Know Your Enemy...

[Apostle13]

It occurs to me there is far to many mis-perceptions concerning "Christian Fundmentalists"... It is easy for one to ill conclude themselves when on the outside looking in... Likewise, falling in line to what others formulate as a means of persecution by way of commentary, documentary, etc.
The following provided is a link to one of my favorite preachers... He is widely regarded as a preacher's preacher, and not without good reason. The messages/videos are approximately 20 mins. and change each Sunday. They are also titled and archived.

While I encourage, even expect, all Christians to participate. Even more I ask that atheists and agnostics alike get a read on these. Because quite frankly, Y'all don't know what your talking about when it comes to Christianity in the life of the true believer... What is it that spirit that drives you? Whereby you pleasure yourselves to mock and ridicule people of compassion..?
If anyone has similar links to share... Please do so...The Winner's Way

 

[Spartacus FPV]

It occurs to me there is far to many mis-perceptions concerning "Christian Fundmentalists"... It is easy for one to ill conclude themselves when on the outside looking in... Likewise, falling in line to what others formulate as a means of persecution by way of commentary, documentary, etc.

An outside point of view is often more objective. Don't make the arrogant mistake of confusing our disbelief with misunderstanding.

The following provided is a link to one of my favorite preachers... He is widely regarded as a preacher's preacher, and not without good reason. The messages/videos are approximately 20 mins. and change each Sunday. They are also titled and archived.

I promise you that I will watch it after this post, will you do me the same justice by watching this video?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM[/YOUTUBE]

While I encourage, even expect, all Christians to participate. Even more I ask that atheists and agnostics alike get a read on these. Because quite frankly, Y'all don't know what your talking about when it comes to Christianity in the life of the true believer...

I know whats in the bible, and fundamentalist means "by the book." If you take that book literally, and you stand by that first century pro slavery morality, where am I mistaken in having criticisms?

What is it that spirit that drives you?

That is a good question, one we have no evidence of a phenomena to investigate. However you pretend to know it as truth.

Whereby you pleasure yourselves to mock and ridicule people of compassion..?

That is being intellectually dishonest. No one takes issue with people of compassion. Religious fundamentalism is intrinsically divisive, and hostile towards heresy.

I fail to see people who proclaim St. Thomas Aquinas, who said heretics should be put to death, a saint, are "people of compassion." Whats compassionate about the Malleus Maleficarum or the Inquisition?

I'll watch you video, please watch mine.

 

[Apostle13]

An outside point of view is often more objective. Don't make the arrogant mistake of confusing our disbelief with misunderstanding.

An outside point of view has an element of bias contingent as to whether said viewpoint has endured/experienced both from within and without... In plain if you have not been to a fundamentalist type church you are factoring opinions based on heresay and prejudice, either your own, or that of others which you would embrace.
My purpose here is to give an inside perspective to those that would otherwise not venture beneath the doors of this type of church. Rather they are content casting stones because of their misgivings and yes... Misunderstandings.

I know whats in the bible, and fundamentalist means "by the book." If you take that book literally, and you stand by that first century pro slavery morality, where am I mistaken in having criticisms?

Please do not confuse fundamentalists with extremists as they are separate in deeds and actions.
As for "first century pro slavery" this was the prevalence of the time and culture and it took a 19th century Christian president to at last abolish it in lead of the free world... I'm pretty sure Lincoln said "That all men were created equal." Not that they evolved as such.

That is a good question, one we have no evidence of a phenomena to investigate. However you pretend to know it as truth.

And what is this "we"? You speak for the masses as though it goes without saying/refute. Faith has different levels/strengths based individually. Conditional as to heart and desire to learn, thus know/experience God.

That is being intellectually dishonest. No one takes issue with people of compassion. Religious fundamentalism is intrinsically divisive, and hostile towards heresy.

And yet these very said same people are predominately Christian if one were to judge based on deeds and not just words alone... Tell me, and in truth, when was the last time you served the homeless a meal, comforted a grieving widow, gave hope to the sick/dying, rescued a voiceless innocent child from certain death based on your knowledge of truth to warrant a righteous conviction over murderous intent.

I fail to see people who proclaim St. Thomas Aquinas, who said heretics should be put to death, a saint, are "people of compassion." Whats compassionate about the Malleus Maleficarum or the Inquisition?

In my book, aligned with that of the fundamentalist, a "saint" is mere term to the modern day believer who is upholding to that belief and relevant primarily to new testament teachings... Sorry to have prompted the confusion there.
Not all who claim themselves Christian are... Thus invoking the rule; "One bad apple."

I'll watch you video, please watch mine.

Done... Interesting. I'll comment on it in the next post.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

In plain if you have not been to a fundamentalist type church you are factoring opinions based on heresay and prejudice, either your own, or that of others which you would embrace.

I don't need to be a weather man to tell you its raining. I can take them at their word, and more importantly, at the book they claim is the only source for morality.

Please do not confuse fundamentalists with extremists as they are separate in deeds and actions.

I'm sorry, this is your chance to prove me wrong, but I don't see the distinction. If one is a fundamentalist, one could be an extremist by modern standards quite easily and quite rationally.

Its my opinion that modern day fundamentalists are not nearly as "by the book" as their predecessors, they cherry-pick their passages.

As for "first century pro slavery" this was the prevalence of the time and culture and it took a 19th century Christian president to at last abolish it in lead of the free world...

I'm sorry, but if the Bible is the infallible word of god, shouldn't slavery have been written as the abomination that we now know it to be?

A Christian may have abolished it in America, but slavery is still very much real elsewhere. Besides, if he were not so moderate of a christian, and more fundamentalist, he would have been pro-slavery.

Faith has different levels/strengths based individually. Conditional as to heart and desire to learn, thus know/experience God.

I know you put alot of stock in personal spiritual experiences, but I urge you to at least recognize the possibility that some people merely underestimate the mind's capacity for simulation. Can you at least go so far as to admit that whatever you have seen is within the minds capacity to simulate?

Tell me, and in truth, when was the last time you served the homeless a meal, comforted a grieving widow, gave hope to the sick/dying, rescued a voiceless innocent child from certain death based on your knowledge of truth to warrant a righteous conviction over murderous intent.

Served a meal? Never, paid for one a few weeks ago.
Comforted a grieving widow? Thankfully I haven't had the opportunity.
Gave hope to the sick/dying? Unfortunately those who I have lost were taken from me suddenly. I'm still young...
Rescue'd a...? Haven't had the opportunity.

What relevance is any of this? I know that faith is comforting, but I also know that what is comforting isn't necessarily true.

In my book, aligned with that of the fundamentalist, a "saint" is mere term to the modern day believer who is upholding to that belief and relevant primarily to new testament teachings... Sorry to have prompted the confusion there.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was always under the impression that Augustine (torture the heretics) and Aquinas (kill them) were the rock stars of the fundamentalist theology? It seems to me that they are the most celebrated Saints next to Paul and Mary.

Perhaps I am mistaken, and this may be a case of "the fundies YOU know" but so far my research is consistent.

Not all who claim themselves Christian are... Thus invoking the rule; "One bad apple."

I don't buy this argument. Its like when someone doesn't toe the party line they aren't "true republicans."

I would argue that IF Fundamentalists are right about how the bible is to be interpreted, Aquinas was a very good Christian, and reasonable, in the context of Biblical insanity being taken as truth.

Interesting. I'll comment on it in the next post.

Can't wait. I'll be honest, I didn't give your video too much of a shot. I saw where they were going, and hearing enough to cringe I gave up. It was just so presumptuous and condescending.

Oh and thanking me for my last post... Well as the magic man told Ricky Bobby "I'm a little confused by your tactics, I'm gonna keep acting tough until I figure em out."

 

[Apostle13]

I don't need to be a weather man to tell you its raining. I can take them at their word, and more importantly, at the book they claim is the only source for morality.

A weather man is not for the here and now but his/her primary objective is to forecast what is to come. Your analolgy here is weak.

I'm sorry, this is your chance to prove me wrong, but I don't see the distinction. If one is a fundamentalist, one could be an extremist by modern standards quite easily and quite rationally.

I prove nothing as you are not fully off the mark. A fundamentalist who lacks understanding of the written word can be inclined toward extremism at which point he or she is no longer/was ever considered within the confines/fold of the true believer... Harder than hard to explain to one who lacks in spiritual believability.

Its my opinion that modern day fundamentalists are not nearly as "by the book" as their predecessors, they cherry-pick their passages.

Would you like some whip cream with that?

I'm sorry, but if the Bible is the infallible word of god, shouldn't slavery have been written as the abomination that we now know it to be?

Good one.

A Christian may have abolished it in America, but slavery is still very much real elsewhere. Besides, if he were not so moderate of a christian, and more fundamentalist, he would have been pro-slavery.

And this is the fault of Christians? Lincoln was a man that acted on conviction and was in a rightful position to do so.

I know you put alot of stock in personal spiritual experiences, but I urge you to at least recognize the possibility that some people merely underestimate the mind's capacity for simulation. Can you at least go so far as to admit that whatever you have seen is within the minds capacity to simulate?

I assure you I am incredibly sane... The element that is spiritual wherewith you cannot factor/acknowledge brings here our divide.

Served a meal? Never, paid for one a few weeks ago.
Comforted a grieving widow? Thankfully I haven't had the opportunity.
Gave hope to the sick/dying? Unfortunately those who I have lost were taken from me suddenly. I'm still young...
Rescue'd a...? Haven't had the opportunity.

Very well.

What relevance is any of this? I know that faith is comforting, but I also know that what is comforting isn't necessarily true.

Items relevant to compassion. Not so much about faith only that it is the people of such that take lead here.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was always under the impression that Augustine (torture the heretics) and Aquinas (kill them) were the rock stars of the fundamentalist theology? It seems to me that they are the most celebrated Saints next to Paul and Mary.

Perhaps I am mistaken, and this may be a case of "the fundies YOU know" but so far my research is consistent.

Your mistake is equating the past to persons of now... Even to assume all teachings as based on Catholicism. I am no historian. Neither Catholic.

I don't buy this argument. Its like when someone doesn't toe the party line they aren't "true republicans."

If a person registers/votes republican you may define him as such ("true republican")... But that does not automate him as conservative?
There are many who go to church that you will find among those who go to hell:
The Narrow Door
22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
"But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

26"Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'

27"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'

28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

I would argue that IF Fundamentalists are right about how the bible is to be interpreted, Aquinas was a very good Christian, and reasonable, in the context of Biblical insanity being taken as truth.

Again... Not a historian.

Can't wait. I'll be honest, I didn't give your video too much of a shot. I saw where they were going, and hearing enough to cringe I gave up. It was just so presumptuous and condescending.

Oh and thanking me for my last post... Well as the magic man told Ricky Bobby "I'm a little confused by your tactics, I'm gonna keep acting tough until I figure em out."

If you were not so suspicious/lacking in your understanding of people of the way, you would have realized I was thanking you for your participation in providing an alternative video... Evenly, that you had agreed to watch that what I had posted... Which you now admit you did not. Is the word then of a Christian greater than that of an atheist..?
Do you think that thanks is synonymous for agreed?

The video/speaker thereof was little more than a prolonged rant, railing on religion. The speaker could not get through the 20 mins or so without the usual references; Easter bunny, Santa, Guy in the sky... It was clear he sought to belittle Christian intellect. He then tried to portrait Jesus as murderer by ill context ref. Luke chapter 19 in a vain attempt to belittle even Christ himself. He laid waste to extremist while at the same time bundling Christianity and Islam by a broader definition, religion... And gave no place to even moderate Christians by weakly implying this to be the reason for all of the world's woes.
From the beginning he admitted what was to follow would be that what he worries.

Now faith and fear are opposites as much as light is to dark...
Worry is a manifestation of fear. If you act/speak not on faith then you are only acting/speaking on fear even if only at its root level... The "Cringe" you felt was not due to any nature of condescending speech it was spiritual repercussion, and can otherwise be defined as conviction, but not in its whole as the spirit that drives you is strong... It is the spirit of anti-Christ(link). It was that said same spirit you gave way to in allowing yourself to no longer watch. That said same which validates your reason/effort to so strongly combat Christianity.
I myself cringed (spiritual also) but suffered through as to my word... And to glean understanding so that I might better know my enemy.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Your analolgy here is weak.

I thought it was a fair point, but anal?

One does not need be a Christian anymore to question the dogma of its fundamentalists. If your reasons are good enough, or your logic is sound, I am capable of understanding you.

To suggest that I am incapable of comprehension is to insult my intelligence, and show a nihilistic disinterest in discussions with critics.

Or was it that the day I was no longer a Christian the day my mind lost its capacity for spiritual comprehension? Are people of other faith's equally incapable to you?

I prove nothing as you are not fully off the mark. A fundamentalist who lacks understanding of the written word can be inclined toward extremism at which point he or she is no longer/was ever considered within the confines/fold of the true believer... Harder than hard to explain to one who lacks in spiritual believability.

:roll: "You're not a Christian, you wouldn't get it." "They aren't true Christians then." Is that really the extent of your argument.

Who is a true Christian then. Do those who misrepresent "Christ's one true message" not outnumber those who understand scripture? Do these people not affect public policy, and do harm in the name of their dogma?

You missed the point entirely, why is it wrong to criticize dangerous dogma, for example preaching that condom use is sinful to Sub-Saharan africans. This is genocidal ignorance. That was Sam's overall message.

Would you like some whip cream with that?

I really wish you would have addressed this point, because it is an important one. You cannot in one breathe tell me that the bible is the ultimate source for our morality and guidance, and in the next breath cherry pick the good passages from the bad, and the new testament from the old.

If its the inspired word of god, it should be truly infallible, and stand the test of time. God's shouldn't change their minds, actions, or wills if they are truly omniscient and benevolent.

The Yahweh of the old testament is contemptible by any morality.

Good one.

I don't know if you mean this in jest or in honesty.

And this is the fault of Christians? Lincoln was a man that acted on conviction and was in a rightful position to do so.

Society finding slavery an abomination was inevitable. Lincoln should be praised, but why did Christians not always see it for the abomination it was? Why does the inspired word of god say more in support of it?

Your mistake is equating the past to persons of now... Even to assume all teachings as based on Catholicism.

I have no made such an assumption, and I'm speaking in general about the entire community of American's who call themselves Christians, as well as internationally old and new.

It is not a mistake to point out the evil of the Church's heroes like the Saints Thomas Aquinas (Kill the heretics) and Augustine (just torture them.) It is not a mistake to point out the current evil's of Christians. Why is criticizing terrible dangerous dogma that gets people killed a mistake?

Augustine's teachings were the foundation for the inquisition. The Malleus Malificarum is an abomination only rational within the mindset of religious fundamentalism.

I am no historian. Neither Catholic.If a person registers/votes republican you may define him as such ("true republican")... But that does not automate him as conservative?

Conservative and Republican are not the same thing, and you should have used republican twice for an effective analogy. And I still disagree with the premise of this analogy.

What would it matter if every single self pro-claimed Christian failed to meet your unorthodox standard of a true Christian. It is still an issue of millions of people, and almost half of our electorate, subscribe to and do harm with dangerous dogma.

If you want to argue that the overarching message of the NT is love and compassion, I agree with you, but that isn't the point.

There are many who go to church that you will find among those who go to hell:

And I'm not content with letting them do their damage and getting their justice in hell. I don't believe in it, and I want to see their evil dealt with now.

Why is it wrong to identify them as they are, why cant we call a spade a spade? Why is it wrong to identify Ted Haggard for the hatred that he preaches?

If you were not so suspicious/lacking in your understanding of people of the way, you would have realized I was thanking you for your participation in providing an alternative video... Evenly, that you had agreed to watch that what I had posted... Which you now admit you did not. Is the word then of a Christian greater than that of an atheist..?
Do you think that thanks is synonymous for agreed?

Look, if you feel betrayed for my not having sat through that whole movie, I am sorry. It was nothing that I hadn't heard before, and it was painful. I watched most of it, don't I get partial credit?

And no, the word of a Christian is never intrinsically greater than that of an atheist. No matter how many times you feel decieved by me, or for any other reason. The very idea is non-sequitor.

The video/speaker thereof was little more than a prolonged rant, railing on religion. The speaker could not get through the 20 mins or so without the usual references; Easter bunny, Santa, Guy in the sky... It was clear he sought to belittle Christian intellect.

I'm sorry if you're offended by the disbelief in miracles. His intention was not to offend or belittle, only to scrutinize.

He then tried to portrait Jesus as murderer by ill context ref. Luke chapter 19 in a vain attempt to belittle even Christ himself.

Then how is one to interpret that parable about the noble, his servants, and the citizens who hate him and refuse to be ruled by him? You assume that I don't know the bible, understand it, or Christians.

You are only right in that I don't understand many of the numerous interpretations you Christians take from the bible. I cant decide what is worse, selective reading or literal interpretation.

He laid waste to extremist while at the same time bundling Christianity and Islam by a broader definition, religion... And gave no place to even moderate Christians by weakly implying this to be the reason for all of the world's woes.

I admit that Christianity is more compassionate and less violent towards the heretic than say Islam, but his contention about religious moderates is correct.

Their insistence that it is taboo to criticize people's beliefs is not only a double-standard, it is nonsensical, dangerous and gives protection to the dogma of extremists or fundamentalists.

Oh and Sam was VERY careful not to say that religious is the cause for all the world's woes. In fact he usually states that it is not outright, I was pretty sure he did in this video. I have to admit I am not certain, only I didn't think you would be interested in the hour long lecture.

However there is a theological debate (called Beyond Reason '06)he has with a religious scientist who tells Sam pretty much the very same thing you're saying to me, along with other scientists who tell him and Richard Dawkins that their approach is all wrong, and tantamount to "This is the truth, and if you don't agree you're a moron (or you're dangerous in Harris's case,)"

I think you would very much enjoy Beyond Reason, although its several days of debate, and many hours long. (But its damn good)

Now faith and fear are opposites as much as light is to dark...
Worry is a manifestation of fear. If you act/speak not on faith then you are only acting/speaking on fear even if only at its root level...

Then why do so many Christians try to motivate by fear? By condemning us unbelievers to your hell, or insisting that being moral in fear of the great surveillance camera in the sky isn't a contemptible reason for being good.

"Fear of god" is the term I believe?

The "Cringe" you felt was not due to any nature of condescending speech it was spiritual repercussion, and can otherwise be defined as conviction, but not in its whole as the spirit that drives you is strong... It is the spirit of anti-Christ(link).

Ya know what, I gave you too much credit. I thought you were going to actually respect my opinion, and we were going to have a rational discussion. Hard to keep sniping rationally when you chuck in a conversation halting bomb like that one.

It seems everytime I engage a theist in rational discourse, and they are caught off guard by my reasons. Once they start to see logic in my statements, or start to agree with me, they're prepared for it with some ridiculous notion that my approach is that of the anti-christ. Something about how my ideas are supposed to sound logical, and that I am a temptation of somekind.

When people reduce me to an organized agent of evil, instead of a rational human being with well thought out opinion who actually has something to say, it makes it that much harder to respect the "true believers."

It was that said same spirit you gave way to in allowing yourself to no longer watch. That said same which validates your reason/effort to so strongly combat Christianity.
I myself cringed (spiritual also) but suffered through as to my word... And to glean understanding so that I might better know my enemy.

No, the cringe happens every time I hear someone say what I know to be evil in the tone of moral righteousness. I don't have a spirit, I have no more reason to believe in one than I do your god, or the celestial teapot.

What you just said was disrespectful, condescending, and in no way symptomatic of someone who wants to "know his enemy." The fact that you see me as your enemy, simply because I don't subscribe to your dogma, is the very reason we are having this discussion.

You are not my enemy, unless I catch you doing evil, or speaking evil. It does not matter if this evil can be cited from you book, or your interpretation of scripture allows you to do it.

Dangerous dogma is to be criticized, and the actions done its name must be stopped if society is to survive.

I pose to you these 2 questions:
1. Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist (by the book, bible is infallible?)
2. Is your scripture, or faith the ONLY means to virtue and morality?

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Hammond preaches the Heresy of the Prosperity Gospel, you tithe and live the "word" and you will get rich, in fact if your living from paycheck to paycheck your not spiritual at all. What's interesting in this heresey doctrine is the history of Christians being killed, sanctioned, fed to lions, castigated and yet where was the reward for them--Prophets and disciples, apostles and most of those talked about in the bible had hardships or even death, not wordly riches. Jesus told his 12 that they would be the most important in the next life to come to him and yet were they rewarded with gold and silver and land and everything? No. Death for belief.

City Pages - Get Rich with God
is an article about Hammond and some quotes from the above article.

"Do we use our excess money to purchase a bag of groceries for someone that can't afford any food?" he asks. "Do you fill up someone's car with gas? Do we slip him a $20 bill when you shake his hand? Though these are all charitable things to do, they will not, however, meet the greatest need in a person's life. No amount of money can purchase a man's salvation. No amount of money can purchase a healing. The only thing that meets human need on every level consistently and permanently is the Word of God. So consequently, the seed that you have left over is best used to get the Word of God into the hearts of others."

Then you delete the NT Good Samartian story Jesus told--shame on you Hammond, false prophet.

"Word Faith Pentecostalism offers [people] the perfect way to not feel guilty about having made it and about not helping others," he says. "I got mine because I was faithful, and the best way I can help you is to tell you about this formula for being rich. But I don't have to make any material sacrifices.

LOL

"It's a spiritual spin on capitalism, on the consumerism in this culture," he continues. Believers needn't be dependent on the outside world, where, cars and big-screen TVs notwithstanding, they may be just one paycheck from financial ruin. "It plays to that insecurity," says Lin. Their own inner resources are enough to keep them afloat: "If I keep tithing and keep believing, I'll be all right."

Sounds like the logic Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and all the rest of the frauds could have as a religion.

Pastor Mac has an answer for those who might hear Cooey's words and feel a satanic seed of doubt trying to enter their hearts: If you manage your finances in a godly fashion, you won't fall prey to hucksters. The tithe comes first—off one's gross income, in fact, since income taxes are man's law and not God's—and then one's own family, he insists in Simplifying Your Life.

So if the govt. is using our taxes for sinful purposes or for purposes not intended for--you won't fall for this Huckster? What about the verse of obeying "God before Man" Hammond? Your the Huckster. Hammond, are you informing your crowd about obeying the Constitutional law of hard coinage and not the bogus tacked on law of paper usury money which is disobedience to the real Government? Nope. Your promoting disobedience to the Civil authorities.

 

[Apostle13]

I thought it was a fair point, but anal?

Oops! Sorry, my bad... I initially did that to humor myself but intended to change it before posting.

One does not need be a Christian anymore to question the dogma of its fundamentalists. If your reasons are good enough, or your logic is sound, I am capable of understanding you.

Likewise, you reject spiritual intellect by manner of unbelief... Thereby rendering yourself incapacitated. Thus incapable.

To suggest that I am incapable of comprehension is to insult my intelligence, and show a nihilistic disinterest in discussions with critics.

Or was it that the day I was no longer a Christian the day my mind lost its capacity for spiritual comprehension? Are people of other faith's equally incapable to you?

If your own logic gives no place for the divine then I am forced to your level of debate... This frustrates us both.
I submit to you that you were only Christian by self proclaim, and not true to heart, as I cannot imagine how after having ever truly experiencing God one could do the course of 180, that path which you have taken.
There are spiritual elements that produce and perpetuate other faiths/religions that are not divine in origin. I should like to re-iterate that I advocate not religion, only relationship with God.

Who is a true Christian then. Do those who misrepresent "Christ's one true message" not outnumber those who understand scripture? Do these people not affect public policy, and do harm in the name of their dogma?

I cannot readily speak for "who" as I am reluctant to generalize. Scriptural understanding is key toward spiritual maturity... And yes much is done out of either ignorance, arrogance, power, greed, or some combination thereof in the guise of Christianity.

You missed the point entirely, why is it wrong to criticize dangerous dogma, for example preaching that condom use is sinful to Sub-Saharan africans. This is genocidal ignorance. That was Sam's overall message.

Sam's sad implication here was designed to somehow cause all to believe that it is the church that is ultimately responsible for the aids in Africa.
Sex outside of marriage is sin... But surely your fundamentalist research has made you aware of this... In God there is no turning or shifting of shadows. That is to say sin cannot not be compromised to any degree that it is no longer sin.

I really wish you would have addressed this point, because it is an important one. You cannot in one breathe tell me that the bible is the ultimate source for our morality and guidance, and in the next breath cherry pick the good passages from the bad, and the new testament from the old.

There are no bad passages... Only bad interpreters... You will never come to understand it in full of context without having been re birthed in the Spirit... I cannot compete with you at your level... Down there.

If its the inspired word of god, it should be truly infallible, and stand the test of time. God's shouldn't change their minds, actions, or wills if they are truly omniscient and benevolent.

The Yahweh of the old testament is contemptible by any morality.

Nice rant.

I don't know if you mean this in jest or in honesty.

An honest jest...lol I don't claim to have all the answers as to "Why God? Why!?!"

Society finding slavery an abomination was inevitable. Lincoln should be praised, but why did Christians not always see it for the abomination it was? Why does the inspired word of god say more in support of it?

I believe the truest of Christians may well have been the actual slaves themselves.

I have no made such an assumption, and I'm speaking in general about the entire community of American's who call themselves Christians, as well as internationally old and new.

It is not a mistake to point out the evil of the Church's heroes like the Saints Thomas Aquinas (Kill the heretics) and Augustine (just torture them.) It is not a mistake to point out the current evil's of Christians. Why is criticizing terrible dangerous dogma that gets people killed a mistake?

Augustine's teachings were the foundation for the inquisition. The Malleus Malificarum is an abomination only rational within the mindset of religious fundamentalism.

I wish I was better a historian or maybe paid more attention in school back when... I cannot/will not blindly comment.

Conservative and Republican are not the same thing, and you should have used republican twice for an effective analogy. And I still disagree with the premise of this analogy.

The purpose here was to contrast that all republicans are not conservatives... Equally all democrats are not liberals. For to substantiate that all Christians are not truly.
You seemed to have missed the joke/dig there also..?

What would it matter if every single self pro-claimed Christian failed to meet your unorthodox standard of a true Christian. It is still an issue of millions of people, and almost half of our electorate, subscribe to and do harm with dangerous dogma.

Mine is not the way... His is. I answer not unto them... Only Him. For we must all give account for ourselves.

Look, if you feel betrayed for my not having sat through that whole movie, I am sorry. It was nothing that I hadn't heard before, and it was painful. I watched most of it, don't I get partial credit?

:lol: Didn't remove my thanks did I..?

And no, the word of a Christian is never intrinsically greater than that of an atheist. No matter how many times you feel decieved by me, or for any other reason. The very idea is non-sequitor.

Just a dig at ya.

I'm sorry if you're offended by the disbelief in miracles. His intention was not to offend or belittle, only to scrutinize

. No offense was ever taken... But thanks.

Then how is one to interpret that parable about the noble, his servants, and the citizens who hate him and refuse to be ruled by him? You assume that I don't know the bible, understand it, or Christians.

It is a picture of angels being told to cast them in hell for their idle waste/lifelong rejection... Second death.

You are only right in that I don't understand many of the numerous interpretations you Christians take from the bible. I cant decide what is worse, selective reading or literal interpretation

. While I could never deny wrongfully interpreted teachings... Scripture is fully understood by a revelational means (Spiritual) not a rational means of man's alone.

I admit that Christianity is more compassionate and less violent towards the heretic than say Islam, but his contention about religious moderates is correct.

As long as moderate is not a twisting of tolerance which is that what he seems to do... But how can one eliminate religious tolerance and yet live in a democratic society still..? A ban on religion is inevitable to be tried...
Do you not know that is the gateway of thought (secular progressive) to deed which leads to the actual revealing of the anti-christ as foretold in the bible..?

Oh and Sam was VERY careful not to say that religious is the cause for all the world's woes. In fact he usually states that it is not outright, I was pretty sure he did in this video. I have to admit I am not certain, only I didn't think you would be interested in the hour long lecture.

Fair enough... I don't recall it in this version.

However there is a theological debate (called Beyond Reason '06)he has with a religious scientist who tells Sam pretty much the very same thing you're saying to me, along with other scientists who tell him and Richard Dawkins that their approach is all wrong, and tantamount to "This is the truth, and if you don't agree you're a moron (or you're dangerous in Harris's case,)"

I think you would very much enjoy Beyond Reason, although its several days of debate, and many hours long. (But its damn good)

I can nearly imagine word for word.

Then why do so many Christians try to motivate by fear? By condemning us unbelievers to your hell, or insisting that being moral in fear of the great surveillance camera in the sky isn't a contemptible reason for being good.

"Fear of god" is the term I believe?

Actually "Fear of God" is an awe reference to/for Him within the scriptural context.
Jesus speaks nearly twice the amount on hell then he makes mention of heaven... This "hell" I assure you is not mine.
The question of ones morality is a combining of conscience and obediance... The latter of which is of no consequential value to the unbeliever. Whereby, they are negated... Even the secondary of karma holds some spiritually elemental force for reprisal... Thus, defining boundaries.

Ya know what, I gave you too much credit. I thought you were going to actually respect my opinion, and we were going to have a rational discussion. Hard to keep sniping rationally when you chuck in a conversation halting bomb like that one.

You always manage to get another shot off... At the same time I am talking to you I am teaching others, and I never lose sight of that. Please try not to take it too personal..?

It seems everytime I engage a theist in rational discourse, and they are caught off guard by my reasons. Once they start to see logic in my statements, or start to agree with me, they're prepared for it with some ridiculous notion that my approach is that of the anti-christ. Something about how my ideas are supposed to sound logical, and that I am a temptation of somekind.

If you keep saying it is black and enough people keep telling you "No it is white" then eventually you are going to have to open your eyes... You are very smart and we all hate to see you wasting God given intellect on a Godforsaking cause.

What you just said was disrespectful, condescending, and in no way symptomatic of someone who wants to "know his enemy." The fact that you see me as your enemy, simply because I don't subscribe to your dogma, is the very reason we are having this discussion.

You are not my enemy, unless I catch you doing evil, or speaking evil. It does not matter if this evil can be cited from you book, or your interpretation of scripture allows you to do it.

Dangerous dogma is to be criticized, and the actions done its name must be stopped if society is to survive.

I pose to you these 2 questions:
1. Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist (by the book, bible is infallible?)
2. Is your scripture, or faith the ONLY means to virtue and morality?

Enemy here is only figuritive... If you want for dangerous dogma you would fair better to focus your efforts on islam.
Your final questions here are superficial... And some means of set-up I am certain... Nevertheless;
1. I consider myself a true believer in Christ... There are others that are true to God that are outside of Him (certain Jews), but I, in Him.
2. Jesus is the way to the Father, and there is no other.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Likewise, you reject spiritual intellect by manner of unbelief... Thereby rendering yourself incapacitated. Thus incapable.

If your own logic gives no place for the divine then I am forced to your level of debate... This frustrates us both. You will never come to understand it in full of context without having been re birthed in the Spirit... I cannot compete with you at your level... Down there.

I submit to you that you were only Christian by self proclaim, and not true to heart, as I cannot imagine how after having ever truly experiencing God one could do the course of 180, that path which you have taken.

Sex outside of marriage is sin... But surely your fundamentalist research has made you aware of this... In God there is no turning or shifting of shadows.

You are very smart and we all hate to see you wasting God given intellect on a Godforsaking cause.

All of the above is condescending unsubstantiated bigotry. Its highly offensive and makes me regret giving you as much credit as I did. It shows a complete disinterest in rational dialogue with people of different faiths or lack of faith.

Honestly, all of your replies to this post were very weak.

Sam's sad implication here was designed to somehow cause all to believe that it is the church that is ultimately responsible for the aids in Africa.

This is a ridiculous strawman, which was NOT his implication.

There are no bad passages... Only bad interpreters...

:roll: No, when the scripture itself contains Leviticus and Deuteronomy, one cannot blame the interpreter.

But how can one eliminate religious tolerance and yet live in a democratic society still..? A ban on religion is inevitable to be tried...

NO ONE is suggesting a bad on religious. Sam even recognizes its importance to the free market of ideas and philosophy. He is only suggesting that we hold dogma to the same standards we do all other beliefs.

Do you not know that is the gateway of thought (secular progressive) to deed which leads to the actual revealing of the anti-christ as foretold in the bible..?

:roll: This is precisely the kinda tripe I'm talking about.

1. Your anti-Christ is about as as much a concern of mine as the boogey man.
2. Fundamentalists accuse Richard Dawkins of functioning as or as an agent of for the Anti-Christ. Why is it always the most honest, and rational people who achieve such flattery from your flock? This Anti-Christ sounds like a paragon for liberty, reason, objectivity, secularism, and selfishness. My kinda guy, sounds like a smart American to me.

The question of ones morality is a combining of conscience and obediance... The latter of which is of no consequential value to the unbeliever.

One needs not invoke spirituality for a healthy conscience, and obediance is a very contemptible reason to be moral. To suggest to me that these Christians are virtuous simply because they're acting afraid of what god will do if they sin is to suggest a tyrant's morality.

I do not need the would-be great surveillance camera in the sky in order to be good.

Enemy here is only figuritive... If you want for dangerous dogma you would fair better to focus your efforts on islam.

Secularism is about giving no special attention to any faith, and to treat them all equally. I am only suggesting we treat the contemptible dogmas of your scripture with the same contempt we afford the dangerous dogma of jihadism.

Your final questions here are superficial... And some means of set-up I am certain... Nevertheless;
1. I consider myself a true believer in Christ... There are others that are true to God that are outside of Him (certain Jews), but I, in Him.
2. Jesus is the way to the Father, and there is no other.

So you refuse to answer either of them?
1. Yes or No. (I am assuming yes considering the opening line of this thread)
2. The way to your god is irrelevant to an atheist of all gods like myself. I asked you about virtue and morality.

That is to say sin cannot not be compromised to any degree that it is no longer sin.

Then why are so many of the sins of old (meat on friday, saturday being the sabbath, etc) no longer practical enough for you fundamentalists (if thats what you are?)

Its **** like this, and your whole "God's law > man's law" that scares me most. It makes me think your type would function as criminals if your faith demanded it. You people can justify any immorality in the context of your dogma.

You insist I and my peers don't understand spirituality, Christianity, or you people of faith. Then in the next breath tell me that I cannot take your scripture at its word. That I cannot take your people at their word, for fear of bad apples.

Well I say to you that if you were an apple salesman, and your bushels had such a bad percentage of bad apples, I'd blame the orchard. So far you've only demonstrated that not only am I correct in my assessments about people of faith, but Sam Harris was right that your faith prohibits rational conversation.

"I'm force to lower myself intellectually, down to your nonspiritual level, thus you're incapable of spiritual understanding." Bullshit, I don't need to be spiritual to understand that one cannot reconcile "Kill the heretic" with the sermon on the mount.

Let me know when you're ready to actually engage me in rational debate here, I mean that is why you started this thread right, understanding? Please help me understand why morality defiling scripture, or dangerous dogma, are to be protected from criticism, especially considering the high stakes we are facing in our world today?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If its the inspired word of god, it should be truly infallible, and stand the test of time. God's shouldn't change their minds, actions, or wills if they are truly omniscient and benevolent.

The Yahweh of the old testament is contemptible by any morality.

Nice rant.

I said all that, and this was your response? You're mistaken, this is a nice rant:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

 

[Morrow]

Thank you for your arrogant and insulting post. You show that Christianity, as all religions, will always be open to the completely subjective and arbitrary interpretation the rest of us have to deal with all the time. I wasn’t able to read your link because it is a broken link. I can only conclude that God made it so to save me from wasting my time and valuable brain activity from attempting to processes what was, if it is anything like the other Christian Fundamentalist dogma, an incoherent account of a totally made up views of morality filled with esoteric tid-bits included only to pet the egos of the his listeners.

 

[Apostle13]

Anathema Maranatha!