Big Think

Faceless Atheist on March 13, 2009, 6:46 PM

One major tenant of christianity is acceptance of ones lot in life, of offering up sufferings to the lord, of not letting worldly sufferings discourage. Each person has their cross to bear sort of message. Christianity also lauds poverty “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god (mark 10:25, matt 19:24)”. These messages are allowed to continue amongst the masses by those in charge because it allows them to treat their subjects poorly without fear of revolt. If Christianity had preached a message of “fight injustice wherever you see it in the world,” of “don’t accept needless suffering,” than it would have died out since uppity christians would always have been challenging the justness of their leaders, and would have then been singled out as troublemakers. The christian ideal of jesus suffering is held up as an example to all those who suffer in this life. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s;” translation: do not rock the boat. And isn’t it interesting that you point out that hinduism has a similar message attached to their idea of reincarnation. It is no coincidence that hinduism, christianity, islam, and other religions that have survived till today all share a similar message of “if you suffer through this life you will be rewarded for it in the next.” Those religions that did not preach such a message have been weeded out by memetic evolution because their adherents caused authorities too much trouble, were singled out, and killed for trying to challenge their lot in life rather than meekly accepting it in the deluded hope that next life will be better for them.

We atheists have the message right and merely show that such a message is very conducive for subjugation of the masses. That is the way it has worked out through history. Your point that leaders are supposed to be christian too is cute, but, like you say, hasn’t worked out. Yes power does corrupt, but the masses allow corrupt rulers to maintain power because the messages their religion teaches them. Accept your lot in life, suffer through the trials god puts in front of you, give to caesars what is caesars, and you will live forever in the glories of heaven. No wonder the christian myth has survived for so long.

Luke Allen on March 13, 2009, 8:01 PM

You know a little scripture… Good for you. But you missed the Luke 12:51 from Jesus that states: “Suppose ye that I want to bring peace; I tell thee rather nay but division.” Also missed by your deductive analysis was the very purpose in and of itself that Jesus was crucified. When he loudly and boldly destroyed the judaism tables in temples with the declaration that the Jewish leaders had “turned his father’s house into a den of thieves.” Please read a little more of his actual word and not the watered down version of what people want to teach him as and you could then see your whole argument as supportive to Christianity’s strength.

Here is this little rabble rouser with no earthly claim to fame who destroys the tenets of his own religion and off of its back creates something we still know to be true today (Millions close to billions) We’ve held to our faith during times of plenty and times of want. So regardless of Musycks argument that Im Christian by luck thousands were Christian particularly in the early church with no such luck. They were constantly persecuted, constantly hammered against. And contrary to your whole argument constantly rebel rousing.

Keep trying though, this little exchange is fun.

pokój! on March 13, 2009, 10:03 PM

On a side note, I don’t think Christ ever denied the importance of our existence in this world. It makes it all the more important…

pokój! on March 13, 2009, 10:05 PM

and as far as the don’t rock the boat thing, FA… No one in history has ever ‘rocked the boat’ more than Jesus did. So that interpretation cannot be valid. Once again, Christianity does not revel in escapism…

Faceless Atheist on March 14, 2009, 2:07 AM

I actually am quite familiar with the bible. I was raised a roman catholic, attended only religious schools until college, attended mass weekly (even more actually with all those damned holy days), and actually won a bible trivia contest my senior year of high-school, so don’t be surprised that i know something about the bible.

Though jesus himself might have ruffled the feathers of the jews(who were not in power, the romans were; “give to caesar”), his message is undeniably one of acceptance of suffering. Suffering is seen as a good thing, those who suffer in this life are more likely to get into heaven. And even there are parts of the bible that contradict this message (the bible contradicts itself constantly, every message can be countered by another quote from the same book), the message as it was preached is clear, those who suffer will be rewarded. This message was preached to the poor and subjugated, and as a result they were content to suffer.

and pokoj…this life is definately less important in christianity. If you are living only to get into a good position for the next life/all eternity, than this life takes a back seat. I’m surprised you even said that. And no one is history has rocked the boat more? really? really? come on pokoj, be reasonable.

HerbieP on March 14, 2009, 4:16 AM

The state will always use whatever it can to maintain control. It is therefore not surprising that there are often state endorsed religions. Christianity is not special in this. Islam was invented to bind together the arab tribes, Hinduism enforces a strict caste system that maintains order.

You surely cannot claim Luke that the late Roman state and most of the western European states did not use christianity as a tool of state. The UK’s history from the Tudors on is all about the political manipulation of the difference between catholic and protestant. The US was largely founded by refugees from partisan religious conflicts.

This is not particularly an argument for athesim, it’s simply a fact about religion.

pokój! on March 14, 2009, 11:53 PM

“Though jesus himself might have ruffled the feathers of the jews(who were not in power, the romans were; “give to caesar”), his message is undeniably one of acceptance of suffering. Suffering is seen as a good thing, those who suffer in this life are more likely to get into heaven."

Not so much acceptance as assurance… but still, the charge of being a Christian is bringing Heaven to earth, so as far as seeing it as ‘somewhere else’, that is not the message I glean from it all. god can no longer be seen as an old man with a beard on his throne ‘up there’. It’s a here-and-now religion just as much as an after-death one.

“And even there are parts of the bible that contradict this message (the bible contradicts itself constantly, every message can be countered by another quote from the same book)”

Only when you take them out of their relative context.

" the message as it was preached is clear, those who suffer will be rewarded. This message was preached to the poor and subjugated, and as a result they were content to suffer."

But it’s not a charge to ‘go and suffer’. The message was preached to those who needed to hear it most…

and pokoj…this life is definately less important in christianity. If you are living only to get into a good position for the next life/all eternity, than this life takes a back seat. I’m surprised you even said that."

Honestly, the charge is to ‘live as children of G-d’ not to live to die as children of god… I’m sorry you can’t see that in the message of the NT, but i assure you it is there. This clinging to a heaven that is elsewhere, as Rob Bell has said (in more eloquent words), as labeling this thing here as spiritual, and not that thing there, is just not Biblically valid. It is not another ‘life’ that we go to, it is all a part of existence and communion with G-d.

“And no one is history has rocked the boat more? really? really? come on pokoj, be reasonable.”

It is perfectly reasonable. Considering Jesus’ background, his non-violence, the speed with which Christianity rose, and the fact that He really only preached for less than 5 years, the ‘ripple’ his time on Earth sent out is far greater than anyone I can think of. Something like 70 Disciples were able to spread their belief of Him to the known corners of the globe within a decade. And this belief system was deemed potent enough to be assimilated into the very government it was in the process of overthrowing. How, as a believer, could I not say this?

Faceless Atheist on March 15, 2009, 7:36 AM

Yes pokoj, your right, the message is to live as children of god or go to hell, I know, I had it preached at me from 1st grade till 12th. If people have trouble accepting the message there is nothing like the fear of eternal suffering to drive it home. Concerning jesus, of course he is famous, but “rock the boat” means challenge the powers that be; the man flipped over one table. When I think of “rocking the boat” I think of men like Gandhi or Martin Luther who outright said the authorities were wrong and were willing to stand up against them. Or a person like Galileo who challenged our basic understanding of the universe by saying the earth moved around the sun. He, however, was not willing to die at the hands of inquisitors who wanted to silence him in the name of your god. But no, I don’t expect you to say anything different. I do, though, like how you slipped in the very necessary qualifier of “known” when talking about how quickly christianity spread. Islam spread much quicker, but I don’t think anyone would say that the rate at which an idea spreads corresponds to its accuracy (I’m looking at you Luke).

Luke Allen on March 15, 2009, 4:02 PM

Luke Allen on March 15, 2009, 4:06 PM

Don’t you think the Pharisee and Saduccee were the authority then. Ghandi was just a person who stood up in the face of waning British support. There were thousands of Ghandi’s killed when the British desire for imperialism was strong in the beginning…

Btw. Your education was from a pagen form of Christianity. Catholics are the same as LDS or Jehovah’s Witness in our religion of Christians. Every religion and thought group, even atheist, have their nut factions and yours and Musycks education were sadly from our nut job faction.

Faceless Atheist on March 15, 2009, 11:01 PM

No, I was right the first time, the Romans had the power. And btw, roman catholics represent more than half of all christians, but its cute that you call them “pagan” (i assume that’s what you meant) and nut jobs. If you want to play it by the numbers (which you have wanted to do in the past) than the catholics are more correct and your really the nut job. Just throwing that out there. I, though, believe all those in “your religion of christianity” are nut jobs in one respect or another, I mean you would have to be to believe the things you do.

Musycks on March 15, 2009, 11:05 PM

I just posted a long and thoughtful reply and it fell over!!! I’ll try again.

Musycks on March 15, 2009, 11:51 PM

Ironic that the original nutjob Xtian community, the catholics, would definately have seen you as a pagan Luke, until very recently in fact. The type of esoteric Xtianity you and pokoj espouse would have seen you cast out of almost every Xtian community that has ever existed, so much for the numbers game.
The Xtians were all pagans in the first century… the catholics won the history war comprehensively until the enlightenment, and the motivation for much of the change then was political as much as ‘spiritual’.

But I’m glad you admit the version of belief that almsot all Xtians have held for most of the duration of the faith qualifies as nutty! ;)

Musycks on March 15, 2009, 11:57 PM

Marx got a lot of things wrong, but one thing he was spot on with was the religion as the opiate of the masses comment.
As a device for keeping the rich from being torn apart by the poor, exploited and disenfranchised it’s undeniable. Both violence is outlawed, ’it’s a sin’, and poverty is lauded in relation to riches..’camel-eye of the needle quote come to mind.
So easy to pacify the masses when they are the ones who will inherit paradise.

Nice one centurion.

pokój! on March 16, 2009, 1:41 AM

“the message is to live as children of god or go to hell, I know, I had it preached at me from 1st grade till 12th.”
-
And herein lies most of the problem with teaching children about religion in such an incapacitated way… it’s such a watered-down version that this is what results…
-
I understand the frustration with looking at the belief system in this way, I felt the same for many years. The ‘believe in me or you go to hell’ idea is not the true essence of faith in Jesus. This image of a god as a judge taking note upon someone’s death as to whether or not they claimed to believe in it is not the image that we get from the Bible. It is an over-simplified viewpoint that debases the idea behind it. The fact of the matter is, in order to deny G-d, you first have to know Him, and I don’t believe any soul that has not come to understand the relation between G-d and the human soul has done what the fire and brimstone preachers of old claim they do by continually denying a belief in a god.
——————————
“If people have trouble accepting the message there is nothing like the fear of eternal suffering to drive it home.”
-
But that destroys the essence of the message, and therefore has no merit. This is not how Christ’s word was meant to be spread, and just because the ‘church’ had it wrong for so long doesn’t mean that there was no truth behind the lies.
—————————
“Concerning jesus, of course he is famous, but “rock the boat” means challenge the powers that be; the man flipped over one table. When I think of “rocking the boat” I think of men like Gandhi or Martin Luther who outright said the authorities were wrong and were willing to stand up against them.""
-
But that is EXACTLY what He did! In the Roman world anyone upsetting the balance of rule was considered a threat, and Jesus knew this. Why do you think the Roman’s took notice of Him, or even took the time and manpower to crucify Him? He was causing a stir, and was seen as enough of a threat, by the Romans, to do something about it.
Plus you reduced the meaning of my claim to that one example… you have to take into account that the mere act of Jesus preaching on His own, taking His own apostles, was a specific act of defiance of the way things worked. And even more so, in the early years of Christianity, they absolutely directly challenged Roman rule. The entire world declaring ‘Caesar is Lord’, and these few, but growing, groups, proclaiming the Kingdom of G-d, that Jesus was Lord… it completely overthrew the societal norms, and was a direct challenge to the Caesar’s claimed divinity and rule.
—————————————-

“Or a person like Galileo who challenged our basic understanding of the universe by saying the earth moved around the sun. He, however, was not willing to die at the hands of inquisitors who wanted to silence him in the name of your god.”

Please do not ever equate my G-d with this ignorance. That is a respectful demand. You can’t claim that we believe the same things those people did, nor that we approve of it. It was not in the name of G-d that they did these things, but in the name of a false idol. That was not G-d. Whatever you believe about Christianity as a whole, you have to acknowledge that we are not speaking of the same G-d as they invoked. That would be showing as much ignorance as they did.

“But no, I don’t expect you to say anything different. I do, though, like how you slipped in the very necessary qualifier of “known” when talking about how quickly christianity spread. Islam spread much quicker, but I don’t think anyone would say that the rate at which an idea spreads corresponds to its accuracy (I’m looking at you Luke)."
-
I don’t either. But I would make the case that the spread of Christianity paved the way for Islam and many other religions to be more quickly accepted… and that could be considered either a positive or a negative depending on how you look at it…
————————
“If you want to play it by the numbers (which you have wanted to do in the past) than the catholics are more correct and your really the nut job. Just throwing that out there. I, though, believe all those in “your religion of christianity” are nut jobs in one respect or another, I mean you would have to be to believe the things you do."
——————-
Yes… or there really is something behind it… but do you really lump all Christians into the same category still? In belief and intent/deed? I mean… we aren’t all Catholic… or fundamental… or whatever image you get of them from whatever sources…
Shalom…

Musycks on March 16, 2009, 2:46 AM

pokoj… to me (and maybe to FA) your version of Xtianity is a little more complex than the old school he speaks of, but no more believable. Like most intelligent people you can’t take literally what you read in the Bible as the word of god…. even if for most of it’s history that’s exactly what the majority of Xtains did!

Your more etherial/esoteric version of Yahweh gives you something you can hang your hat on.. but probably for a significant number of Xtians you are just as big a pagan as me?

You say you have the correct interpretation… who do I believe when all are equally unlikely?

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 2:53 AM

In regards to:
“You surely cannot claim Luke that the late Roman state and most of the western European states did not use christianity as a tool of state.”
What I claim is that it is the religion that western Europe would HATE to have to try to use to manipulate the masses. It proved the hardest religion to squash, and it was the only religion that is constantly been reformed to deeper and deeper truths.

The main point I am trying to point out here is how illogical and impractical Christianity is for any rulers trying to subvert the masses. The fact it was used briefly is only evidence of the power of Satan.

Does that makes sense? Most Atheist just lump together Christianity with Islam, Hindu’s etc. and my word and reading of Christ word makes it radically different then those religions.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 3:02 AM

For all the blasphemies you and Musycks throw at Christians let me remind you they are subverted because of ROMAN CATHOLICS!

Musycks! How can an educated man like yourself even type this: “that the original nutjob Xtian community, the catholics.” Are you really so fleeced from your Catholic religion that you believe the original Christians were catholic? Let me remind you that Galatians, Ephesians, Corinthians, were all EARLIER CHRISTIAN CHURCHES OF CHRIST! The book of Revelations was addressing 7 different CHRISTIAN churches that ALL preceded the “Christians” you rail about in Constatine, those damn ROMAN CATHOLICS!

Most of the inaccuracies of our church is because of Constatine trying to placate the masses and subvert them and in one breathe you condemn that and the next breathe you try to claim them as CHRISTIAN? WTF!?

Faceless Atheist when making this statement: “Roman catholics represent more than half of all christians” Shows how little you know of CHRISTIANITY! Us nor the Catholics like to mingle and I would state 0! Roman Catholics are Christian. It’s as oxymoronic and incorrect to state your above quote as stating half atheist are Christian. Truly, You and Musycks are closer and better representations of Christ and is teaching then ANY CATHOLIC I know.

WOW! You both got SCREWED from your Catholic upbringing.

Faceless Atheist on March 16, 2009, 3:41 AM

Well if your point is that we should not teach children religion than I agree with you, but I doubt that’s your point. I deny god and I do know him, as he is presented in the bible. The god of the NT is the same god of the OT, and the wrath of god shown in the OT is said to wait for those who deny him in the NT. You say it destroys the “essence of the message”? This is the message that jesus preached. He spoke more of hell than of heaven. There are numerous quotes in the bible where jesus refers to hell as a “place of torment” (luke 16:28), of “everlasting punishment” (matt 25:46); it was him who spoke the words “hell fire” (matt 5:22, 18:9, mark 9:47) that preachers became so fond of. And in revelation, the devil is cast, with all those who followed him, or just believed in other gods, into lake of “fire and brimstone.” “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.” This might not be the “essence of the message” to you but you can not say that those who glean this message from the bible got it wrong. They interpret the same book you do, and while it’s nice that you focus on the good parts, you can’t make the parts that inspire actions like the inquisition and crusades go away. You can claim the church got it wrong, that they lied or oversimplified, but they took the word as it was written, as god allegedly inspired it. And it was in the name of the same god you believe in, it is the god of the bible, the holy trinity. I know you don’t believe actions like the inquisition were right anymore, but some currently believe it is right hate/kill muslims, to persecute homosexuals, or to refuse a nine year old who got raped by her step-father an abortion; the bible has the power to justify “evil” throughout the ages. And I do lump together all those who base their belief in god on the bible (or the koran or any other “holy” book), sorry. I know your not all fundamental, but in deifying the book you allow everyone who reads it with belief to feel like the message they glean from it was put their by god himself, whatever message they may find. (This starts to bleed into my previous idea “can moderates pacify fundamentalists”)

Why do I feel like I know these stories better than the people who believe in them? Why did the Romans crucify jesus? Pontius Pilate didn’t want to. He could find no reason to kill him. He decided to let the people decide jesus’ fate. Every passover the Romans would release one prisoner as a sign of good faith toward the people they ruled over, and the people chose to let Barabbas go. jesus was NOT seen as a threat to the Romans. And the christians saying jesus was god was no more of a challenge to the Romans then it was for the jews to say yahwey was god, or for other religious groups to honor their gods. The Romans mostly allowed those they conquered to keep their beliefs, as long as they paid taxes (give to Caesar) and did not rebel.

Faceless Atheist on March 16, 2009, 3:53 AM

christianity is a great tool for pacifying and subjugating the masses, it baffles me that you can not see that. And yes, we atheists (or at least I do)tend you lump together all believers, especially those who stick to standard monotheistic religious interpretations. You guys are all so alike its hard not to. And as for catholics not being christians, I would then have to ask you what makes someone a christian, because you apparently don’t use the standard definition.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 4:13 AM

But really I was stating that because of a simple analogy of Christianity in my mind.
Again I must state that religion is a belief and, just that, but in my mind my belief is as simple as 1 plus 1 equals 2.

Now continuing with that line of thinking if 1 plus 1 is said to be equal to 4 or 6 both would obviously be wrong. Hence furthering this analogy for me, when I rail at Roman Catholics they would be stating the equation equals 4 and you and musycks would be stating it is 6.

Now most Atheist I know think they become nothing when they die. If I’m wrong and your right o well and if I’m right and your wrong (no don’t roll your eyes this isn’t some damn form of Pascel’s wager) because of the very existence of an afterlife, for you it would be terrible for your ego and you would immediately know you were wrong and you would have to assume another position. Catholics would still be praying to a different saint.

Catholics would still think how many times they said their hail mary’s would determine whether or not Peter opens the gate and Catholics would still be wondering if they gave their last confession to be accepted in Jesus kingdom that he paid for and the only price was his blood.

So by strict definition the catholics 4 would be technically more Christian then the atheist 6 but you guys are so wrong you will know immediately and can rectify faster than any guilt ridden Catholic I know.

Does that analogy make sense at to why I deny their Christianity?

Because I guess what sets us Christians apart from any other religion is our belief in Jesus deity and ability to accept us through his sacrifice into the Holy Kingdom. Hell Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qu’uran but they won’t call him God and think we are ridiculous for stating that. Jewish people still regard Jesus as a great prophet to just not messiah. Most secularists feel like Ghandi’s statement: “I like your Christ, I don’t like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” However, Jesus acceptance from a normal perspective doesn’t make you Christian and his atoning blood is the only thing that can give you eternal life but Catholics want to turn it into some kind of duty you have to work towards and that is just not Christian.

Thilina B on March 16, 2009, 4:23 AM

All religions are used to pacify and control the masses.

I fail to see how nailing into the head of every person that obedience to god is everything and that faith should be unquestioned is anything but a means to control that person.
Even to this day some of the most powerful people are religious officials, simply because we’ve all been told to obey them and never question them.

Claiming it is anything but that is a very weak argument.

HerbieP on March 16, 2009, 4:54 AM

Chrsitianity wasn’t used ‘only briefly’. Various versions of christianity have been used by states for 2,000 years. However I understand that you mean ‘my version of christianity’. I’m not quite sure what your version is but to be honest they all seem to be pretty much the same to me. I can’t really tell chrsitianity from Islam in most respects. The detail of what you believe doesn’t really matter to me, I just don’t understand belief.

sciencesaves on March 16, 2009, 8:38 AM

Question authority, Thilina, right on!

Luke, weak atheist arguments? Hey, the balls in your court, and we still don’t have any evidence of which you speak?

Let’s assume nothing, until we receive some…OK?

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 11:25 AM

all of nothing is ever anything Thillina and attempting to lump every thing together and discredit in mass is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty and worse, ignorant.
Question them… Question everyone but don’t assume with your questions that you already know their full of crap.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 11:29 AM

subjective belief discipline like psychology, philosophy, criminal justice, etc. etc. all escape your deft understanding and then you type one of the best response ever to the idea of free will.
What I am saying is I doubt seriously it escapes you, it just isn’t you.
yes it was used incorrectly and as I pointed out earlier from Roman Catholics primarily; however the truth of the man’s words are to enjoy this life and question and fight misused authority. Not something that was easily manipulate by the leaders they were quite pissed when they just couldn’t kill off our myth…
Stay Strong.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 11:30 AM

Any more evidence and instead of whining for proof your side will be bitching about the new dictator… Stay Strong.

HerbieP on March 16, 2009, 12:41 PM

Luke I didn’t say that psychology, philosophy (not on the list we originally discussed), or criminal justice (ditto) escaped my understanding. I merely said that psychology is not a science (although I did admit it was trying to become one). My daughter is studying psychology and there is much scientific method involved now.

However belief really does escape my understanding and I really do have trouble understanding any significant difference between Islam and Christianity. Obviously I can see that there are some differences in what is believed and some difference in which texts are taken to be sacred, but what I don’t understand is how a believer would disciminate bewteen them. None of the tests that I would apply to determine truth seem to apply to either.

If you are talking about words attributed to Jesus in the gospels, since they have been used by state religions to assist in control for 2,000 years it’s very difficult to dispute that they could be used in such a way. Just because your interpretation of the words does not allow this doesn’t mean that others can’t use the same text for another purpose. The evidence is that they have.

Musycks on March 16, 2009, 8:24 PM

catholics believe that they get to the ‘father’ or heaven through Jesus, so like it or not Luke, I’d say objectively they qualify as Xtians..

They can also evidentially claim direct lineage back to the original followers of JC, so I’m not sure where you get the idea they were’nt the first Xtians? the fact Constantine standardised and co-opted it, or that they won the battle with the gnostics for control of dogma does not erase that fact.

This is part of the problem with your faith.. you can’t get agreement between yourselves as to what constitutes a Xtian? The sayings attributed to Christ are open to interpretation and very contracdicory in parts, why do I believe you got it any more right than the Pope or the leader of the nutty Westboro Baptist Church?

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 8:28 PM

Scientific method as applied to human behavior ultimately ends up just as subjective as the scientific method applied to religion.

Difference between Islam and Christianity is the depth of the book for me. I’ve read the Qu’uran and after one reading pretty much feel like I have the book down… however, Jesus and his word in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is something I am reading daily and still learning from daily. This is how: “what I don’t understand is how a believer would disciminate bewteen them. None of the tests that I would apply to determine truth seem to apply to either.” I discriminate between them.

HerbieP on March 17, 2009, 3:32 AM

But as you say Luke it is subjective. Millions of muslims (who also read the Koran frequently throughout their lives) would disagree with you and not only that but millions of Christians don’t share your particular interpretation of your own text. I would go so far as to say that your particular take on christianity is in a minority even amongst christians.

These things said the original point of your thread, that christianity could not be used as a tool of mass manipulation should read ‘Luke Allen’s version of chrsitianity could not be used…’ I would go on to say that this is the case because you define your version to make it this way.

On the wider question of religion being used as a tool of mass manipulation I would repeat that history proves you wrong.

On the second element of your thread, that religion being a manipulative tool or not is a ‘proof’ of atheism, I would agree with you, but then who ever said it was? Whether a particular belief can be used as a tool of state or not merely demonstrates things about human society it doesn’t have anything to say about the truth or not of the belief.

I suspect that this is a straw man argument of more interest to you than most atheists. Whether particular religions have been good or bad things or appeal or not to particular human traits is irrelevant to their veracity.

sciencesaves on March 17, 2009, 10:34 AM

Luke, my friend…I’m sorry, but I personally require actual proof.

Until then…

pokój! on March 17, 2009, 12:31 PM

“Well if your point is that we should not teach children religion than I agree with you, but I doubt that’s your point.”

If the parents are believers, (as far as Christians go, I can’t really speak for any other belief system) I think they should tell their children about G-d and what they believe about Jesus, staying focused on the Love connection because that is what is so important in children… but as far as religion, bible camp, what have you, I have an overwhelming sense of distrust for them, I may just be jaded, but I don’t believe they accomplish much. For me it was another class in school, but it always felt weird, even irreverent. And the constant discouragement of doubtful questions is so detrimental to their later faith. But anyway…

“I deny god and I do know him, as he is presented in the bible.”

That isn’t what I meant. I meant know Him in your heart. I’m not sure if that means anything to you though.

“The god of the NT is the same god of the OT, and the wrath of god shown in the OT is said to wait for those who deny him in the NT.”

The ‘wrath of G-d’ is simply the only way humanity was able to understand G-d. Yes, it is the same G-d. But He was not perceived in the same ways. That is another reason why the Bible is so precious to me among other religious texts. It shows a distinct progression in humanity’s relations with G-d.
-
It was not the OT G-d that needed the sacrifices. It was those doing the sacrificing. Nothing changed about G-d.
-
You say it is self-contradictory. It may appear so, but it is just an image of spiritual growth. Jesus was the culmination, the fulfillment (in the sense of bringing to an end) of the old ways. He became the sacrifice that humanity needed.
————————————-
“You say it destroys the “essence of the message”? This is the message that jesus preached. He spoke more of hell than of heaven. There are numerous quotes in the bible where jesus refers to hell as a “place of torment” (luke 16:28), of “everlasting punishment” (matt 25:46); it was him who spoke the words “hell fire” (matt 5:22, 18:9, mark 9:47) that preachers became so fond of. And in revelation, the devil is cast, with all those who followed him, or just believed in other gods, into lake of “fire and brimstone.” “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.” This might not be the “essence of the message” to you but you can not say that those who glean this message from the bible got it wrong."

Of course not, but descriptions of hell are just as symbolic as descriptions of heaven, and it is important to distinguish between the physical and spiritual. I listened to a sermon entitled “Interview from hell” (Luke you may recognise that one, it’s from your church :) where Jesus talks about the rich man and the beggar Lazarus (not the same Lazarus as the raised-from-the-dead friend of Jesus). The pastor talks about how Jesus describes the man in hell as on in torment, not being tortured.
-
It’s kind of like the Radiohead song… “You do it to yourself, you do… and that’s what really hurts…”
-
“They interpret the same book you do, and while it’s nice that you focus on the good parts, you can’t make the parts that inspire actions like the inquisition and crusades go away.”

I don’t ‘focus on the good parts’ it is all one in the same. I will agree that the problem is interpretation. I’ve said this countless times here. What matters is your intent in seeking. It is even said in the scriptures that the devil can quote them for his own means. This is not a weakness on the part of the Bible, it is a weakness in man that creates these interpretations and validates them. The main point, as I say over and over, is CONTEXT. And single passage can mean a million different things to a thousand different people if you take them out of context. And the more you know about the surrounding text, the more you know about the specific line you are dealing with.
-
I have no need to make the parts that inspired the inquisition and the crusade ‘go away’ because they were misunderstood. First off, I don’t really know what those parts were. I find nothing that justifies those kind of actions anywhere. And you can say that is just another one of my own interpretations, but I wholeheartedly disagree.
————————-
“You can claim the church got it wrong, that they lied or oversimplified, but they took the word as it was written, as god allegedly inspired it.”

That is where you are just wrong. They took the word as they wanted it to be written. They ignored the surrounding passages, the put emphasis in places that were not meant to have it, and they did not, first and foremost, listen to the teachings and examples of JESUS. So they did not take the word as it was written, they took the word for their own personal goals.
—————————
“And it was in the name of the same god you believe in, it is the god of the bible, the holy trinity.”

No, it was not. It was the image of a god they had fabricated based on their own selfish pride.
———————————-
“I know you don’t believe actions like the inquisition were right anymore, but some currently believe it is right hate/kill muslims, to persecute homosexuals, or to refuse a nine year old who got raped by her step-father an abortion;”

Because they are afraid. They care little about Love, or Grace, or even faith. They only pursue the Bible to fulfill their desires. And, as with all of life, you find what you are looking for…

“the bible has the power to justify “evil” throughout the ages."

Well yes… but EVERYTHING does. Mankind can find ways to debase everything it touches. The reason the Bible has so much blamed for it is because it is so widely read, leading for far more opportunities to be misused. Another reason is because it was and is a guide for spirituality. As humanity is young in it’s spiritual growth, it is very open to attack from higher than human, lesser than G-d spiritual beings. Namely what we would call demons. That is why we get people like resonator, claiming the have ‘channeled’ higher beings and such. I don’t know whether or not he has, but I do believe that when someone opens themselves up to the spiritual realm without the Holy Spirit guiding them, they can be attacked, misled, oppressed, possessed, what have you. It is not as prevalent in our cultures, as the modern society has become so numb to all things spiritual, but it is not unheard of within some Christian circles. And I’m not talking about the Pentecostals, and those babblings, and this means nothing to you if you don’t believe that there is something more to reality than what we perceive… you don’t believe any of it. But things exist that you don’t believe in. Things exist that humanity doesn’t know about. So… sorry about that…
———————
“And I do lump together all those who base their belief in god on the bible (or the koran or any other “holy” book), sorry.”

That’s the thing, it is not ‘because’ of the Bible that we believe (I’m not speaking for any other religion, because I don’t know, I can guess, but I try not to do that). The Bible is the guide, the standard, of our faith, but we believe because we have felt G-d in our hearts, and it has transformed us. From the inside out. It may be slow, and it may not be that apparent, depending on the examples of Christianity that you have encountered, but for us there is no describing it. It’s just freedom. “Now, the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
-
I don’t believe because the book tells me to, or anyone else. I believe because I have experienced a continued connection with G-d through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But I’m not even a very good Christian in the sense of I have trouble fully committing myself, because of my job, my surroundings, etc… But the point is, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so” is not how a heart becomes open to G-d. The Bible is the cornerstone of our Faith, but reading it is not the only thing required in a relationship with G-d.
——————
“I know your not all fundamental, but in deifying the book you allow everyone who reads it with belief to feel like the message they glean from it was put their by god himself, whatever message they may find.”

Like I said to mus: You cannot decry any piece of literature because ignorance misuses and intentionally or unintentionally misunderstands it. The reason the Bible has so much more surrounding it, is that it IS so much more than just another piece of literature.

“Why do I feel like I know these stories better than the people who believe in them?”

Sadly, I’m sure sometimes you do.
——————-
“Why did the Romans crucify jesus? Pontius Pilate didn’t want to. He could find no reason to kill him. He decided to let the people decide jesus’ fate.
Every passover the Romans would release one prisoner as a sign of good faith toward the people they ruled over, and the people chose to let Barabbas go. jesus was NOT seen as a threat to the Romans.
—
But He was seen as a threat by the Jewish leaders. The Romans did not like anyone to upset the ‘peace’. I understand the Pilate tried to dissuade the crowd, and I wasn’t ignoring the Barabbas story, but Pilate did allow it to happen, and the Romans were the ones who did the crucifying.
And also take note that when I said those things about Jesus, I was taking his followers into account, too, for they are the ‘body of Christ’.
————————————-
“And the christians saying jesus was god was no more of a challenge to the Romans then it was for the jews to say yahwey was god, or for other religious groups to honor their gods.”
-
But it was, because while the Jews believed in a heaven that was seemingly elsewhere to the Romans, the Christians believed that this man was G-d, they had a physical body to claim. Early Christian communes were completely counter-cultural, and while the Sadducees allowed their religion to conform and appease the Romans, the Christians would not, because that would have denied Christ as saviour.
——————

pokój! on March 17, 2009, 12:32 PM

Luke: you can’t forget that there are good Christians within Catholicism, too…there is no black and white anymore.

Musycks on March 17, 2009, 5:34 PM

certainly not to the Romans. If JC was born in the time of Augustus, not 30 years prior when Halley’s comet was seen, Augustus proclaimed it was the ‘soul of Julius Caeser ascending to heaven’, from then on he stamped all Roman currency with his image and ‘FD’, latin abbreviation of ‘son of god’.

The idea of a son of god was everywhere in that time, some 60 to 70 years before Xtianity took hold… it was on the money!

pokoj… nice summary of your position pal. To me you are arguing the ‘there must be something more’ line. It’s a popular one. A lot of believers are not too hot on specifics like you are, they just have fallen for the ubiquitous notion that there must be something more than this ‘vale of tears’. You define that something more through the Jesus prism. I’d say on the balance of probabilities the statistical likelihood of ‘something more’ is for all practicalities, nil.

choc-ripple ice cream.

pokój! on March 17, 2009, 6:44 PM

yes, mus, I think I brought this up in one of the older topics… that was why it was so shocking to the Romans that these Christians were proclaiming Jesus as the Son of G-d. And for the record, Caesar would not be declared the son of god, but the son of the gods, I would assume, no?
Why do you consider it a fallacy of Christianity that some of their claims, on the most BASIC level of the claims of past belief systems, corresponded? This was G-d saying, “no, no, you call that a son of the gods? I’ll show you the Son of G-d…”

Musycks on March 17, 2009, 7:48 PM

We need to send you to Washington or teach you cricket!
Augustus was claiming to be the ‘son’ of Julius (he was actually his great nephew)who was now a god, so the stamp on the money was for “Fille Deum”, excuse my poor latin or ‘son of god’.. a particular one, in this case JC Julius Caeser.

There were gods all over the place at the time as you know, so another one was not too concerning to the Romans, they absorbed hundreds as their Empire expanded.

Faceless Atheist on March 18, 2009, 5:50 AM

“I’ve said this countless times here. What matters is your intent in seeking. It is even said in the scriptures that the devil can quote them for his own means. This is not a weakness on the part of the Bible, it is a weakness in man that creates these interpretations and validates them.”

I do see this as a weakness of the bible, a HUGE weakness. And the bible does validate the opinions of those who read it, because it is the word of god. The myth that surrounds the book validates the messages it conveys to people, regardless of the message. Man creates the interpretation, I’ll give you that, but the myth (also man made) that the bible is “true,” that it is the “word of god,” validates the extremist opinions as much as it does yours.

“No, it was not. It was the image of a god they had fabricated based on their own selfish pride.”
Is not your image of god just your particular “fabrication” as well? And your vision of god and theirs are quite similar since they were constructed around the same book. I know your conception of “god” probably differs in very important places, but the fact that you support the myth lends extremist viewpoints credibility.

“Because they are afraid. They care little about Love, or Grace, or even faith. They only pursue the Bible to fulfill their desires.”
Yes, their desire is to go to heaven, and they are afraid of going to hell. They pursue the bible to learn how to get to heaven/avoid hell and act according to the messages they take from the text.

“Well yes… but EVERYTHING does. Mankind can find ways to debase everything it touches.”

Well shouldn’t we still fight against the things that are often used to justify the most destructive hate-filled acts. I know the world won’t become paradise if holy books suffer a severe loss of credibility, but we might see a drop off in religious fueled hate.

Faceless Atheist on March 18, 2009, 5:55 AM

Luke,

I hope you post another idea about the weak arguments of atheism. I would enjoy the opportunity to examine what you see as weakness in my worldview, as well as to possibly alter your image of atheism.

pokój! on March 18, 2009, 10:30 PM

“I do see this as a weakness of the bible, a HUGE weakness. And the bible does validate the opinions of those who read it, because it is the word of god.”
-
I say it is the people that validate their own opinions, but I base that on the idea that the conclusions they come to would not be a result of being led by the Holy Spirit. But you don’t believe in that. So we are at another dead end.
——————
“The myth that surrounds the book validates the messages it conveys to people, regardless of the message.”
-
I understand what you are saying, and I’ll concede that… but only in the sense that the individual still creates their own validation and interpretation, so the blame is still placed on the weakness/ignorance of the individual, and not the scripture itself.
————-
“Man creates the interpretation, I’ll give you that, but the myth (also man made) that the bible is “true,” that it is the “word of god,” validates the extremist opinions as much as it does yours."
-
We hold the Bible to be the inspired ‘word of G-d’. The words were still passed through human hearts, to minds, to the pen. There will inherently be much lost in even those two steps from the original source. And further, to be translated through to whatever modern day language it is being read in, we loose even more. Certain greek words have multiple meanings, and certain words that are translated into English could as the same word, could have been different words in the original language, and that cannot always be assumed by context alone, but by going to the original language.
So in this case, the blame is placed on the translation. Not the original scripture.
——————-
“Is not your image of god just your particular “fabrication” as well?"
-
Of course I will answer ‘no’. My belief in G-d is what G-d led me to believe about Him/It/Whatever. I have no ‘image’ of Him, per se, because He is indescribable. And while you could argue that this comes from my subconscious, neither one of us has a means of proving to the other that they are wrong. You cannot see inside my heart. And my deep spiritual beliefs cannot be dissuaded by scientific reasoning. Because my belief is a posture of the heart, and not the mind.
————-
“And your vision of god and theirs are quite similar since they were constructed around the same book.”
-
If we are still talking about those who invoke the Bible and G-d in the name of violence, than they are in no way similar. The idea that someone can read the Bible with their heart and mind and come to the conclusion that G-d ‘hates’ a particular group of people is completely foreign to me, unless they approach it with an image already formed, and merely look for certain verses to validate this false idol they have created.
———-
“I know your conception of “god” probably differs in very important places, but the fact that you support the myth lends extremist viewpoints credibility."
-
No, it doesn’t, because their viewpoints are held by taking the Word out of context and into their own. They are removing certain parts and ignoring the whole. It’s an all-or-nothing ideology. They can’t point to certain sentences and declare it means one thing, when all the passages around it, and the entirety of the scripture point to it meaning something else.
————
“Well shouldn’t we still fight against the things that are often used to justify the most destructive hate-filled acts.”
-
Of course not, we should fight against the ignorance that seeks to justify it’s own intent. It’s not the Bible that is committing the acts, its the people themselves, and the assumptions they hold.
Especially coming from an atheist, you sound like you are blaming the book itself, what you consider an inanimate object. That is ridiculous. If it is not divinely authoritative to you, why would the book itself be at fault? It would just be words on a page. Your concern should be with the ones misusing it.

pokój! on March 18, 2009, 10:34 PM

Third point down:
it says
“Certain greek words have multiple meanings, and certain words that are translated into English could as the same word, could have been different words in the original language, and that cannot always be assumed by context alone, but by going to the original language.”
It should say
Certain greek words have multiple meanings, and certain words that are translated into English could have been translated as the same word, but could have been different words in the original language, (‘Love’, for example, has three different descriptions in the Greek that I have heard, and there may be more), and that cannot always be assumed by context alone, but by going to the original language.

HerbieP on March 19, 2009, 5:08 AM

“If we are still talking about those who invoke the Bible and G-d in the name of violence, than they are in no way similar. The idea that someone can read the Bible with their heart and mind and come to the conclusion that G-d ‘hates’ a particular group of people is completely foreign to me, unless they approach it with an image already formed, and merely look for certain verses to validate this false idol they have created.”

Pokoj it’s pretty easy to make the interpretation that god wasn’t keen on the Cannanites, especially if you look at all the surrounding texts and put it into context. I’m afraid that you also approach the bible with a particular interpretation in mind and when it suits you you engage in remarkable convoluted chains of reasoning to get it to mean what you want.

The trouble with interpreting any book that isn’t a plain statement of facts is that it is always open to multiple interpretations that depend on the subjective approach of the reader. This is exactly why there are so many christian sects that all believe different and sometimes contradictory things and point to the same text as ‘evidence’. It’s completely pointless pointing to bible texts as proff of anything unless you are already convinced of a particular way of thinking.

Adam DeHass on March 19, 2009, 10:20 AM

Okay guys/girls, sorry to bust up the party but I mainly want to address the Christians that are in this group discussion (and from what I’ve seen so far it is Luke Allen and Pokoj!). I know that this is an important argument that seems to be completely necessary, but it really isn’t. I know that you guys are feeling the desperate need to defend what we believe, and why and how, but what is it worth? I highly doubt that you are going to convince HerbieP and Faceless Atheist, that Christianity is truth. And I know that I will probably be torn up for this post, but honestly, who are we to defend God? If they don’t want to believe in God or Christ, than so be it, they can believe whatever they want to believe. I just want to encourage you all to keep your cool, we all have our views on life and eternity (or lack there of), don’t loose sight of your witness through this argument. God loves everyone, it’s a matter of whether you want to love Him back and accept His gift or not. That’s all I’m gonna say. But I am a follower of “The Way”(Acts 9:2).

pokój! on March 19, 2009, 10:56 AM

I’m not doing this to defend the scripture… we know it will defend itself in the end. I feel this type of discussion forum helps me to organize my thoughts, and introduces doubts that I would not have thought of on my own. When it comes to the end, the faith is that much more strong. Keeping cool is a problem sometimes, I’ll admit. In the early days, musycks used to get to me, mostly from what I perceived to be an overly-condescending tone(and then admittedly), but I got over it… topics like this one go round and round, but there have been some great ones between believers in the past.
For me it’s not a matter of trying to justify our beliefs, but to see how the dialogue plays out.

Adam DeHass on March 19, 2009, 11:21 AM

hey thanks for the clarification. I enjoy reading all of the posts, from both sides, I think it is a great way to strengthen beliefs. So thanks for making it so interesting! Keep on trucking! But just don’t bulldoze people in the way… Alright, “over and out!” Haha!

Musycks on March 19, 2009, 10:44 PM

and thanks for clearing up what is completely neccesary and what isn’t.:)

Don’t be shy, get in and have your say. Luke and pokoj have probably covered the Xtian defense pretty well, but another voice is always welcome.
You’re right in as much as none of us believe we’ll be making a ‘conversion’ in this forum, but it’s a good way to organise your thoughts as pokoj says.

We’ve had our differences but both of those guys know I for one think they are tremendous warm-hearted guys. I would just encourage them to think with their head and not their heart.
(but they know that’s what I’d say) ..

Good luck on the Big T.

pokój! on March 20, 2009, 1:48 AM

we haven’t really ‘covered’ anything… it’s all just commentary…

pokój! on March 20, 2009, 2:01 AM

and darn it mus, but if I haven’t developed a big soft spot for ya, old man…

sciencesaves on March 20, 2009, 8:30 AM

Fact: Religions claims are weak and unsupported.

Response: Atheisms arguments are weak and unsupported, therefore, religions claims must be true…

If you’re living in the faith/belief paradox, this would make perfect sense to you, otherwise, you’d have to admit that religion is ancient bulls**t.

Musycks on March 21, 2009, 7:16 AM

ahh… the mid-west voice of reason chimes in! SS, it’s nice that pokoj and Luke are getting some friends on the site, but it’s becoming a bit too Xtian if you ask me! we’re outnumbered! just like in the real world….

sciencesaves on March 21, 2009, 8:14 AM

Howdy, mate!

I’m used to bein’ outnumbered here in the Jesus-god lovin’ heartland!

To the Batcave…haha

Luke Allen on March 23, 2009, 3:45 AM

you are absolutely right and my rant on catholics is not correct. There can be Catholics saved I just have a big bone to pick with a majority of what they claim and use as doctrine. My personal opinion is that most of the fallen Christians come from the fallacies of Catholics… I hold FA and Musycks as exhibits 1 and 2 as proof in the bigthink format…
Stay Strong and thanks for the correction.

Luke Allen on March 23, 2009, 3:49 AM

More proof than a God who made himself flesh to die on the cross for our sins? How much more physical proof would you need?

Luke Allen on March 23, 2009, 3:52 AM

I’m going to have to post another blog. Differentiating between my belief and how other Christians believe but that is the further proof to me that this Jesus guy had stuff pretty figured out. The fact that he could evolve and his religion could be so modern in such a wild way is just mind blowing isn’t it?
I mean your a genius can you imagine writing something that 2000 years later people are still growing and gaining appreciation for? That alone is quite and achievement don’t you think?
Stay Strong.

Luke Allen on March 23, 2009, 4:02 AM

Sciencesaves really? Kinda like that ancient bull**** of zero and geometry we still use right?
Just because something is old doesn’t mean its useless right?

Luke Allen on March 23, 2009, 4:06 AM

As far as I can count there is still more of your side than ours… We tend to be flashes in the pan or like Adam find this forum non sensical. If you discount new which has our flameout rates at both sides I still count You, SS, FA, Herbie (brother if your agnostic and not atheist its only because your scientifically curious but all your posts tend to lay on the atheist side), Roakes, Verisophs, putting your #‘s at 5 and Just Pokoj and I as Christians…
Stay Strong and don’t worry most Christians do just find this as a waste of time… you won’t get outnumbered here SS. Sorry you have to deal with all our loonies out there in the buckeye state…

Musycks on March 24, 2009, 8:01 PM

The more the merrier… it’s just not a philosophy that encourages questioning… certainly not in the evangelical corner anyway!

rock on Luke.

Faceless Atheist on March 25, 2009, 7:39 AM

“I say it is the people that validate their own opinions”
I think that this is impossible. The term validate means that one is looking for someone else to support and lend credibility to his opinions, and when one sees his message echoed in religious texts than he sees “god” as validating his opinion.

“so the blame is still placed on the weakness/ignorance of the individual, and not the scripture itself.”

No, the blame should be placed on all those support the books claim of divine authority. Those who perpetrate the myth that the bible is gods word are to blame for those who are divinely inspired by it, regardless of the goodness/evil of the resulting actions.

“Of course I will answer ‘no’. My belief in G-d is what G-d led me to believe about Him/It”
But my point is that your views on god are inherently personal. You may believe “god” led you to these views, but anyone can say/believe this, even those who you claim distort scripture to find a message that isn’t really there.

“we should fight against the ignorance that seeks to justify it’s own intent.”
This is what I am doing by fighting against religions.

“If it is not divinely authoritative to you, why would the book itself be at fault? It would just be words on a page. Your concern should be with the ones misusing it.”

No my concern is with those that perpetrate the myth of divine authority in scripture.

Faceless Atheist on March 25, 2009, 7:41 AM

More proof than a God who made himself flesh to die on the cross for our sins?

Wheres the proof again? Or should I say the proof of the proof.

Luke Allen on March 25, 2009, 10:39 AM

of proof as other things that are proof: numerous accounts.

Faceless Atheist on March 25, 2009, 5:13 PM

so than we should also believe that aliens have visited our planet? There are numerous accounts that testify to such visits, so it passes your test for truthfulness.

Musycks on March 25, 2009, 9:21 PM

FA is right Luke…. by that standard we all believe in ghosts… or the Indian ‘holy’ man that currently has a million plus believers who will attest to his miraculous powers?
The standard of proof for believers continues to be scandalously low.

use some deductive powers… for example there were no alien reports to speak of prior to the late 19th century craze for the new literature of ‘science fiction’… once the ideas of UFO’s and little green martians were let loose in the public mind then off we went! over 1 million sightings since 1948 for instance…. but no hard evidence for any of them.

ghosts?, a carry over from our superstitious past…. like believeing in divinely guided holy books.

Luke Allen on March 27, 2009, 11:06 PM

That’s why it’s a belief. I’m not stating everyone should come to Christianity… I don’t believe that but to state a fact of existence is proof enough for me.
The standard is there and we can choose what subjective material we choose to subject ourselves to. Just don’t think Atheist are different it’s just an irrational idea based on egocentric principles.

Musycks on March 29, 2009, 10:55 PM

nice try Luke… what’s irrational about empirical evidential based beliefs? atheists tend to look at the available evidence and weigh up the probabilities.
the likeliehood that Darwin’s theory explains enough about the universe to satify those rigorous demands completely trumps the burden of proof believers require for creationism… ie none.

as Eve said to Adam… apples with apples please.

Luke Allen on April 6, 2009, 1:14 PM

Is in our empiricists. The observer has subjective leanings and science can’t show why beauty is beautiful to the individual or why music is both beautiful or atrocious depending on the individual. Individuality and the needs for every individual gets answered individually and therein lies the apples with apples.

Luke Allen on April 7, 2009, 12:24 PM

But that to me is better Sally then feeling so much I can’t make any logical conclusions. Thilina’s ignorance had nothing to do with her femininity it had to do with the “all” statement. Kinda like how your ignorance is showing not because of your femininity but because you can’t separate that everything doesn’t have to reflect on everything else. Just because one makes a mistake doesn’t mean all do.
So yes I feel nothing but wow you feel so much your cognitive abilities have been impaired.