John 4:21
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


It is good to worship God with righteous works, but such works should come from within our heart.

And not for the purpose, to demonstrate our 'religion', or to demonstrate our 'righteousness', to others.

Because, we, are NOT righteous.

Matthew 6:1
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4  That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.



My God does not say, of the world, as an encouragement to mankind,

"....All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."



My God speaks thus, of the world,

1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.


John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.





MORE.....

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST.....






The 'Promised Land', is joy, and peace, and love, in the presence of our God.
....and the 'Promised Land', is a 'fairytale' to some, and to those who love this wicked world [because they are the 'strong'].

Psalms 5:4
For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

Psalms 94:12
Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;
13  That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.
14  For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.


"....give him rest from the days of adversity,"


These, are the days of our tribulation, and adversity.

Choose life.

Seek your God.

Yadda wrote on Oct 21^st, 2009 at 11:57am:

THIS DISCOURSE [below] WON'T MAKE ANY SENSE, AT ALL, TO AN ATHEIST. TO AN ATHEIST, THE FEELING OF 'GUILT', IS ANATHEMA.

You should really stick to your own world view. You clearly don't understand others because you continually mischaracterise them. As usual, you believe in a cardboard cutout  - a caricature of an atheist, of a Muslim - I haven't seen your caricature of a Buddhist yet, but many Buddhists are atheist too.


Quote:

IN HIS HEART, HE SAY'S, "I am in charge of my own life. I myself, determine what is good and what is evil. What serves my interests, is clearly good. What acts against my interests, is clearly evil."

Do you honestly think that nonsense that you just spouted applied to Fred Hollows? or Helen Keller or Christopher Reeves?  (to name but a few)

Which particular people do you target who don't happen to believe in your God?

Do you include me in that list? - because I can assure you that I have a very active conscience and feelings of guilt if I do the wrong thing by omission or otherwise. I also speak out against injustice when I see it.

Yadda - we all know what's right and wrong. Christians do not have a monopoly on that.

- but people who blandly recite the party line are much more ready to commit atrocities than others - for the greater good that those who think for themselves. That includes those who act in the name of God.


Quote:

The Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560 to 1812. The inquisition was set as a tribunal, headed by a judge, sent to Goa from Portugal and was assisted by two judicial henchmen. The judge was answerable to no one except to Lisbon and handed down punishments as he saw fit. The Inquisition Laws filled 230 pages and the palace where the Inquisition was conducted was known as the Big House and the Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. The screams of agony of the culprits (men, women, and children) could be heard in the streets, in the stillness of the night, as they were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head.

Now put that in your censer and swing it.  Sorry, but I find your post particularly unspiritual, disingenuous and feral.

Those people who continually point the fingers at others, generally have something disgraceful to hide themselves. I've seen these banners outside Baptist Churches mocking Athests and other 'Samaritans'. Their religion is obviously lacking something if the best they can do is to carp about those who don't share their beliefs.

muso wrote on Oct 21^st, 2009 at 2:44pm:

Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2009 at 11:57am: THIS DISCOURSE [below] WON'T MAKE ANY SENSE, AT ALL, TO AN ATHEIST. TO AN ATHEIST, THE FEELING OF 'GUILT', IS ANATHEMA.

muso,

As i stated above.


And maybe 'ATHEIST', is the wrong word to use.

Perhaps i should have instead, used the word anti-theist, or, anti-christ.

This world is full of them!

People who hate God, or the thought of God.








Quote:

[quote] The Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560 to 1812. The inquisition was set as a tribunal, headed by a judge, sent to Goa from Portugal and was assisted by two judicial henchmen. The judge was answerable to no one except to Lisbon and handed down punishments as he saw fit. The Inquisition Laws filled 230 pages and the palace where the Inquisition was conducted was known as the Big House and the Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. The screams of agony of the culprits (men, women, and children) could be heard in the streets, in the stillness of the night, as they were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head.

Now put that in your censer and swing it.  Sorry, but I find your post particularly unspiritual, disingenuous and feral.

Those people who continually point the fingers at others, generally have something disgraceful to hide themselves. I've seen these banners outside Baptist Churches mocking Athests and other 'Samaritans'. Their religion is obviously lacking something if the best they can do is to carp about those who don't share their beliefs.

[/quote]


And muso, you quoted this account of the Goan inquisition because.....???

Because you believe that the people who did these things, were clearly, Christians?

muso,

I might add,

".....I find your [assertions] particularly unspiritual, disingenuous and feral."



muso,

Your quoted account of the Goan inquisition, describes the actions of a cruel tyranny.



And before you come back at me with the 'heinous' accounts of OT punishments, yes many of those punishments mandated death to the offender.

Those punishments were instituted against criminals to protect the people.

Example,

Deuteronomy 19:16
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17  Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18  And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19  Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

Punishing evil doers!!

Oooowaar that is harsh!

Isn't it!!
/sarc off


Deuteronomy 4:1
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
3  Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.
4  But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.
5  Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6  Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
7  For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
8  And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?



Why was Israel commanded to destroy those nations before them?

Deuteronomy 20:17
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18  That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

What abominations?

Like sacrificing their children, to their gods.




To those who hate God,

Proverbs 8:35
For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
36  But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Yadda wrote on Oct 21^st, 2009 at 4:02pm:

And maybe 'ATHEIST', is the wrong word to use. Perhaps i should have instead, used the word anti-theist, or, anti-christ. This world is full of them! People who hate God, or the thought of God.

I'm glad you make that distinction, because the Baptist Church clearly does not. Your original post was guilty of the same style of bland generalisation that triggers religious persecution. Your post may have had innocent intentions, but it made me angry for that reason.

The world has too many sociopaths.
- but it's by no means as black and white as you paint it.  


Quote:

And muso, you quoted this account of the Goan inquisition because.....??? Because you believe that the people who did these things, were clearly, Christians?

I quoted the account of the Goan inquisition to illustrate my point that people who don't think for themselves and are driven by the agenda of an establishment are capable of some terrible things. In this case, they carried out their atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ. Christianity may have the intention of being a religion of love, but people are capable of turning it around to be a terrible thing. It is one of the darkest episodes of the history of your religion, and much as you would like to deny it, it is part of the history of your religion.



Quote:

And before you come back at me with the 'heinous' accounts of OT punishments, yes many of those punishments mandated death to the offender.

I didn't even mention the Old Testament, much of which is either written and exaggerated after the event, or transcribed from oral traditions in the manner of chansons de geste (songs of heroic deeds and lineages). The Old Testament has more in common with Homer than it does with reality.  

Don't you agree? A theologian acquaintance tacidly accepts that point.

What concerns me more is rabble rousing

muso wrote on Oct 21^st, 2009 at 2:44pm:

Those people who continually point the fingers at others, generally have something disgraceful to hide themselves.

As Canon Andrew White replied when asked why the Iraqi Arab Christian community is being deleted from history through genocide perpetrated by Arab Muslims... 'It happens when religion goes wrong and Islam has gone wrong like Christianity before it once went wrong'.

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 8:01am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 21st, 2009 at 4:02pm: And muso, you quoted this account of the Goan inquisition because.....??? Because you believe that the people who did these things, were clearly, Christians? I quoted the account of the Goan inquisition to illustrate my point that people who don't think for themselves and are driven by the agenda of an establishment are capable of some terrible things. In this case, they carried out their atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ. Christianity may have the intention of being a religion of love, but people are capable of turning it around to be a terrible thing. It is one of the darkest episodes of the history of your religion, and much as you would like to deny it, it is part of the history of your religion.

2 Corinthians 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.



muso,

This is the world.

This is a place of deception, and, testing of spirits.

Some people [spirits within clay 'vessels'], many people, believe what they see before their eyes, i often do myself.

I'm just like everyone else here.

It is very easy to be 'taken in'.

But it does annoy me, when i see so many of my fellow travellers in this 'reality', portray falsehood, and lies, as TRUTH, and, visa versa.






Quote:

[quote] And before you come back at me with the 'heinous' accounts of OT punishments, yes many of those punishments mandated death to the offender.

#1, I didn't even mention the Old Testament, much of which is either written and exaggerated after the event, or transcribed from oral traditions in the manner of chansons de geste (songs of heroic deeds and lineages).
#2, The Old Testament has more in common with Homer than it does with reality.  

Don't you agree? A theologian acquaintance tacidly accepts that point.

What concerns me more is rabble rousing

[/quote]


#1
I was just anticipating.


#2
I haven't read Homer.

But if by that, you mean that the Old Testament stories, and accounts, are myths, and legends, then, all i can say is that i can't know for sure.

And no-one can.

They could be [merely myths, and legends].

But i believe that the Old Testament stories, and accounts, are essentially true.





Nothing what we 'see and feel' [in this world, in this 'reality'] is what it appears to be.

Of that, i am absolutely certain.



Seek the TRUTH.

Never, ever, reject TRUTH, when you recognise it.

That is the only sure path, to true reality.




1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 8:01am:

.....Your original post was guilty of the same style of bland generalisation............but [the world is] by no means as black and white as you paint it.

Yadda said,


Quote:

Seek the TRUTH. Never, ever, reject TRUTH, when you recognise it.

We all build up our reality, our 'truths'.

All of our perceptions, built up from childhood, go to make sense 'our' world.

These perceptions [of reality] build up, and reinforce each other.

And they become an 'unassailable fortress', behind which we defend our firm beliefs, about reality.


But,

If people build their perception of reality, based upon [some] falsehoods, and then, come upon a [real] truth, they will nevertheless, often dismiss it, truth.

They will dismiss truth, even though they know something, is 'wrong'.

This truth which they have come across, 'niggles' at them.

But still, they are unable to accept the veracity of this truth.

Why?

Because they already know what reality is.

And because this new truth does not fit, within their accepted perception, they must reject it, out right.




[It didn't express this very well.]

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 11:15am:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Well chosen. That's one of my favourite quotations.

I share your frustration at people rejecting that which is obviously true. You can see some of that frustration in the Environment thread.

You probably mean well, but let's not demonise people just because they have different beliefs. We're all guilty  of that to some extent.

I never seek conflict. I alway seek resolution and understanding. In this world we need to treat people with respect.  There are decent people around of all persuasions, just as there are untrustworthy people of all persuasions.

Some people are unfortunately not trustworthy. They don't respect themselves, let alone anybody else. That's reality.

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 3:05pm:

I share your frustration at people rejecting that which is obviously true. You can see some of that frustration in the Environment thread. You probably mean well, but let's not demonise people just because they have different beliefs. We're all guilty  of that to some extent. I never seek conflict. #1, I alway seek resolution and understanding. #2, In this world we need to treat people with respect.   #3, There are decent people around of all persuasions, just as there are untrustworthy people of all persuasions. Some people are unfortunately not trustworthy. They don't respect themselves, let alone anybody else. That's reality.

#1
That is a worthy ideal to pursue.



#2
In this world, we need to exercise discernment.

[I believe that, that, is our purpose in being here. i.e. to make choices, when they are presented to us.]

Especially, we need discernment, much more than 'tolerance' [of what is wicked], imo.

Treating all people [good people and evil people] in the same manner, based on their respective actions, is unjust,
...and wicked.



As someone correctly stated,

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann

I do believe that, devoutly!


If we make no discernment [between good and evil], we have nothing [we are 'empty'],
....and we relegate ourselves to being a part of the problem.

All real goodness comes from, is a product of active discernment, by somebody, somewhere.

If we abandon our good principles, then we also abandon ourselves, to evil forces and influences.




A QUESTION.

But do we have the right to judge, between right and wrong, between good and evil?

We must.

Even a person like abu recognises that truth.

Though i disagree with, abu's discernment, and with abu's adopted value system.

Personally, i count ISLAM to be a value-LESS, and wicked philosophy.

abu, disagrees with that assessment.

But, THAT IS MY DISCERNMENT [about ISLAM, moslems].       ::)




A pithy little quote which i like a lot, and a principle i agree with,

"We are who we protect, i think. What we stand up for."
Sophie Neveu - The Da Vinci Code [movie]

And it applies, both to myself, and to abu.




#3
I have no argument with that statement.

Quote:

Perhaps i should have instead, used the word anti-theist, or, anti-christ. This world is full of them! People who hate God, or the thought of God.

You any good at hacking web sites yadda? I'll bet you're on the ASIO list.
Strange how much hate you show for people who don't believe in your fractured fairy tales.

Yadda wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 4:10pm:

Personally, i count ISLAM to be a value-LESS, and wicked philosophy. abu, disagrees with that assessment. But, THAT IS MY DISCERNMENT [about ISLAM, moslems].       ::)

I am not a defender of Islam by any means, but I regard your own views on Islam as very "Coles versus Woolworths".

There is a lot of good stuff in the Koran as well as rubbish, much like the Bible and the Torah. Basically that's religion for you.  

THere is a lot of common ground between Christianity and Islam. Pope John Paul II had the wisdom to see that.


Quote:

2:83 And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allah (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poor-due. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse.

A spark of ecumenical thought even:


Quote:

2:113 And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture. Even thus speak those who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differ.

Quote:

4:36 And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful,

- and this one is especially  for you Yadda:


Quote:

3:66 Lo! ye are those who argue about that whereof ye have some knowledge: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge? Allah knoweth. Ye know not.

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 4:19pm:

1/ You any good at hacking web sites yadda? 2/ I'll bet you're on the ASIO list. 3/ Strange how much hate you show for people who don't believe in your fractured fairy tales.

1/
LOL
No.
I have no 'talent' in that direction.

2/
I am sure that i must have come to their attention - because of my expressed views.

3/
You are mistaken, in attributing that form of malice to me.
I don't hate people for what they choose to believe.
What people wish to believe is, properly, their own business [choice], imo.







If i do hate some people [i'm only human], it is because of how some people choose to express their beliefs.

Within each of us, 'choice', is a mental power, a thought power,
....a spiritual power.

Here on this little planet, our choices have no form, until we express them, physically!



IMO, we humans are spiritual beings [constrained within a form of 'prison'].

And we come to this physical existence specifically [i believe], to exercise the 'power' of choice [given to each of us, by God], in this physical existence.

Many times in our lives, we will make choices which we sometimes come to regret.

Our regret [for our poor choices], demonstrates we are learning, from our mistakes, imo.

Those of us who express no regret for our mistakes, demonstrate that we have 'no care'.

They refuse to recognise, the hurt they may be causing to others - THROUGH THEIR SELFISH CHOICES.



IMO, through the 'opportunity' of this life, by our choices, by sometimes making mistakes, and recognising, and internally acknowledging those mistakes, we demonstrate that we understand the consequences of our choices.






++++++






Matthew 22:36
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38  This is the first and great commandment.
39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Does that [immediately above] sound like we must belong to a religion determined by men, to be 'accepted' by God???

People who believe such a thing are deluding themselves.

Why, do they wish to believe such a falsehood.


Acts 17:24  God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25  Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
.....
30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

Before his death, in a parable, Jesus said,

Luke 16:31
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Galatians 4:1
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2  But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3  Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:


Matthew 25:32
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33  And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11  For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12  Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.


Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 6:14pm:

I am not a defender of Islam by any means, but I regard your own views on Islam as very "Coles versus Woolworths". There is a lot of good stuff in the Koran as well as rubbish, much like the Bible and the Torah. Basically that's religion for you.   THere is a lot of common ground between Christianity and Islam. Pope John Paul II had the wisdom to see that.

muso,

The Koran is full of truths, and half truths.

If you sincerely believe the statements you have made, above, i recommend to you these YOUTUBE audio presentations, from an Arabic speaker who has studied the Koran and Hadith for most of his life.

Inform yourself.


Part 014 - Quran Against Christians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZdeNZS1yqk

Part 016 - Quran Against Jews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_i6r-FYrIc

Part 018 - Abrogating and Abrogated Verses in the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNxE6c3Y6II

Part 019 - Quran Against Unbelievers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z5_djbuagc

Part 022 - Quran Against Arabs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hLbI938shA

Part 023 - Quran vs Bible Contradictions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmldV_orl5U

Part 024 - Satanic Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO6GjoAY3hs

Part 026 - The Charter of Umar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tNP_rlLLBA

Part 027 - Foreign Words in Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pevVABzwHk

Part 058A - Quran Unravelled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFIm3-y4Rdk

Part 058B - Quran Unravelled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCTJxw5vDZ0

Part 087 - Jesus in the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXcZ3_n9xEI

Part 088 - Days of Creation in the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvJXzsnomSQ

Part 117 - Quran's Rivers of Paradise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-sAeMKBMO4

Part 148 - Don't Question the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S083Ic2LkX0

Part 155 - Quranic and Hadith Gems
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L-PRmhyuDc

Part 162 - A. Y. Ali's Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx45Fon72-0
Demonstrating the intellectual hypocrisy, falseness, of the translators and commentators, of the Koran.

Part 167 - Quran's Flat Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGEFo5qkXkU

Part 186A - Bible and Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYdhQbfu7DY

Part 186B - Bible and Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A1Ryi_l6X4

Part 194A - Wine and the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9vo8EspZEk

Part 194B - Wine and the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SwZ3OeD1lU

Part 204 A - Israel in the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXWjxUdiBaI

Part 204 B - Israel in the Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZgi-kDUnsM

Part 209 A - The Zionist Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjR-1Je9ARA

Part 209 B - The Zionist Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpC00FM8mg8

Part 210 A - Muhammads Confused Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-e1yeBjms

Part 210 B - Muhammads Confused Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD7dywei7E4

Part 210 C - Muhammads Confused Quran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlp93a3OX8



A full list of all, al Rassooli's "AhmadsQuran3" talks, available on YOUTUBE....
http://www.al-rassooli.com/ahmadsquran3/





++++++++




".....THere is a lot of common ground between Christianity and Islam. Pope John Paul II had the wisdom to see that."

http://www.remnantofgod.org/pix/kiss-koran.jpg
Pope JPII kisses the Koran


The Koran,
the moslem 'Jesus' did not die,
the moslem 'Jesus' was not crucified,
SIGHTED IN THE KORAN...
Koran 4.157-159

Hardly of contention to an atheist, but,
The Koran declares that Jesus was not God's son,
SIGHTED IN THE KORAN...
Koran 6.101
Koran 9.030
Koran 37.152

The Koran,
calls all Christians [non-moslems] accursed of Allah,
declares all Christians are the enemies of Allah.

Response from 'God's representative on earth'?

Pope, cravenly? or ignorantly? kisses 'Holy' Koran.





"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51
i.e. those who claim to be moslems, and who make sincere friendships with 'unbelievers', ARE unbelievers [become apostates themselves, and worthy of death].


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!"
Koran 9.29,30

Yadda,

All I can say is that you are blind to the obvious problems that exist in the Bible. I avoid taking sacred verses out of context as you just did. Just to take one example, you can read in the Bible that the Earth is flat too. However, I don't have an agenda of ridiculing other people's religion.


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

On that site, you'll find the Skeptic's annotated Qu'ran and Book of Mormon too. I don't buy into criticising things that I don't understand - the point I'm making is that maybe you should do follow the same principle.

Click on any of the symbols at the side to find examples relating to:  

Injustice
Cruelty and Violence
Intolerance
Contradictions
Science and History
Interpretation
Family Values
Women
Good Stuff
Prophecy
Sex
Language
Homosexuality

Read the comments for the Bible, and you'll see how non-Christians can distort the interpretation. Just bear that in mind for a while, then read the comments made for the Qu'ran. Are you so naive as to agree with every distortion made for the Qu'ran on that site.  Think about it.


If somebody is obviously a bad egg, and you get them, I usually keep my distance. The difference is that I don't automatically do that because they hold certain religious beliefs. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it is necessary to trust people. You don't go far unless you do. I also apply a sense of judgement in each situation. I tend not to use the word discrimination as it can be misconstrued, but you know what I mean.

Please don't denigrate Pope John Paul II. He had his faults, but he tried to bring mankind together like no other religious leader before him, and he certainly earned my respect.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 11:34am:

Yadda, All I can say is that you are blind to the obvious problems that exist in the Bible. I avoid taking sacred verses out of context as you just did. Just to take one example, you can read in the Bible that the Earth is flat too. However, I don't have an agenda of ridiculing other people's religion. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ On that site, you'll find the Skeptic's annotated Qu'ran and Book of Mormon too. I don't buy into criticising things that I don't understand - the point I'm making is that maybe you should do follow the same principle. Click on any of the symbols at the side to find examples relating to:   Injustice Cruelty and Violence Intolerance Contradictions Science and History Interpretation Family Values Women Good Stuff Prophecy Sex Language Homosexuality

Yes, the Skeptic's annotated Bible, Qu'ran, etc, is a wonderful resource, for religious sceptics.       ;D

I am, i have been 'challenged', when perusing some of that information [relating to Bible texts].

But my faith is strong enough to say,
.....'Let them go for it. Let them do their worst. God forgive them.'






Quote:

Read the comments for the Bible, and you'll see how non-Christians can distort the interpretation. Just bear that in mind for a while, then read the comments made for the Qu'ran. Are you so naive as to agree with every distortion made for the Qu'ran on that site.  Think about it.

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


muso,

God forgive me, for 'distorting', and 'misrepresenting' the meaning of those two extracts [above] from the Koran.
/sarc offi

Quote:

Please don't denigrate Pope John Paul II. He had his faults, but he tried to bring mankind together like no other religious leader before him, and he certainly earned my respect.

I'm sorry if i offended you.

I was just calling it, as i saw it.



And that, i do not apologise for.

I don't apologise for speaking the TRUTH.

Not enough people do.

And that is a major reason why the world is in such a mess today, imo.

I guess it's easy to distort the meaning when translating from one language to another. However, the following verses are also quite explicit:


Quote:

Matthew 10:21  And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Nothing too subtle there. Now under what circumstances should this occur? (You don't have to answer that - I know the stock answer)

Matthew 11:


Quote:

11:21  Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

What - the whole city? Nobody is worth saving?



Quote:

Matthew 7:7  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Does that include the parents of childhood leukemia sufferers?

Quote:

Matthew 10:34  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

I'm not going to dwell on these quotations too much, but I brought them up to illustrate that anybody can pick violent and intolerent texts from the Bible too.

I think of it in terms of a young man with a girlfriend with whom he is in love.  It doesn't matter what anybody says about her, the young man can see nothing but perfection in her. Other girls may have their faults but not his girlfriend.

It's very similar with Christians and Muslims and their respective faiths. For someone who doesn't come from a partisan position, it's patently obvious, but the smitten are very blind.  

I love this topic, "God despises man's religions".
I could not have put it better myself, I do despise man's religions, QED, praise me, lmao.

Perhaps this hatred for god is really a self hatred, and I am out to destroy belief in me, and I will disappear up a parallel paradox of logic.

When you think about it, it could be funny, the second coming, and Jesus descends on a cloud, expecting rapturous applause for his latest trick, he is even considering including it in a las vegas tour, with a bit of water walking, and wine converting  thrown in, but instead he gets greeted by boos and moans of complaints.
"Fourthousand bleeding years we've been waiting for you. You couldn't be bothered with even an apparition to an illiterate goatherder to tell us you'd be back later than expected? Well that is only manners isn't it. Call yourself the son of god?, well we reckon you are a selfish plonker, now nick off, we have decided to wait for mohammed instead, he is coming next week, he wrote a note for us on a russian babies leg."

He's late because he is coming by State Rail.

Soren wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 3:03pm:

He's late because he is coming by State Rail.

I thought he was booked on Tiger Airways actually.

lol Tiger, I flew Tiger to the gold coast and the plane from melbourne cost $49 and the cab from the airport to the hotel cost $65, lmao, it is a damn crazy world, where an airplane flight of thousands of km's is cheaper than a good t shirt.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 3:59pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 3:03pm: He's late because he is coming by State Rail. I thought he was booked on Tiger Airways actually.

He was.

But coming by State Rail, he missed the flight.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 1:48pm:

I'm not going to dwell on these quotations too much, but I brought them up to illustrate that anybody can pick violent and intolerent texts from the Bible too. I think of it in terms of a young man with a girlfriend with whom he is in love.  It doesn't matter what anybody says about her, the young man can see nothing but perfection in her. Other girls may have their faults but not his girlfriend. It's very similar with Christians and Muslims and their respective faiths. For someone who doesn't come from a partisan position, it's patently obvious, but the smitten are very blind.

Muso, speaking of blindness - only those whose mind has gone to multicultural jelly will equate today's christianity with today's Islam. It is great to show of a bit of learning and dexterity with internet search (we all do it, I am not exempt) but the pertinent point is simply obscured by such dazzles.

And to add insult to injury, if I may, your and mozza's impeccable secularist credentials are really christian values without belief in god. If you care to check your fundamental assumptions and values you'll find that they are all Christian: universal human right, equality of men and womn, tolerance, equality of races, working for a better tomorrow and the greater good, caring for the world not jut the self, and so on. Bits may be present in other cultures but the way they come together is unmistakably of Christian origin.
In the end, Christianity is judaism for gentiles, like secularism is Christianity for unbelievers.
(Mohammed tried to make a judaism for Arabs, until he was laughed out of court. The jews of Araby illustrated the addage: history happens first as tragedy (Jesus) and then as farce (Mohammed). But Mohammed had no sense of humour.)

And this is nothing new. It is preposterous to pretend that secularism is anything but the cintinuation of the Greco-Jewish-Christian tradition.  Muslims wouldn't revolt against it if it wasn't. Young people wouldn't if it wasn't. You may not like it (young at heart tht you are), but you and mozz are Christians to the core as far as your values are oncerned. You will always be tourist in Islam and Buddhism, in a way you are not in Christianity.i

I have never denied that in cultural terms I come from a Christian based tradition. I think I stated that fact a long time ago. However to say that secularism is of Christian origins is a contradiction in terms. its origins lie in the Deist philosophers such as John Locke, and later another group of Deists who laid the foundations of the United States. Rather than being a consequence of Christinaity, they were a breakaway group.  Ironically this separation of church and state was extremely strained under G W Bush.

You can hardly claim the equality of the sexes as being of Christian origins when Deuteronomy clearly stated that you shalt not covet your neighbor's wife or ass -- or any thing else that belongs to your neighbor.  Women are clearly possessions. The New Testament is no different in that respect.


Quote:

Peter 3:1  Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;       3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Secularism may have been initiated in Western society, but it survived despite the Church, not because of it.  The Vatican would certainly not have staged a Galileo exhibit this year had it not been for the influence of secularism in society.

As far as multiculturalism is concerned, it's an unavoidable fact in Australia. It's off topic on this board, but really - what do you seriously propose to do about it? Deport millions of people who are not white anglosaxons even if they were born here?

You can't turn back the clock, no matter how much it gripes you. We are a product of our history, for better or for worse. Nothing you say or do will change that. The whole world is multicultural, with the possible exception of Ireland and maybe Iceland, which is half Irish anyway.  ;D

- and we have previously established that it's all the fault of the Irish  ;D

Soren wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 9:11pm:

And to add insult to injury, if I may, your and mozza's impeccable secularist credentials are really christian values without belief in god. If you care to check your fundamental assumptions and values you'll find that they are all Christian: universal human right, equality of men and womn, tolerance, equality of races, working for a better tomorrow and the greater good, caring for the world not jut the self, and so on. Bits may be present in other cultures but the way they come together is unmistakably of Christian origin. In the end, Christianity is judaism for gentiles, like secularism is Christianity for unbelievers.

Equality of men and women? Yer righto ;D

Please open your Bible to 1 Timothy 2 and read verses 11-14


Quote:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

In the end Christianity is about

Believing in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Believing in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end

Believing in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

Believing in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
acknowledging one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
looking for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Note also that he came down ‘for us men and for our salvation’. Nothing about equality there.

Christianity has been de-fanged and tamed by secularism.

And virtues like honesty, tolerance, compassion, decency, hospitality, affability are universal human aspirations... That's why they find their way into religion... not the other way around.

I do not want to downplay the efforts of deists, atheists, agnoistics and the rest. But my point is that it is only with Chritianity that seculatrisation is possible and that, most importantly, secularism retains the essential values of existence and co-existnce found in Christianity.

I certainly do not want to swap quotes but the very fact that we are able to interpret within a recognisabl framework is significant. The departure of secularim from Christianity is in tone and emphasis and ritual practice.

Re women - somewhere it is said that there is no man or woman, jew or gentile in Christianity but all are equal before god. That is the foundation of a great deal of human right law in a way that, say,  Islam or Hinduism could not possibly be.

Re multiculturalism -muso, you immediately lapse into race talk - as if the idea of multiculturalism was the same as multiracialism. Deportation of non-anglos? Is that the only alternative you can see to multiculturalism? What about assimilation?
Adopting to the host country (and its characteristics and custonms that made it attractive to the newcomer in the firts place) is the only basis of a sucsful immigration policy. We accept you if we see tht you, as a newcomer, make all the effort to accept us. Reciprocity. Not a hard concept.

The whole world is multicultural? What nonsense. Not 10 years ago Europe saw a long war of cultures. In Africa, it's the norm to hack the guys in the nxt valley. East Asia? India, Pakistan, Sri lanka? All multicultural?

What this has to do with the topic is that the universalism of Christianity is carried on by the universalism of secularity which has grown out of Christianity and could not have grown out of any other religion. So in secularism sheds therrors of ritual and error of dogma while the essence, the foundation is retained. That is what I want to convey.

Soren wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 7:30am:

I do not want to downplay the efforts of deists, atheists, agnoistics and the rest. But my point is that it is only with Chritianity that seculatrisation is possible and that, most importantly, secularism retains the essential values of existence and co-existnce found in Christianity. What this has to do with the topic is that the universalism of Christianity is carried on by the universalism of secularity which has grown out of Christianity and could not have grown out of any other religion. So in secularism sheds therrors of ritual and error of dogma while the essence, the foundation is retained. That is what I want to convey.

Secularism is entirely possible (and would always have been) with Buddhism. As Buddhism requires monks to liberate themselves from desire (including the craving for power) which, according to Buddhist teaching, is the result of ignorance, anger and greed, separating religion from the state in Buddhist countries is easily achievable... Many times more easily achievable than what the power-craving primates of Christianity have tolerated.

I don't want to continue the multicultural topic here. Perhaps another board another time.

So you can cherry pick from the Bible and come to the conclusion that Christianity is egalitarian?  

I don't really want to get into an anti-Christian argument either, because unlike others on this board, I see the benefits of religions, including Christianity.  You can interpret that as weakness all you like, but I am old enough to know where I stand on this issue. The vast majority of the non-religious in this country (and the rest of the world) are non-antagonistic with respect to religion,  but also non-vocal. Those who bother to post on boards like this are generally not representative of that majority. I consider myself an exception to that.

As Laozi (老子)once wrote:


Quote:

He who stands on his tiptoes can not stand firm. He who stretches his legs can not easily walk. So it is that he who displays himself does not shine He who asserts his own views is not distinguished He who vaunts himself does not find his merit acknowledged He who is self- conceited has no superiority allowed to him. Such conditions, viewed from the standpoint of the Dao, are like remnants of food, or a tumour on the body, which all dislike. Hence those who pursue the way of the Dao do not adopt and allow them.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 8:16am:

I don't really want to get into an anti-Christian argument either, because unlike others on this board, I see the benefits of religions, including Christianity.  You can interpret that as weakness all you like, but I am old enough to know where I stand on this issue. The vast majority of the non-religious in this country (and the rest of the world) are non-antagonistic with respect to religion,  but also non-vocal. Those who bother to post on boards like this are generally not representative of that majority. I consider myself an exception to that.

Although you'd have to agree that absolutist, anachronistic texts, in which all religions abound, force an unacceptable rigidity to societal evolution and modern sensibilities... the inequality of men and women being just one such rather pernicious anachronism, the declared infallibility of the Pope being another.

The argument that secularism is or was only ever possible in a Christian society is clearly not true and, in fact, it’s secularism that’s having a profound and revolutionary effect on Christianity, which is in the throes of reinventing itself, mostly due (perhaps ironically) to the demands of the modern faithful who can no longer accept many doctrinal anachronisms. An example of this quiet revolution is Episcopalian Bishop Jack Spong, who advocates a Christianity without a literal ‘son of god’, virgin birth, miracles, twelve apostles, crucifixion and resurrection… In short a near complete rejection of the Nicene creed and (again perhaps ironically) more in keeping with the Islamic doctrine of Jesus.

Soren wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 7:30am:

The departure of secularim from Christianity is in tone and emphasis and ritual practice.

The departure of state authority from the church was to prevent Christian clergy using their influence and contrived moral authority to arrogate temporal power to themselves, which they attempted throughout history at every perceived opportunity.

Secularism, until very recently, was anathema to Christian clergy and particularly to Roman Catholic clergy and even today that abhorrence for secularism is most probably in the hearts and minds of the clergy... They just can't talk about it anymore.

My understanding of secularity is the neither religion nor any other conviction has special claim or primacy in the public sphere. Reason is the final authority for matters affecting the totality of society concerned. This is my stance.

I also understand that for some secularists, religion has no place or voice in the public sphere. But I think that is a misunderstanding of the enlightnment, of democratic principles and it is unreasonable.

A few ppl have been busy posting since my last appearance here.

muso, moz,  ....what soren said made a lot of sense to me.

what soren said, this thread,
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1256090277/23#23






muso said,

Quote:

Quote: Matthew 7:7  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: Does that include the parents of childhood leukemia sufferers?

muso,

This world and its afflictions, are what we suffer.

Hardships test us.

Yes?

Are you [or anyone else] the only one, who has suffered undeserved loss?

As some bar-room philosopher once quipped,

'Life's a bitch, and then you die.'

This is often true.


muso,

Many ppl suffer life's hardships, and curse God before they die.



But Job did not.


Job 1:14
And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
15  And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
16  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
17  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
18  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
19  And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.







muso,

You bitter complaining atheist!

My advice to you, is, to curse God and die.

That is my only advice, to those who are so full of rebellion and hatred, against God.



Regards Matthew 7:7   ???

That verse speaks to the spirit, not to the flesh.


John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


1 John 5:4
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.


Jeremiah 4:22
For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.



You are lost in the world.

We are all lost, in the world.

Go and camp in the wilderness [away from ppl] for 40 days [with only food and water, and your bed], and perchance, you will find God.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2009 at 10:13pm:

You can hardly claim the equality of the sexes as being of Christian origins when Deuteronomy clearly stated that you shalt not covet your neighbor's wife or ass -- or any thing else that belongs to your neighbor.  Women are clearly possessions.

Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


Deuteronomy 5:21
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.



God knows man's nature, well enough.

Exodus and Deuteronomy were speaking to the carnal lust of men.

To men, women are objects of lustful desire [and vice versa].

It is men, who make women into possessions.

It is the lust of men, which made women into the possessions of men.

God did not.



1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Yadda wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 3:29pm:

muso, You bitter complaining atheist!

If that makes you feel good, fine - you bitter complaining Christian  ;D

I noticed how you carefully avoided talking about the NT citations. Paul of Tarsus was probably the most bitter of all Christians, and he had a mean misogynistic streak a mile long. His brand of Christianity had more to do with traditional Greek values and attitudes than with love of his fellow humans.


I was just making the point that if you look in the Bible, you'll find verses that are frequently misconstrued. I'm sure that if you ask Abu without automatically assuming things, you'd get the view of a follower of that religion.

I'm not bitter. and I have no real problems with your religion as I've said many times before. On the whole, I think  it's a great thing to have a religion, and that many people benefit from religion. However I wish you would end this mutual denouncement game with Abu or anybody else that  doesn't share your views. It really makes you look like another bitter complaining Christian who yearns for the old days when you could actually hang somebody for blasphemy.

The only thing that separates you from the perpetrators of the Goan atrocities is time, and the fact that we now have laws that separate church and state, and prevent people from being tortured just because they have a different world view.

As far as Abu and yourself are concerned, I believe that both of you are reasonably well-intentioned, but you both get carried away in your faith and lose your sense of common decency as a result. If anything Abu has been a better ambassador for his faith. In the battle of Coles versus Woolworths, you're not exactly one of the fresh food people.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

The whole life denigrating attitude of religious peple, that life is not really important in itself, and it's value is as an entrance exam to another world, where you can really live life to the full, is anathema to me.

All religions push this obscene denouncement of "reality" in favour of their "dreamed" nirvana, and it is the very worst aspect of religious belief, and a better way to have despots manage to appease and control people, would be harder to invent.

Life is great, life is everything, live life to it's absolute limits, for this is it folks, nobody gets a second ride, and to sublimate your dreams for this life, in the hope of having a dream after life, is very, very, sad.

There is no heaven, there is no hell, apart from what we conceive in our own minds, heaven and hell exist in the here and now, and there is no fairness, or even a great deal of predictability about much of it.

Just live by the basics, you have to give love away to get it back.

You have to learn to love yourself completely, before you can ever hope to be able to offer the best 'you' to the world, in any interpersonal scenario. Building self loathing and guillt into your psyche not only diminishes your own chance of happiness, it also diminishes your ability to create happiness in those around you.

Hedonism is a grand ideal, which is grossly misrepresented, and therefore misconstrued by most, the joy of sex, or food, or wealth, is not the alpha and omega of self satisfaction, the joy of giving, and sharing, and loving, are also deeply fulfilling, and a true hedonist will certainly not exclude those joys from their lives.

So use spirituality to enrich your life, if that is what it does for you, but never, ever allow religion to lessen your ideas about the worth of each and everyones personal existence in the here and now.

Soren wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 12:04pm:

My understanding of secularity is the neither religion nor any other conviction has special claim or primacy in the public sphere. Reason is the final authority for matters affecting the totality of society concerned. This is my stance.

That would undermine your conviction that secularism is really just crypto-Christianity.

You are not encouraged by Christian practise (and mostly vehemently discouraged) to independently determine via reason what is good for society... Those truths are determined for you mostly (and historically exclusively) by the clergy.


Soren wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 12:04pm:

I also understand that for some secularists, religion has no place or voice in the public sphere. But I think that is a misunderstanding of the enlightnment, of democratic principles and it is unreasonable.

The idea of secularism grew from the wariness of emperors, kings and princes towards the unrelenting and omnipresent threat of encroachment on temporal power by the ever-opportunistic clergy.

I have little doubt that the fathers of the enlightenment would have if they could have consigned religion itself to the dustbin of history... Just as they were in the process of doing with the idea of absolute temporal power being vested in a hereditary head-of-state.

In other words, their vision of the democratic state had only one contender for sovereign power remaining (once royal families and imperialistic overlords had been dispatched)... One that was much more pervasive and insidious than even the hereditary head-of-state... that contender being religion.

Religion is antithetical to secularism and the argument that it arose from Christianity is to misunderstand the opportunities offered by religion for the amassing of absolute temporal power... the dark allure of that power and the atrocities humans will commit to arrogate it and defend it against all pretenders.

helian, you would not be wrong if religion was merely about politics. But of course it is not. And that, the bit beyond politics (or before it) is the bit all and every sociological and political analysis of it and of the rest of society miss.

Your life has political and sociological dimentions but to say that you are no more than a political or sociological entity would be  ludicrous. These are important but ultimately minor dimentions of a person's life.  Sociology and politics, dealing in masses, is blind to what happens between people face to face.

ANd while religion has obviously a significant historical, political, sociological dimention, it is, in my view, the stuff of life lived face to face.

Soren wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 9:12pm:

helian, you would not be wrong if religion was merely about politics. But of course it is not. And that, the bit beyond politics (or before it) is the bit all and every sociological and political analysis of it and of the rest of society miss. Your life has political and sociological dimentions but to say that you are no more than a political or sociological entity would be  ludicrous. These are important but ultimately minor dimentions of a person's life.  Sociology and politics, dealing in masses, is blind to what happens between people face to face. ANd while religion has obviously a significant historical, political, sociological dimention, it is, in my view, the stuff of life lived face to face.

But secularism is about power, or the separation and apportionment thereof. Yes religion is obviously about more than just politics, but that is not the concern of secularism.

There is nothing inherent in Christianity that would steel its clergy against the allure of temporal power when they see an opportunity to arrogate it. In fact, there is no religious dogma ever written and institutionalised that places constraints on the human tendency to arrogate power more effectively than democratic secularism.

There is also no universal innate largesse in Christian clerics’ psyche that would allow for their voluntarily surrender of real power.

Morality and ethics doctrines, such as religions, are powerful sources of presumed temporal authority and their advocates do not seek to limit their respective belief systems’ socio-political reach by voluntarily submitting to a secular state administration, except under the threat of overwhelming force, particularly when that force is legitimized by the will of the majority.

If all clergy were MPs, you would have a strong point. Yes, the church has temporal power, like any other organisation and yes, it had a lot more in the past and yes, it was mighty reluctant to let go of that power.

But none of this touches on the face to face dimention of religion, or only indirectly. And what has allowed Christianity to survive and constantly revive itself is that its founder and source had no directives regarding all that power political struggle the church engaged in.  

That is why Christianity is the source of secular morality in a way other religions could not be - because Christianity is not the temporal church or the clergy. Christianity, probably alone among religions, is a matter of inner conversion first and last. Its rituals and traditions are important but they mean nothing unless there is an inner, personal change. That has always been its first principle and that is why its bloody political history is, in principle, always secondary.i

mozzaok wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 6:51pm:

The whole life denigrating attitude of religious peple, that life is not really important in itself, and it's value is as an entrance exam to another world, where you can really live life to the full, is anathema to me.

It is difficult for us to come to that 'place', that [this] life in itself is not so important, when we believe, that the world offers us so much - right now.


JRR Tolkien knew.

His character Gandalf spoke truly,

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Gandalf - FOTR








Quote:

All religions push this obscene denouncement of "reality" in favour of their "dreamed" nirvana, and it is the very worst aspect of religious belief, and a better way to have despots manage to appease and control people, would be harder to invent.

Believe that, if you must.






Quote:

Life is great, life is everything, live life to it's absolute limits, for this is it folks, nobody gets a second ride, and to sublimate your dreams for this life, in the hope of having a dream after life, is very, very, sad. There is no heaven, there is no hell, apart from what we conceive in our own minds, heaven and hell exist in the here and now, and there is no fairness, or even a great deal of predictability about much of it.

Believe that, if you must.

The sadness is, in the hearts of those, to whom the spirit of God has not revealed himself.

That, is sad.






Quote:

Just live by the basics, you have to give love away to get it back. You have to learn to love yourself completely, before you can ever hope to be able to offer the best 'you' to the world, in any interpersonal scenario. Building self loathing and guillt into your psyche not only diminishes your own chance of happiness, it also diminishes your ability to create happiness in those around you. Hedonism is a grand ideal, which is grossly misrepresented,

Not by Hugh Hefner.

Hugh represented the cult of hedonism quite well i thought.

Hedonism is yet another God, of men.








Quote:

and therefore misconstrued by most, the joy of sex, or food, or wealth, is not the alpha and omega of self satisfaction, the joy of giving, and sharing, and loving, are also deeply fulfilling, and a true hedonist will certainly not exclude those joys from their lives. So use spirituality to enrich your life, if that is what it does for you, but never, ever allow religion to lessen your ideas about the worth of each and everyones personal existence in the here and now.

Thankfully, i have never let the religion of men to affect me so.



moz,

I'm sad, that the world offers you so little, but yet, you [and so many others] have determined that the world offers you all of the satisfaction which you will ever need.

Live with it.

And die with it.



The truth is,

There is so much more to know, and to experience.

I thank my God for his blessing.

I don't know why i was chosen, accepted.

But i thank him.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 6:51pm:

#1, Life is great, life is everything, live life to it's absolute limits, for this is it folks, nobody gets a second ride, and to sublimate your dreams for this life, in the hope of having a dream after life, is very, very, sad. ....... #2, Hedonism is a grand ideal, which is grossly misrepresented, and therefore misconstrued by most, the joy of sex, or food, or wealth, is not the alpha and omega of self satisfaction, the joy of giving, and sharing, and loving, are also deeply fulfilling, and a true hedonist will certainly not exclude those joys from their lives.

#1
Not according to many of our youth.



#2
Its overrated.
And leads many to commit wicked acts, against others.




Two example news stories of the resultant values which atheism and hedonism instil into us, and our children today.

Teaching us all, a life philosophy which is empty, and worthless, if not downright evil.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tIZgZsDWYj4/SuBPywnV1NI/AAAAAAAAB2o/BkJyWWTFJh0/s400/somer+thompson.jpg
Cops to Search Vacant Home Where Somer Was Last Seen
Sheriff Warns, 'There Is a Child Killer on the Loose"
Oct. 22, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/somer-thompson-body-found-sheriff-matches-birthmark-clothing/story?id=8887834#




Teen suicide epidemic sweeps NorCal
Friday, October 23, 2009
...In all four of the suicides, the students jumped into the path of an oncoming commuter train. While concerned parents are seeking answers, authorities in the affluent town of Palo Alto are quick to point out that this is not a suicide pact, but rather a suicide cluster.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=7080354





Why do these victims [suicides], and perpetrators [child murderers] have such empty lives?

If our cultural values are so fine, and so good today, then why don't these people believe, in something, good, and worthwhile?

Why are there so many stories like this today???i

mozzaok wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 6:51pm:

The whole life denigrating attitude of religious peple, that life is not really important in itself, and it's value is as an entrance exam to another world, where you can really live life to the full, is anathema to me.

If that were all what they said, I'd be with you. But that is not what they say (those who know what they are talking about). Perhaps Nietzsche popularised that idea but he misunderstood both the Jews and the Christians. To his defence, and yours, many Christians do speak along the lines you despise and they are labouring under a misunderstanding.

To read the Song of Songs, say, and think that what it gives voice to despises this or any other life (being) is to be illiterate.

Soren wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 10:04pm:

That is why Christianity is the source of secular morality in a way other religions could not be - because Christianity is not the temporal church or the clergy. Christianity, probably alone among religions, is a matter of inner conversion first and last. Its rituals and traditions are important but they mean nothing unless there is an inner, personal change. That has always been its first principle and that is why its bloody political history is, in principle, always secondary.

Is there any religion that does not require an inner conversion... a profound inner, personal change?

As far as religious traditions are concerned with yielding unconditionally to secularism and as far as offering secularists a source of non-theistic doctrines that defines paths to achieving certain innate universal human aspirations is concerned, Buddhism (with its emphatic and central tenets specifically teaching against the craving of power and its emphasis on compassion as the greatest good) would fit that role better than Christianity.

Yadda wrote on Oct 25^th, 2009 at 6:16pm:

Two example news stories of the resultant values which atheism and hedonism instil into us, and our children today. Teaching us all, a life philosophy which is empty, and worthless, if not downright evil.

Anyone who is not living under a rock will be aware of the pedophile scandals that have rocked the Catholic and Anglican churches.

If you're trying to say that a largely atheist society will commit more violent crime than a largely Christian society, I'd suggest you look at the actual statistics.

The trend is actually the reverse. I've posted the link to the Journal of Religion and Society before.  There is quite a strong correlation between Christianity and violent crime. The vast majority of prisoners on death row in the US are long-term Christians and a fair few of them probably did the right Christian thing and prayed for forgiveness afterwards.

I wondered about those statistics the first time I saw them. My personal theory is that a lot comes down to self-worth. In a distance race, if you keep telling yourself that you're a winner and that you can do it, then it will have a beneficial effect on your lap time.

If you keep telling yourself that you're a wretched sinner and that you have no hope on your own, then I guess that would  probably work in a similar fashion.  You may go on to commit heinous crimes comfortable in the knowledge that you can always plead for forgiveness and accept Jesus into your heart.

In the United States, the most Christian of societies, the most common violent crime is rape.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 25^th, 2009 at 11:19pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 24th, 2009 at 10:04pm: That is why Christianity is the source of secular morality in a way other religions could not be - because Christianity is not the temporal church or the clergy. Christianity, probably alone among religions, is a matter of inner conversion first and last. Its rituals and traditions are important but they mean nothing unless there is an inner, personal change. That has always been its first principle and that is why its bloody political history is, in principle, always secondary. Is there any religion that does not require an inner conversion... a profound inner, personal change?

Yes. Islam is one. And all the other pagan religions.



Quote:

As far as religious traditions are concerned with yielding unconditionally to secularism and as far as offering secularists a source of non-theistic doctrines that defines paths to achieving certain innate universal human aspirations is concerned, Buddhism (with its emphatic and central tenets specifically teaching against the craving of power and its emphasis on compassion as the greatest good) would fit that role better than Christianity.

Yet secularism is a profoundly western thing, growing out of Christianity and Judaism, not Buddhism or Hinduism or Dreamtime or Islam.


Even if it was really just a revolt against Christianity, as you maintain  - imagine the secularisms that would have developed out of revolts against Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. What would that sort of secularism look like?

There's a thought experiment worth playing with.

Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 1:34pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 25th, 2009 at 11:19pm: Soren wrote on Oct 24th, 2009 at 10:04pm: That is why Christianity is the source of secular morality in a way other religions could not be - because Christianity is not the temporal church or the clergy. Christianity, probably alone among religions, is a matter of inner conversion first and last. Its rituals and traditions are important but they mean nothing unless there is an inner, personal change. That has always been its first principle and that is why its bloody political history is, in principle, always secondary. Is there any religion that does not require an inner conversion... a profound inner, personal change? Yes. Islam is one. And all the other pagan religions.

Maybe Abu can confirm, but I think you'll you'll find that the embracing of Islam requires the profoundest of inner personal change.... Not least for the fact that the conversion is considered irreversible.


Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 1:34pm:

Quote: As far as religious traditions are concerned with yielding unconditionally to secularism and as far as offering secularists a source of non-theistic doctrines that defines paths to achieving certain innate universal human aspirations is concerned, Buddhism (with its emphatic and central tenets specifically teaching against the craving of power and its emphasis on compassion as the greatest good) would fit that role better than Christianity. Yet secularism is a profoundly western thing, growing out of Christianity and Judaism, not Buddhism or Hinduism or Dreamtime or Islam. Even if it was really just a revolt against Christianity, as you maintain  - imagine the secularisms that would have developed out of revolts against Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. What would that sort of secularism look like? There's a thought experiment worth playing with.

Yes secularism began in the west... Why not in Buddhist countries? Probably because Buddhism has little or no history of its monks challenging the state at every perceived opportunity, so the perceived threat to the countries' heads of state never occurred.

As Christianity has been politicised since Constantine, it is impossible to extricate the religion from the machine.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 5:09pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 26th, 2009 at 1:34pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 25th, 2009 at 11:19pm: Soren wrote on Oct 24th, 2009 at 10:04pm: That is why Christianity is the source of secular morality in a way other religions could not be - because Christianity is not the temporal church or the clergy. Christianity, probably alone among religions, is a matter of inner conversion first and last. Its rituals and traditions are important but they mean nothing unless there is an inner, personal change. That has always been its first principle and that is why its bloody political history is, in principle, always secondary. Is there any religion that does not require an inner conversion... a profound inner, personal change? Yes. Islam is one. And all the other pagan religions. Maybe Abu can confirm, but I think you'll you'll find that the embracing of Islam requires the profoundest of inner personal change.... Not least for the fact that the conversion is considered irreversible. Soren wrote on Oct 26th, 2009 at 1:34pm: Quote: As far as religious traditions are concerned with yielding unconditionally to secularism and as far as offering secularists a source of non-theistic doctrines that defines paths to achieving certain innate universal human aspirations is concerned, Buddhism (with its emphatic and central tenets specifically teaching against the craving of power and its emphasis on compassion as the greatest good) would fit that role better than Christianity. Yet secularism is a profoundly western thing, growing out of Christianity and Judaism, not Buddhism or Hinduism or Dreamtime or Islam. Even if it was really just a revolt against Christianity, as you maintain  - imagine the secularisms that would have developed out of revolts against Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. What would that sort of secularism look like? There's a thought experiment worth playing with. Yes secularism began in the west... Why not in Buddhist countries? Probably because Buddhism has little or no history of its monks challenging the state at every perceived opportunity, so the perceived threat to the countries' heads of state never occurred. As Christianity has been politicised since Constantine, it is impossible to extricate the religion from the machine.

In Islam, all you have to do is belive that there is only Allan and that Mohammed is his messanger. That's it, you're in. There is nothing profoundly ethical or even personal in either of these beliefs, whether viewed separately or together.  And once you are in, it is all ritual, down to the minutest detail. There is no redemptive project, personal or universal.

Love thy neighbour - now that takes some effort!


Re Buddhism and Christianity - I don't think the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment, the scientific and political revolutions of Europe and the new world came about because monks were challenging state power. After all, kings attributed their authority to divine endorsement up until the 20th century Secularisation did not start out as an atheist or agnostic movement but as a Christian project to reform political life, the laws - to remove te claims of divine authority from the political sphere. And it could take off in Christianity because the idea has a solid Christian doctrinal basis.

I also don't think that Tibetan Buddhist are finding themselves in uncharted territory when they are leading the rebellion against the Chinese authoritis occupying them, usurping their previous theocratic rulel.

ANd of course, there is no redemptive project here either. Disapppear into nothingness is the best you can hope for as a Buddhist; never to return to this valley of sorrows (I am quiting the Buddhist text from memory). It is anti-life as a fisrt principle. WIth the other religion you actually have to misrepreset them to make them out to be anti-life,. With Buddhism, it's the opening gambit.

Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 8:23pm:

In Islam, all you have to do is belive that there is only Allan and that Mohammed is his messanger. That's it, you're in. There is nothing profoundly ethical or even personal in either of these beliefs, whether viewed separately or together.  And once you are in, it is all ritual, down to the minutest detail. There is no redemptive project, personal or universal.

And as Paul revealed to the world, to the outrage of his superiors in Jerusalem, all you needed to be saved was belief in Jesus as the Christ, the waited for messiah, all the rest was unimportant… Although to be fair to Paul, he thought the world was soon going to come to an end.

Of course, the primary act of submission is usually the easiest with religion… It’s the proceeding rituals and laws that are hard. Islam and Christianity are the same in this regard.


Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 8:23pm:

Re Buddhism and Christianity - I don't think the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment, the scientific and political revolutions of Europe and the new world came about because monks were challenging state power.

Martin Luther challenged the temporal power of the Pope, thus beginning the Reformation… He was supported by German Princes who saw it as the greatest opportunity since the Schism with Constantinople to break Papal temporal authority.

The counter-reformation (personified by a blood-thirsty zealot-tyrant, Pope Sixtus V) was initiated by the church to challenge the power of the Protestant Princes who had seized former Papal power and property in their realms.

And the Vatican declared and bankrolled wars with the Protestant states for nearly 250 years, from the time Luther had nailed his 95 theses to that church door to the age of enlightenment.

The murders and atrocities committed in the New World by religion-maddened Conquistadors and the armies of Papal clerics and zealots (in an effort to Catholicise the natives masses for their most Catholic Majesties, the Sovereigns of Portugal and Spain) are too numerous to count.

The enlightenment fathers built a wall between church and state in the hopes that never again would temporal authority be arrogated by the Church.


Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 8:23pm:

After all, kings attributed their authority to divine endorsement up until the 20th century Secularisation did not start out as an atheist or agnostic movement but as a Christian project to reform political life, the laws - to remove te claims of divine authority from the political sphere. And it could take off in Christianity because the idea has a solid Christian doctrinal basis.

Secularism challenged the right of the Christian churches to claim temporal authority over the people. And as if to demonstrate the dark gravity of the allure of power, Luther himself developed a taste for interfering in state affairs.


Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 8:23pm:

I also don't think that Tibetan Buddhist are finding themselves in uncharted territory when they are leading the rebellion against the Chinese authoritis occupying them, usurping their previous theocratic rulel.

Yes, Tibet was one of the very few Buddhist realms where, according to tradition, a Bodhisattva of Compassion (an enlightened one who chooses reincarnation over Nirvana out of compassion for living beings destined to suffer lifetimes in samsara), held temporal authority as head of state… And, it must be said, greatly loved by his subjects... Most Popes were feared, despised or both.

You demsontrate my point for me - secularisation was not anti-christain but against clerical political power. And that battle againt undue church power was based on Christian principles - Luther was neither a buddhist nor an atheist, nor was his intellectual force anything but Christian.

Abolishing slavery is a good example of the Christian source of secularism. Was it not for Christian principles, you would not be able to think of any good reasons for abolishing slavery today, atheist though you are.

You could certainly not argue for its abolishing from Islamic principles or Buddhist or Hindu ones.

Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 9:47pm:

You demsontrate my point for me - secularisation was not anti-christain but against clerical political power. And that battle againt undue church power was based on Christian principles - Luther was neither a buddhist nor an atheist, nor was his intellectual force anything but Christian.

As Christianity had been politicised for millennia, its practice has always included a political dimension from which the religion cannot be extricated.

Luther himself quickly revealed that he was a rancorous zealot, who had as much a lust for authority and status as any Pope... Had the German Princes not inhibited his burgeoning quest for power, his legacy may have also included a Protestant Papacy.


Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 9:47pm:

Abolishing slavery is a good example of the Christian source of secularism. Was it not for Christian principles, you would not be able to think of any good reasons for abolishing slavery today, atheist though you are. You could certainly not argue for its abolishing from Islamic principles or Buddhist or Hindu ones.

Buddhism most definitely teaches against slavery (as it causes suffering to human sentient beings in the world) but goes much further with that sentiment than Christianity with its prohibition of abuse and cruelty towards non-human sentient beings as well.

All humans, with the possible exception of psychopaths, instinctively know that slavery is wrong. It was practised only because it was lucrative. And those Christians who did justified its practice by quoting the Bible.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 10:23pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 26th, 2009 at 9:47pm: You could certainly not argue for its abolishing from Islamic principles or Buddhist or Hindu ones. Buddhism most definitely teaches against slavery (as it causes suffering to human sentient beings in the world) but goes much further with that sentiment than Christianity with its prohibition of abuse and cruelty towards non-human sentient beings as well. All humans, with the possible exception of psychopaths, instinctively know that slavery is wrong. It was practised only because it was lucrative. And those Christians who did justified its practice by quoting the Bible.

I'd be curious to see the basis of this buddhist aversion to slavery, other than the blanket aversion to sufering of all types. But I do know that as they believe that this life is the just desert for the last, compassion towards the less fortunate is not their strong suit - they believe that misfortune, through cosmic karma, is deserved.

In Islam, there is a hierarchy of human being that tolerates enslavement regardless of filthy lucre.  Hindu hierarchy is even worse.
The Aztecs were crazy and not even the loopiest multiculturalist would tolerate them, let alone the Spanish..

Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

I'd be curious to see the basis of this buddhist aversion to slavery, other than the blanket aversion to sufering of all types. But I do know that as they believe that this life is the just desert for the last, compassion towards the less fortunate is not their strong suit - they believe that misfortune, through cosmic karma, is deserved.

Compassion is the basis of Buddhist aversion to slavery. Compassion for less enlightened sentient beings destined to suffer more than they should. The practice of empathy for all sentient beings and that of vigilance against inflicting suffering are central to Buddhist philosophy.

If one inflicts suffering or causes suffering to be inflicted on another, the perpetrator accumulates karma which prolongs his journey through samsara.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 10:44pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 26th, 2009 at 10:39pm: I'd be curious to see the basis of this buddhist aversion to slavery, other than the blanket aversion to sufering of all types. But I do know that as they believe that this life is the just desert for the last, compassion towards the less fortunate is not their strong suit - they believe that misfortune, through cosmic karma, is deserved. Compassion is the basis of Buddhist aversion to slavery. Compassion for less enlightened sentient beings destined to suffer more than they should. The practice of empathy for all sentient beings and that of vigilance against inflicting suffering are central to Buddhist philosophy.

Well, how do they reconcile that with seeing suffering as a desert for past deeds? They are obviouly not as keen on it as the mulim but I don't think you can mount a cohesive argument against slavery on Buddhist grounds alone.


Though it could well be argued that the Buddha made life in the world more worth living, that surely was an unintended consequence of his teaching. To present him as a sort of socialist is a serious anachronism.

He never preached against social inequality, only declared its irrelevance to salvation.

He neither tried to abolish the caste system nor to do away with slavery.

While a famous sermon, the Sāmañña-phala Sutta, stresses the practical benefits for a slave in leaving his servitude and joining the Order, in fact runaway slaves were not allowed to join the Order.

Moreover, though in ancient India there was no caste or other form of social ranking within the Order itself, the Order soon came to own (lay) slaves.

Richard F. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, 1988

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/history/slavery.shtml


In some Buddhist cultures a male slave would become free if their owner allowed them to become a Buddhist monk.

In Kampuchea a person could be made a 'Pagoda Slave' if they were found guilty of certain crimes - as could members of their family up to seven degrees removed. Pagoda slaves did domestic and maintenance work on temple sites. While pagoda slaves might have a relatively easy life for a slave they ranked very low on the social ladder and had an extra disadvantage:

Pagoda slaves, who were supposed to belong only to Buddha, could not be redeemed.
Gwyn Campbell, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004
Because pagoda slaves could not be redeemed their children inherited slave status. Pagoda slaves were found mostly in what are now Burma and Thailand.

Pagoda slaves weren't only 'criminals' or the descendants of slaves; people could be given to monasteries for slave use.

Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 10:56pm:

Well, how do they reconcile that with seeing suffering as a desert for past deeds? They are obviouly not as keen on it as the mulim but I don't think you can mount a cohesive argument against slavery on Buddhist grounds alone. Though it could well be argued that the Buddha made life in the world more worth living, that surely was an unintended consequence of his teaching. To present him as a sort of socialist is a serious anachronism. He never preached against social inequality, only declared its irrelevance to salvation. He neither tried to abolish the caste system nor to do away with slavery.

He certainly challenged the caste system and the privilege of the priestly Brahmins of Hinduism. He renounced his own status as a member of the warrior caste. Enlightenment, he taught, could be achieved by any human from any status of birth by self-effort in one lifetime.


Soren wrote on Oct 26^th, 2009 at 10:56pm:

While a famous sermon, the Sāmañña-phala Sutta, stresses the practical benefits for a slave in leaving his servitude and joining the Order, in fact runaway slaves were not allowed to join the Order. Moreover, though in ancient India there was no caste or other form of social ranking within the Order itself, the Order soon came to own (lay) slaves. Richard F. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, 1988 http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/history/slavery.shtml In some Buddhist cultures a male slave would become free if their owner allowed them to become a Buddhist monk. In Kampuchea a person could be made a 'Pagoda Slave' if they were found guilty of certain crimes - as could members of their family up to seven degrees removed. Pagoda slaves did domestic and maintenance work on temple sites. While pagoda slaves might have a relatively easy life for a slave they ranked very low on the social ladder and had an extra disadvantage: Pagoda slaves, who were supposed to belong only to Buddha, could not be redeemed. Gwyn Campbell, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004 Because pagoda slaves could not be redeemed their children inherited slave status. Pagoda slaves were found mostly in what are now Burma and Thailand. Pagoda slaves weren't only 'criminals' or the descendants of slaves; people could be given to monasteries for slave use.

It doesn't surprise me that nominal Buddhists wrongly practised slavery... We are all, so the teaching goes, afflicted by the three poisons of ignorance, anger and greed, until we become enlightened.

Fair Dinkum, I don't know how you can make these claims about christianity being the root of all the basic humanist principles.

I cannot think of any principles coming from christianity, that were not already espoused by philosophers or scholars, from earlier generations.

It is just another false claim made by religious folk, to try and attach a basic worth to what was in fact just another religion, amongst many, which borrowed/stole ideas from earlier religions, and rebranded them.\

I agree the principles involved are often noble, but I strongly question their originality.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 6:00am:

Fair Dinkum, I don't know how you can make these claims about christianity being the root of all the basic humanist principles. I cannot think of any principles coming from christianity, that were not already espoused by philosophers or scholars, from earlier generations. It is just another false claim made by religious folk, to try and attach a basic worth to what was in fact just another religion, amongst many, which borrowed/stole ideas from earlier religions, and rebranded them.\ I agree the principles involved are often noble, but I strongly question their originality.

Another Hitchensism, but valid nonetheless...

Can anyone imagine that the Israelites (before Moses descended from Sinai with the ten commandments) actually believed that disrespect for ones superiors, murder, adultery, theft, lying and perjury were all OK?

Religion gets its morality from human instinct, not the other way around.

helian and mozzaok - indeed, what society could function if murder, adultery, theft, lying WAS the accepted norm ????

Do i get my honorary athiest's badge ???
:) :) :) :) :) :)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 9:57am:

helian and mozzaok - indeed, what society could function if murder, adultery, theft, lying WAS the accepted norm ???? Do i get my honorary athiest's badge ??? :) :) :) :) :) :)

Do you believe in the Hindu God Ganeesh ? No? Well welcome to the Atheist club  ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 9:57am:

helian and mozzaok - indeed, what society could function if murder, adultery, theft, lying WAS the accepted norm ???? Do i get my honorary athiest's badge ??? :) :) :) :) :) :)

Is it not enough that you're de-shackling yourself from the yoke of theism. ;D

Throw off the chains of Theistic paternalism...

Food will taste better.

muso wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 10:03am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 27th, 2009 at 9:57am: helian and mozzaok - indeed, what society could function if murder, adultery, theft, lying WAS the accepted norm ???? Do i get my honorary athiest's badge ??? :) :) :) :) :) :) Do you believe in the Hindu God Ganeesh ? No? Well welcome to the Atheist club  ;D

Hey! Don't dis Ganesh....

Elephant boy is cool 8-)