I guess the third attribute of a religion that can make it rough on believers and those around them, is if their concept of the supreme being is a highly personal and anthropomorphized one.
It is one thing to say to your neighbor that he's a sinner because he broke one of God's laws. It is quite another thing to say to that same neighbor that he is a sinner "because God spoke to me the other night, and told me that the devil is in your heart." When every single believer has a "personal" Saviour and the privilege of hearing God speak to him or her alone on any particular subject, the usual majority rule of common sense buckles, social restraints on extremism fall away, and charismatic individuals can lead communities to atrocities on the strength of God's authority.
It also opens up room for people to contradict established scientific principles and social order in ignorance, claiming a divine origin for their ideas and impulses. If the Supreme Being remains relatively impersonal, impartial, and inscrutable to the average common man, there is less credibility for demagogues.
Sadly, it's human nature to want to know and experience the divine in a profound and personal way. If you are lucky enough to experience a revelation or spiritual awakening, I hope the community is lucky enough to have in you someone who is emotionally balanced and mature, open minded and conscientious.
I guess the third attribute of a religion that can make it rough on believers and those around them, is if their concept of the supreme being is a highly personal and anthropomorphized one.
It is one thing to say to your neighbor that he's a sinner because he broke one of God's laws. It is quite another thing to say to that same neighbor that he is a sinner "because God spoke to me the other night, and told me that the devil is in your heart." When every single believer has a "personal" Saviour and the privilege of hearing God speak to him or her alone on any particular subject, the usual majority rule of common sense buckles, social restraints on extremism fall away, and charismatic individuals can lead communities to atrocities on the strength of God's authority.
It also opens up room for people to contradict established scientific principles and social order in ignorance, claiming a divine origin for their ideas and impulses. If the Supreme Being remains relatively impersonal, impartial, and inscrutable to the average common man, there is less credibility for demagogues.
Sadly, it's human nature to want to know and experience the divine in a profound and personal way. If you are lucky enough to experience a revelation or spiritual awakening, I hope the community is lucky enough to have in you someone who is emotionally balanced and mature, open minded and conscientious.
Unfortunately...99.4% of the time...NEVER the case. Because they always seem to go off and claim, the divine instructed them to rid the plague being spread by "xyz". Only that 0.6% go off to spread the positive feelings experienced during that "visit".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Talkin outta turn....That's a paddlin'. Starin' at my sandals....That's a paddlin'. Paddlin' the school canoe....You better believe that's a paddlin'!" --Jasper
The problem with talking about evolution is it usually degenerates into a left/right type conversation. Instead screaming "fascist militants" and "pansy tree-huggers" people scream "I didn't come from monkeys" and "blind creationists." One of the big problems of that discussion is ignorance. So many people think the theory of evolution means man came from monkeys. That's not true.
The problem is that many creationists are blind. It is not only that they are ignorant of biology (that in itself wouldn't be particularly troubling), but that they refuse to listen to reason and clear scientific evidence, and even more troubling, want to force that ignorant opinion on others.
Evolution simply means change. Now I don't believe that man came from monkeys, or that lightning zapped some material in some ocean and turned it into living proteins, but I do believe in natural selection ie that species change according to genetics. I am neither a "creationist" (in my definition, some one who tries to play religion as science) nor am I a "evolutionist" (someone who believes in the theory of life coming about randomly and than "evolving" into the myriad life forms we have today).
This is where the irony comes in. In referring to "evolution", one could be talking about actual evolution, or the theory of evolution (natural selection) [we're obviously not talking about the general usage simply meaning "change"]. The first is clearly factual and the second is supported by mountains of evidence. Neither includes abiogenesis. This is not a Jack Chick tract.
Is there a way to truly seperate church from state completely in this country at this state? I would love it, but it doesn't seem possible. The christian right has way too much power for how small a group it really is, and I'm sure most Christians would agree with me that something needs to be done about it.
It'd be possible if the Christian Right would get smacked out of politics for about 12 years, maybe 16. That's about how long it'd take, but the Dems would certainly screw that up along the line.
It is truely much harder to stay religious than to stay not being.
You guys should read some Nietzsche some time its rather enlightening. And don't be scared off by the titles of his works like The Antichrist. They really arn't about the true biblical antichrist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I will play what wins, not what is convenient. Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters. I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity. Style points do not appear on tournament reports. A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win. I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him. Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
Last night's performance of INVINCIBLE SUMMER was disrupted when eighty seven members of a Christian group walked out of the show en masse, and chose to physically attack my work by pouring water on and destroying the original of the show outline.
I'm still dealing with all the ramifications, but here's what it felt like from my end: I am performing the show to a packed house, when suddenly the lights start coming up in the house as a flood of people start walking down the aisles--they looked like a flock of birds who'd been startled, the way they all moved so quickly, and at the same moment...it was shocking, to see them surging down the aisles. The show halted as they fled, and at this moment a member of their group strode up to the table, stood looking down on me and poured water all over the outline, drenching everything in a kind of anti-baptism.
I sat behind the table, looking up in his face with shock. My job onstage is to be as open as possible, to weave the show without a script as it comes, and this leaves me very emotionally available--and vulnerable, if an audience chooses to abuse that trust. I doubt I will ever forget the look in his face as he defaced the only original of the handwritten show outline--it was a look of hatred, and disgust, and utter and consuming pride.
It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl's work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm's length from me--never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I've chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own--its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.
And it wounded me in my heart, because I trusted these people. Scared parents and scared teachers running from a theater because words might hurt them, and so consumed by fear that they have to lash out at the work, literally break it apart, drown it. They've made me afraid of my audience, afraid of my craft, just the smallest amount, and that's the trust I will have to relearn tonight and every night. That's the work--the only way out is through, I tell my students, and it is true for me and it is true for everybody.
I tried to engage with the group as they fled, but they ran out like cowards, and not one of them would stand and discuss with me what they'd done. That cowardice still takes my breath away--that they wouldn't stand and speak like men and women and tell me in their voices their grievances. In spite of everything, I still believe--Jean-Michele says that's one of the reasons I'm a monologuist--and I fought to the end to get a single voice to speak and reckon with me, but they ran and didn't look back.
I had to stay onstage and tend to my audience, who was wounded and reeling--they looked stunned and shaken, as Jean-Michele and Kevin cleaned the table I talked to everyone, normalizing the pressures, rebuilding connections. We talked a bit, then I restarted the show, which was intense from a cold start--like passing a six pound kidney stone--and hesitantly, shakily, they came with me and we comforted each other with the story. At the end of the show they gave a standing ovation, which I didn't earn--they applauded because they had been through the same thing, and worked as hard as I did to carry the story to its conclusion. They were magnificent.
After the show I told the audience something, and it's been rolling around in my mind. It's common to think things will never happen where you are--never in Cambridge, never in New York, never in Seattle--that sort of thing, whatever it is, never happens here, not in our community. Then it happens, right in front of you, and you realize you were blind to it, that you forgot that intolerance and zealotry and viciousness are human currency everywhere, and it takes your breath away. You want to curl up and pretend it never happened, because they were fools, idiots--you make excuses and move on. Do the next show. Breathe. Forget.
But they are not simply fools and idiots--I saw them. They are young and old, they are teachers and students, they are each and every one of us. We are the same family, even if it hurts. The hard truth is that you reap what you sow, and I will not sow hatred and discontent--I refuse. I will not forget what that man, older than I am today, did to my work. I will not forget the cowed silence of those who left. I will not forget their judgment and their arrogance--but I will not hate.
I will listen. I will listen and learn and remember what has passed here, and when I tell it back it will be louder and longer and clearer. When I tell it back there will be place in the story for you and you and even you.
Quote from Mike Daisey, April 20 update »
It has been an intense few days, and I would like to thank the thousands of people who have sent me emails, which have been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. They've come from everywhere, and in an age when we often seem terribly divided, especially in this country, it really means a great deal. Though now I will be answering email well into 2010, things could be much worse--when you let something explosive loose on the internet you can never predict how it will all go down. As of now I'm glad that I posted the video. I think it captures what it was really like in that theatre, and how incredibly chilling and incredibly dorky it was at the same time.
The group responsible for the incident is from a public high school, though they identified themselves to me as a Christian group as they fled the theater--it's barely audible on the YouTube clip, as an adult tells me they are a Christian group, then flees for the door, refusing to engage with me. Then in the lobby of the theater and on the phone to the box office they identified themselves again and again as a Christian group--I don't know what that says about the division of church and state in Norco, California. As a group, the people in charge freely identified themselves as a Christian group, until reporters call and they remember they are from a public high school.
As has been covered in other media outlets, I know now that the group bought their tickets that day. I have now spoken with the box office staff person who spoke with a representative from the school--when asked if the show had appropriate content for high school students, they were told it had strong language and adult situations. There are multiple corroborating witnesses to this phone conversation.
It bears noting that in fact, there were two high schools there that night--and the other high school STAYED, enjoyed the show, and I had a very good talk with them after the show discussing the work. That high school confirms that they were informed about the language and content of the show when they asked--the box office informs anyone who asks what the show contains.
I did speak with an administrator from the school, and with the individual who ruined my work. I think it's important to note that *I* found and called *them*--it is clear to me that I never would have heard from any of them again had I not hunted them down. In fact, they were surprised to hear from me, which I think speaks to the lack of understanding and civility on their part. My work had been assaulted, and I had a clear vision of this man standing above me, destroying my work, with hatred in his eyes. I refused to be a victim twice--first by being assaulted, and second by committing the sin of silence. So I knew I had to find them, and speak with the man who did this.
The first person I managed to reach was an administrator with the group, a woman who started the conversation repeating the same statement time and again, which undercut her apology: she insisted it was a "safety issue", and that "we had to get our students out of there." There was no discussion of language or appropriateness--it had become a safety issue, as though the students were in danger of being physically assaulted. I think it is tremendously chilling that the language of the war on terror, the language of security, has been appropriated for even this--we can't even begin a dialogue about what is and is not appropriate, because it has all become a "safety" issue. That ends a conversation before it has even begun.
She also insisted that they asked if the show was "clean"--a construction I think is a repulsive way to ask about content, and the way she said "clean", the finality of it, stays with me. I told her that I wasn't interested in that, but would prefer to talk about the assault and vandalization of my work, at which she became slightly more contrite.
I told her I would need to talk to the man responsible for destroying my work. She hedged and said that she'd let him know I wanted him to get in touch, but that she didn't know if he'd want to do that. I told her that I had a videotape of him destroying my work and a couple hundred witnesses, and that it was very important that I hear from him immediately. She then agreed, and I found it disappointing that a veiled threat had to be used just to bring people to the table for a simple conversation.
After talking to her I performed the show for the first time since the incident happened, and I had a hard time. Because the shows aren't scripted the relationship with my audience is key, and I was slightly hesitant--I could feel myself closing up over myself, wanting to hide. I pushed through, but it was sobering to see the damage done, real damage that extends beyond the event itself. I had hoped that it would shake off.
After the show, I reached the man who attacked my work on the phone. I would be lying if I said I wasn't nervous--Jean-Michele didn't even understand why I would call him; she was afraid he would simply attack me again--but I knew, especially after that second performance, that I had to try to find some communion with him. If I could look this person in the eye, hear their words and know them I would be able to move beyond that moment at the table. Never forgetting, but being able to walk forward--being able to breathe.
His name is David. At the beginning of the conversation there was a lot of silence--long, long silences that neither of us were willing to puncture. First I made him understand what he had done--that these were the only set of notes for the show, how I work with them, what he had cost me in terms of my physical work and in terms of what it had been like that next night to go out in front of them. I needed him to understand what he had taken from me.
He quietly said that he had heard me, and that he understood.
I gradually opened him up by listening, and responding, the one-on-one version of what I do with an audience. We talked about many things, for almost an hour, and step by step, his story emerged.
He has three kids--one is 21, and two are 17--and he's terrified of the world. Terrified by violence, and sex, and he sees it all linked together--a horrifying world filled with darkness, pornography and filth that threatens his children, has threatened them all his life. They're older now, but he says he still sees things the same way--and that the only way to protect his children and himself is to lock it all out of his life.
He also said he's had anger-control issues for years, and sometimes acts of rage come over him--he explodes, and then has to apologize, and doesn't know why it happens. He tries to lock it down, but it happens, and he's ashamed of it. I told him that regardless of where we both stand, I felt very strongly that the repression of walling off everything in the world and viewing it all as filth is connecting with these outbursts, and that it isn't going to work--until you deal with the root causes, and deal with the world, his anger and rage would keep using him.
He agreed with this.
It wasn't all agreement--he reiterated the administrator's line that it had been a "security issue" (his words) and that "we had to get our kids out of there". He said at one point, "You're probably more *liberal* than I am" and the word *liberal* had this hook on the end of it, one that he probably didn't even intend, but it was unavoidable for him--it sounded edged, like a slur.
He also casually used a coarse racial epithet to refer to black people in a very loose, unnecessary analogy, which was remarkable to me--in a situation where violence resulted from offense at language, our worlds are so far apart that he didn't think for a moment about throwing out this word. I believe strongly that everyone is free to speak, but we are also accountable for our speech--the casual indifference of it shocked me under the circumstances of our conversation.
The moment that was most illuminating was this:
We have been talking for quite some time, making progress, when I mention offhandedly in response to something that I had been raised Catholic.
At this, he makes this little sound: "oh!" It's a tiny exclamation, upward-inflected. I hear that sound, and my heart sinks.
It's a sound of surprise he makes, and of recognition. Of fellowship. And immediately, everything he says is the same, but it is surrounded with a superstructure of scripture--there are supporting arguments from Jesus, the apostles, the whole nine yards. His cadence and language is entirely different, because now he is drawing on over two thousand years of religious writing to enfold and magnify his arguments.
For the first time in the conversation, in my heart, I am furious.
What was I before that moment? I thought we were trying to speak to one another and I was honest with you--but this is your real face, and I only earn the right to see it if I say the right password and get let into your club.
Who was I before? Was I nobody? Was I simply a *liberal*, the word with the hook on the end of it? A dirty, pornographic artist? A purveyor of filth?
No. It's worse than that, worse than labels. I know the truth. I was no one. I was no one to you, not a real person at all--I wasn't real when you destroyed my work, and until the moment I said the magic word I wasn't real. When he made that sound, he betrayed his heart and finally spoke the truth, and I could see him fully. Now I know him, and now he has no power over me.
We keep talking, and now that I can see him completely he's just an angry man, angry and impotent. He is sorry, though not so sorry that he sought me out--and when I ask what the people in his group are saying about what happened, he confesses that no one is talking about it.
I ask him to do one thing for me. I ask him to talk to everyone in the group together, parents and students alike, and talk to them about what happened. I do not even ask him to apologize, nor do I dictate what he should say--that's his prerogative. I simply ask that he open the door for the conversation be allowed to happen. I believe in the truth, and I want him to let the group speak its mind to him and to itself. I do not know if he did this--I hope that he did, and I will continue to hope.
And then I forgive him. He is very quiet--he is obviously shocked. And I tell him, "I want you to remember that a liberal athiest has forgiven you today. I don't want you to ever forget that, as long as you live, do not forget what happened here. I don't have God behind me, but I speak for myself, and I forgive you for myself, and for you. Never forget this."
He said that he would. I wished him good luck, good luck with everything. He wished me the same.
What do you expect from people that worship a god that, according to the bible, has murdered over 2 million people? Tolerance and compassion? I think not. You can tell the character of a Christian by whether they talk more of the Old Testament or the New.
This is exactly the kind of post this thread does not need. Religious discussions are always tricky to traverse as it is, we don't need to toss uncalled for and inflammatory comments like this into the mix. Everyone would do well to not reply to this post. Just move along and carry out this discussion like rational adults.
EDIT: It is absolutely disgraceful that religion is regarded as a subject that cannot be criticized. Saying "you can't point out the problems with a religion" is a pathetic dodge. How is it "inflammatory" to point out that the god of the Old Testament is a genocidist and a mass murderer? It makes sense that those who focus on the murderous parts of the bible tend to be far more hateful than those who focus on the New Testament.
I'm not going to carry out an argument with you via edits to a post. Though I will remind you that editting a post after a mod is against the forum rules, and that rewards you with a nice infraction for your troubles.
Wow, that video is incredible. What those people did was completely unacceptable. Now I understand them wanting to protect the kids, and I think it would have been okay if they had walked out quietly, but what they did was completely appalling.
I was thinking about this a bit today, and I realized that many times, Christians are blamed for things that other Christians do, even if they don't agree with those other Christians.
What I mean is like when people say that they hate Christianity because of what Christians did during the Crusades. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Just because those Christians did very bad things that were in no way God's will does not mean that all Christians are willing to do that. Similarly, whenever a person says they are a Christian, or especially an evangelical, many people automatically assume that they have beliefs that are similar to the Religious Right or other extremist Christians. This is just completely not true. I think of myself as an evangelical, but there are very few beliefs that I share with the Religious Right.
I think the thing is, everyone needs to get rid of stereotypes. When a person says they are Christian, don't automatically associate them with other Christians you have met, but first listen to their beliefs and ideas.
@ChocoCid: Well first off, I believe almost solely in the New Testament, and of the New Testament, mostly just Jesus' words. Nevertheless, the statement above, imo, was completely unnecessary and off-topic. Please don't try to start fights or make judgements like that. And yes, you should expect tolerance and compassion out of them, even if they believe in the Old Testament. You should not judge someone by their religion or what their god did, but what they do and believe. Just because someone believes that their god murdered over 2 million people doesn't mean that they will also.
P.S. Murder is a very strong word for deaths that many times were in war or partially deserved. When people die in war, so you say they are murdered? Not that they should have died, just be careful with your word choice.
I was thinking about this a bit today, and I realized that many times, Christians are blamed for things that other Christians do, even if they don't agree with those other Christians.
Careful not to run into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy that was discussed earlier. You're edging pretty close to it here.
What I mean is like when people say that they hate Christianity because of what Christians did during the Crusades. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Just because those Christians did very bad things that were in no way God's will does not mean that all Christians are willing to do that.
I'd like to note that the official position of the Catholic church is that the Pope's commands are a manifestation of the will of God. So when Pope Urban II ordered the Crusades, well... I think the actual quote will suffice to show you what I mean-
"I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."
Similarly, whenever a person says they are a Christian, or especially an evangelical, many people automatically assume that they have beliefs that are similar to the Religious Right or other extremist Christians. This is just completely not true. I think of myself as an evangelical, but there are very few beliefs that I share with the Religious Right.
The problem here is that words change in meaning over time. "Evangelical" may have meant something different 100 years ago or maybe even 60 years ago, but nowadays "evangelical" is basically equivalent to "Religious Right" and "fundamentalist".
@ChocoCid: Well first off, I believe almost solely in the New Testament, and of the New Testament, mostly just Jesus' words.
Good. Read some of Buddha's stuff while you're at it. The tolerance and compassion preached by these people is excellent stuff despite the sheer silliness of the religions that surround them. (Reincarnation? Don't make me laugh.)
Nevertheless, the statement above, imo, was completely unnecessary and off-topic. Please don't try to start fights or make judgements like that. And yes, you should expect tolerance and compassion out of them, even if they believe in the Old Testament. You should not judge someone by their religion or what their god did, but what they do and believe. Just because someone believes that their god murdered over 2 million people doesn't mean that they will also.
It's a fairly good rule of thumb- if a Christian focuses on the New Testament, they tend to follow Jesus's ideals of tolerance and compassion. If they focus on the Old Testament, they tend to follow Yahweh in bigotry and intolerance.
This isn't true for all of them, but it's certainly true in enough cases that I'm comfortable making that prediction.
Careful not to run into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy that was discussed earlier. You're edging pretty close to it here.
"No true Scotsman" is different than "no true Christian". There is not a specific guideline about what a Scotsman should and shouldn't do and believe, but Christians have specific guidelines: the Bible. I'm not saying that the Religious Right and such are not "true Christians", but you cannot associate their actions with the rest of Christians.
I'd like to note that the official position of the Catholic church is that the Pope's commands are a manifestation of the will of God. So when Pope Urban II ordered the Crusades, well... I think the actual quote will suffice to show you what I mean-
"I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."
Well, first off, I'm not Catholic, and I disagree with the Pope being the word of God. Again, despite what Catholics believe, I think you and I can agree that it was not actually the will of God for the Crusades to occur.
The problem here is that words change in meaning over time. "Evangelical" may have meant something different 100 years ago or maybe even 60 years ago, but nowadays "evangelical" is basically equivalent to "Religious Right" and "fundamentalist".
I wish it wasn't that way, because that is not the meaning of "evangelical". It is a complicated word to be sure, but even the dictionary.com definition is:
"Belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ."
That does not mention, nor does it have to do with at all, fundamentalist or right-wing Christians. I don't want to get in a debate about the word, but my point is that just because someone says they are evangelical doesn't mean that they are part of the Religious Right, or even conservative.
It's a fairly good rule of thumb- if a Christian focuses on the New Testament, they tend to follow Jesus's ideals of tolerance and compassion. If they focus on the Old Testament, they tend to follow Yahweh in bigotry and intolerance.
This isn't true for all of them, but it's certainly true in enough cases that I'm comfortable making that prediction.
Yeah, I agree that people who follow the Old Testament tend to believe those things, but I try not to judge people on it.
Well, first off, I'm not Catholic, and I disagree with the Pope being the word of God. Again, despite what Catholics believe, I think you and I can agree that it was not actually the will of God for the Crusades to occur.
Of course it wasn't the will of God for the Crusades to occur, because there was and is no God to will it.
But you can't very well say "this is not a Christian action" when the Catholic church is basically the prototypical Christian church, and this clearly fits in with their interpretation of Scripture and their doctrines.
I wish it wasn't that way, because that is not the meaning of "evangelical". It is a complicated word to be sure, but even the dictionary.com definition is:
Words mean what people use them to mean.
"Belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ."
That does not mention, nor does it have to do with at all, fundamentalist or right-wing Christians. I don't want to get in a debate about the word, but my point is that just because someone says they are evangelical doesn't mean that they are part of the Religious Right, or even conservative.
Well, yes, but unfortunately the word has basically developed a dual meaning- one is essentially "bible-centrist" and the other being closer to "fundamentalist" - the American Religious Right.
Yeah, I agree that people who follow the Old Testament tend to believe those things, but I try not to judge people on it.
I have no problem with judging people on their beliefs, and if they spend their time focusing on the Old Testament full of hatred and bigotry then I have no problem with calling them scumbags. Because let's face it, the Fred Phelps and Pat Robertsons of the world are scumbags.
I'm afraid that I cannot. Until you are an atheist, you will not understand the scorn and the attacks that we deal with on a daily basis from Christians. Until you have the gumption to tell people that your moral system is based on your own beliefs and not those handed down through the generations will you have to hear that their God hates you and that you are immoral.
But here at MTGS, it feels as if there's a strong anti-religious presence.
Way to take the OP out of context. She is only refering to the attitudes of the MTGS community.
the level of scorn that atheists are forced to put up with every single day.
Let's not start a pissing contest now...
This comment reminded me of that. If you are going to base everything you are on your faith, expect there to be some a priori acceptances that come along with it. In turn, expect me to challenge those and their basis if it is germane to a debate. I am not going to avoid it because it will annoy you or hurt your feelings; if you believe that we should go to War in Madagascar (as an example) because there are Christians being persecuted there (hypothetically), but don't think that we should step in in Turkey, then I am going to question your priorities, biases, and preconceptions.
I agree, there is no reason not to question your own beliefs and the beliefs of others. There's a difference between faith and blind faith.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I U Dio GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
I think both atheists and believers suffer comparable amounts of prejudice (or lack thereof) depending solely on the social norms of the community. So far, I have recieved very little trouble as a result of my lack of faith, but I have heard stories and read articles about fellow atheists living in more religiously polarized communities who are not so fortunate as I. On the other hand, I know several atheists who look down on religion as a whole and are quick to stereotype people of any faith (Note that I do not condone this in any way, and believe that the majority of religious institutions are benevolent and important for their various communities). In conclusion, every faith, or lack of it, has its bigots, and their persecution of others will depend on their biases and their numbers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Many thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the great banner!
Quote from CherryBoom! »
It mostly consists of a napalm filled trench around my house and a stack of 1994 pornography in my basement.
Quote from HandwrittenHero »
As much as I'm against the OTT view that this card is going to solo tournaments, cure cancer and make Susan Boyle attractive I'm not really a fan of the opposing camp who think it slaughters puppies and sired Justin Bieber.
Kind of off topic, but if you want to find out more about that, you should read Calculating God by Robert J. Sawyer. It's fiction, but it explores that very concept, using some actual math and science (Sawyer does this kind of thing in all of his books).
It is a good read. I was a huge fan of RJS awhile back. The view he presents in calculating god is somewhat controversial, but interesting. He also deals with the fact that many people in the science community are atheist, but how some scientists resolve their religious beliefs with their science. This isn't about scientologist doctors who wont give pain killers to women in labor, or scientists who refuse to use stem cells on a religous belief or anything, its just about an internal worldview.
The way i see it, religion does two things: explain the universe, and tell you how to live. lots of people mold this into one thing, but i separate it. Most religions have very different versions of world history, and that leads to much conflict. I say throw that part out. If you only look at how the religions tell you to live, they mostly agree.
So in that vein, i am half atheist/half Buddhist.
But you can't very well say "this is not a Christian action" when the Catholic church is basically the prototypical Christian church, and this clearly fits in with their interpretation of Scripture and their doctrines.
This actually does show one of the main weaknesses in religion and the one I had the most trouble overcoming when I was questioning my faith. The Bible is a large and somewhat vague book with many, many translations, and through word-trickery you could likely show that the Bible condones or opposes almost anything you could think of. This is how the more extreme and controversial sects of Christianity justify what they do.
Personally, I almost see talking about Christianity as a whole as way too vague. In many cases, there are more differences than similarities between large sects of Christianity that in reality, one could argue that the only shared beliefs in Christianity are a belief in God and that Jesus Christ was his son, sent to the earth to die for the world's sins who was resurrected. Also, Christians generally agree on the content of the Bible (as far as what books are part of the canon - interpretations and translations vary greatly). Outside of that, modes of worship, sacraments, and rules very so differently
that comparisons are difficult. This is not "no true Scotsman," this is simply pointing out that Christianity contains many different divergent beliefs. It does not make them un-Christian, but it does make sense that one could see a conflict with their own beliefs to the point where they couldn't reconcile another group's beliefs as anything resembling their own.
Well, yes, but unfortunately the word has basically developed a dual meaning- one is essentially "bible-centrist" and the other being closer to "fundamentalist" - the American Religious Right.
I'm not sure that those two things are actually opposed at all. The Religious Right will quote the Bible all day, and in most cases have an extremely unwavering, literal interpretation of the Bible. Literal interpretations of the Bible allow for things such as hatred of gays and the belief that religion should govern.
I have no problem with judging people on their beliefs, and if they spend their time focusing on the Old Testament full of hatred and bigotry then I have no problem with calling them scumbags. Because let's face it, the Fred Phelps and Pat Robertsons of the world are scumbags.
Not to mention James Dobson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, and my all-time favorite nutcase Benny Hinn.
I'm really sorry for not reading the whole 10 page of threads (at work), but I wanted to share a story. I myself am a spiritualist, i was raised non-religious in my house growing up because my parents were raised in different, but equally as strict, religious homes that practiced different sects of Christianity. When they got married it caused a religious family stir, and they vowed not to force their children to to anything but make up their own minds when it came to the subject. As we grew older, both my sister and I still ended up going to church meetings, exploring conventions and Bible camps, church lock-ins and were part of youth ministry groups. We even became confirmed separately in the churches of our choice. All on our own idea without parents ever voicing an opinion, and mostly because it was something our friends were involved in and we wanted to see what the fuss was about. After I graduated high school I stopped going to church because I saw a lot of prejudice within the churches i went to, and a lot of inconsistency in the Bible I read and what was practiced (I had long hair and listened to rock music, which was something 80 year old women didn't like). In my college years I read up and looked into other options, like Paganism, Taoism, and Buddhism and other sects of Christianity. I also looked into the History of these religions and found some really amazing things. I read books about why certain religions believe certain things and follow certain practices and traditions. I read some of the spiritual books and looked into what parts were being incorporated into their practices and what wasn't. I could not deny that SOMETHING was out there and SOMETHING was involved in my life. whether it was baby Jesus, Buddah, Krishna, Allah, God, or a giant toaster... it was not my place to decide. I am 33 years old now and with everything I learned and took the time to research, I call myself a Spiritualist. No religion, no church, but a relationship with SOMETHING that I cannot and refuse to put a label on.
Depending on where you live in the country, you'll be surrounded by any number of belief systems. some people live in cities where Christian morals will be upheld to the highest level of law possible. some people live in areas that don't figure religion into a large part of every day life. I live in MN, where we fall into a bit of the later. people get pretty upset around here when lawmakers use religion in politics, and when someone's right to whatever they want to believe is threatened.
what i'm trying to say is THIS... many people are Christian because it's what they are raised to be. they've never known anything else, and they really don't find anything wrong with that idea. i would recommend EVERYONE to study religious subjects and understand what it you are reading from an unbiased outside perspective. Many of those who bash Christians and are self proclaimed Pagans/Satanists/whatever are usually just mixed up kids looking for attention... but on the flip, I could easily lump many young Christians into this same category. Looking for an ideal to have some basic answers, looking for companionship, looking for something that tells us "we're not alone." In fact, many non-churchgoing people in this country simply claim to be Christian even if they've never foot in a church outside of high school simply because they are uninterested in looking into any other options (including actually reading the Bible), or because there mom and dad have a picture of Jesus on the wall. My guess is, most people are quite comfortable not going to church or following moral laws to a tee.
oh yeah, the story...
recently I bought a house with my then girlfriend. we since have become engaged, but it was far more important to us to organize our budget and make sure we had a roof under our heads before getting married. For some reason, people whom had once never let known their religious belief felt the need to come out of their Politically Correct shells and constantly barrage my poor girlfriend with tirades about Christianity and that what she was doing was wrong. On top of this, for some reason the choice that we made not to have children was viewed as alien, strange, and somehow disgusting to these people. the very fact that we lived together in an apartment before ever buying the house was never an issue though for some reason, and they very fact that these same people were likely having premarital sex with their significant others before they got married didn't matter either. don't get me started on the divorced ones. these are the same people who have no idea that Europeans are living pretty nice, normal, secular lives and not doing so bad for themselves.
As someone who is a respectful Spiritual human being... i hear a lot about Christians complaining about the fact they are losing their "rights." these are the same people who won't think twice in denying those same rights to people who aren't a part of their flock or share even remotely similar belief. you can argue that they are just protecting their religious rights and being good Christians and holding a moral ground... but to them I say... you shouldn't pick and choose your Bible versus.
Do the women in your family wear headcovering?
When was the last time you kept your hair short around your temples?
Do you wear mixed fabrics?
Had a wet dream?
these are bad sins in the Bible... but I guess it's easier to point out that gay people shouldn't marry. Many of these people are the same types who think taking Christmas Trees or Easter Bunnies out of public offices is disgusting, when if they really knew the true history of the tradition, they might not ever let them in their own houses again.
I read some of the spiritual books and looked into what parts were being incorporated into their practices and what wasn't. I could not deny that SOMETHING was out there and SOMETHING was involved in my life. whether it was baby Jesus, Buddah, Krishna, Allah, God, or a giant toaster... it was not my place to decide. I am 33 years old now and with everything I learned and took the time to research, I call myself a Spiritualist. No religion, no church, but a relationship with SOMETHING that I cannot and refuse to put a label on.
Regardless if you refuse to, there's nomenclature for everything nowadays you Unitarian Agnostic.
i would recommend EVERYONE to study religious subjects and understand what it you are reading from an unbiased outside perspective
Seconded. You never know which religions are going to touch you in that very special, very legal way, and fill that inner emptiness. Even if nothing seems plausible or right and you become an aethiest, you still have found a belief system. No matter which path you take, as long as you're comfortable with it, its cool, and finding that path is half the fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I U Dio GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
I'm a Christian. To me, being a Christian isn't easy. Mainly because I put a lot of faith into my faith (does that make sense?) and at times it seems like it lets me down and my prayers are not answered. I don't know.
If you were to read: "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People" that book would more or less show how I feel on most subjects.
I'm a Christian. To me, being a Christian isn't easy. Mainly because I put a lot of faith into my faith (does that make sense?) and at times it seems like it lets me down and my prayers are not answered. I don't know.
If you were to read: "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People" that book would more or less show how I feel on most subjects.
Yeah..this post really did nothing. Sorry.
So why are you Christian?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I've never found being religious particularly difficult, and I don't imagine atheism would be any different. I suppose it's socially awkward when someone makes a joke about Christians being "sheep," but I don't see why that should make me emotionally troubled. I loved Penn Jillette's radio show, for example, even though he constantly invoked his distaste for religion.
When you see some goth kid threatening to burn a Bible or something like that, it's hard to take them seriously (much as I imagine, it's difficult to take a preacher in the streets shouting about the end of days seriously from an atheist's point of view). There's not much religious conflict larger than that around where I live, and therefore, little strife.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is one thing to say to your neighbor that he's a sinner because he broke one of God's laws. It is quite another thing to say to that same neighbor that he is a sinner "because God spoke to me the other night, and told me that the devil is in your heart." When every single believer has a "personal" Saviour and the privilege of hearing God speak to him or her alone on any particular subject, the usual majority rule of common sense buckles, social restraints on extremism fall away, and charismatic individuals can lead communities to atrocities on the strength of God's authority.
It also opens up room for people to contradict established scientific principles and social order in ignorance, claiming a divine origin for their ideas and impulses. If the Supreme Being remains relatively impersonal, impartial, and inscrutable to the average common man, there is less credibility for demagogues.
Sadly, it's human nature to want to know and experience the divine in a profound and personal way. If you are lucky enough to experience a revelation or spiritual awakening, I hope the community is lucky enough to have in you someone who is emotionally balanced and mature, open minded and conscientious.
Unfortunately...99.4% of the time...NEVER the case. Because they always seem to go off and claim, the divine instructed them to rid the plague being spread by "xyz". Only that 0.6% go off to spread the positive feelings experienced during that "visit".
The problem is that many creationists are blind. It is not only that they are ignorant of biology (that in itself wouldn't be particularly troubling), but that they refuse to listen to reason and clear scientific evidence, and even more troubling, want to force that ignorant opinion on others.
This is where the irony comes in. In referring to "evolution", one could be talking about actual evolution, or the theory of evolution (natural selection) [we're obviously not talking about the general usage simply meaning "change"]. The first is clearly factual and the second is supported by mountains of evidence. Neither includes abiogenesis. This is not a Jack Chick tract.
It'd be possible if the Christian Right would get smacked out of politics for about 12 years, maybe 16. That's about how long it'd take, but the Dems would certainly screw that up along the line.
The site is blocked here, could a courtious soul summarize it for me?
GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
You guys should read some Nietzsche some time its rather enlightening. And don't be scared off by the titles of his works like The Antichrist. They really arn't about the true biblical antichrist.
Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters.
I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity.
Style points do not appear on tournament reports.
A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win.
I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him.
Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
This is the youtube of what happened (a little "foul language and adult content" at the beginning).
Lots of text.
Thanks for the extra text.
Completely and utterly unneccesary. Even though they aren't in the majority, people like that are why I have trouble sleeping at night.
GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
This is exactly the kind of post this thread does not need. Religious discussions are always tricky to traverse as it is, we don't need to toss uncalled for and inflammatory comments like this into the mix. Everyone would do well to not reply to this post. Just move along and carry out this discussion like rational adults.
EDIT: It is absolutely disgraceful that religion is regarded as a subject that cannot be criticized. Saying "you can't point out the problems with a religion" is a pathetic dodge. How is it "inflammatory" to point out that the god of the Old Testament is a genocidist and a mass murderer? It makes sense that those who focus on the murderous parts of the bible tend to be far more hateful than those who focus on the New Testament.
I'm not going to carry out an argument with you via edits to a post. Though I will remind you that editting a post after a mod is against the forum rules, and that rewards you with a nice infraction for your troubles.
I was thinking about this a bit today, and I realized that many times, Christians are blamed for things that other Christians do, even if they don't agree with those other Christians.
What I mean is like when people say that they hate Christianity because of what Christians did during the Crusades. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Just because those Christians did very bad things that were in no way God's will does not mean that all Christians are willing to do that. Similarly, whenever a person says they are a Christian, or especially an evangelical, many people automatically assume that they have beliefs that are similar to the Religious Right or other extremist Christians. This is just completely not true. I think of myself as an evangelical, but there are very few beliefs that I share with the Religious Right.
I think the thing is, everyone needs to get rid of stereotypes. When a person says they are Christian, don't automatically associate them with other Christians you have met, but first listen to their beliefs and ideas.
@ChocoCid: Well first off, I believe almost solely in the New Testament, and of the New Testament, mostly just Jesus' words. Nevertheless, the statement above, imo, was completely unnecessary and off-topic. Please don't try to start fights or make judgements like that. And yes, you should expect tolerance and compassion out of them, even if they believe in the Old Testament. You should not judge someone by their religion or what their god did, but what they do and believe. Just because someone believes that their god murdered over 2 million people doesn't mean that they will also.
P.S. Murder is a very strong word for deaths that many times were in war or partially deserved. When people die in war, so you say they are murdered? Not that they should have died, just be careful with your word choice.
Magic Coffeehouse pwns.
CENT SPORTS!!
http://www.centsports.com/?opcode=94009
If you like sports or sports betting and you want a chance to win free money, you will love it.
Careful not to run into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy that was discussed earlier. You're edging pretty close to it here.
I'd like to note that the official position of the Catholic church is that the Pope's commands are a manifestation of the will of God. So when Pope Urban II ordered the Crusades, well... I think the actual quote will suffice to show you what I mean-
"I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."
The problem here is that words change in meaning over time. "Evangelical" may have meant something different 100 years ago or maybe even 60 years ago, but nowadays "evangelical" is basically equivalent to "Religious Right" and "fundamentalist".
Good. Read some of Buddha's stuff while you're at it. The tolerance and compassion preached by these people is excellent stuff despite the sheer silliness of the religions that surround them. (Reincarnation? Don't make me laugh.)
It's a fairly good rule of thumb- if a Christian focuses on the New Testament, they tend to follow Jesus's ideals of tolerance and compassion. If they focus on the Old Testament, they tend to follow Yahweh in bigotry and intolerance.
This isn't true for all of them, but it's certainly true in enough cases that I'm comfortable making that prediction.
"No true Scotsman" is different than "no true Christian". There is not a specific guideline about what a Scotsman should and shouldn't do and believe, but Christians have specific guidelines: the Bible. I'm not saying that the Religious Right and such are not "true Christians", but you cannot associate their actions with the rest of Christians.
Well, first off, I'm not Catholic, and I disagree with the Pope being the word of God. Again, despite what Catholics believe, I think you and I can agree that it was not actually the will of God for the Crusades to occur.
I wish it wasn't that way, because that is not the meaning of "evangelical". It is a complicated word to be sure, but even the dictionary.com definition is:
"Belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ."
That does not mention, nor does it have to do with at all, fundamentalist or right-wing Christians. I don't want to get in a debate about the word, but my point is that just because someone says they are evangelical doesn't mean that they are part of the Religious Right, or even conservative.
Yeah, I agree that people who follow the Old Testament tend to believe those things, but I try not to judge people on it.
Magic Coffeehouse pwns.
CENT SPORTS!!
http://www.centsports.com/?opcode=94009
If you like sports or sports betting and you want a chance to win free money, you will love it.
Of course it wasn't the will of God for the Crusades to occur, because there was and is no God to will it.
But you can't very well say "this is not a Christian action" when the Catholic church is basically the prototypical Christian church, and this clearly fits in with their interpretation of Scripture and their doctrines.
Words mean what people use them to mean.
Well, yes, but unfortunately the word has basically developed a dual meaning- one is essentially "bible-centrist" and the other being closer to "fundamentalist" - the American Religious Right.
I have no problem with judging people on their beliefs, and if they spend their time focusing on the Old Testament full of hatred and bigotry then I have no problem with calling them scumbags. Because let's face it, the Fred Phelps and Pat Robertsons of the world are scumbags.
Way to take the OP out of context. She is only refering to the attitudes of the MTGS community.
Let's not start a pissing contest now...
I agree, there is no reason not to question your own beliefs and the beliefs of others. There's a difference between faith and blind faith.
GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
Many thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the great banner!
It is a good read. I was a huge fan of RJS awhile back. The view he presents in calculating god is somewhat controversial, but interesting. He also deals with the fact that many people in the science community are atheist, but how some scientists resolve their religious beliefs with their science. This isn't about scientologist doctors who wont give pain killers to women in labor, or scientists who refuse to use stem cells on a religous belief or anything, its just about an internal worldview.
The way i see it, religion does two things: explain the universe, and tell you how to live. lots of people mold this into one thing, but i separate it. Most religions have very different versions of world history, and that leads to much conflict. I say throw that part out. If you only look at how the religions tell you to live, they mostly agree.
So in that vein, i am half atheist/half Buddhist.
This actually does show one of the main weaknesses in religion and the one I had the most trouble overcoming when I was questioning my faith. The Bible is a large and somewhat vague book with many, many translations, and through word-trickery you could likely show that the Bible condones or opposes almost anything you could think of. This is how the more extreme and controversial sects of Christianity justify what they do.
Personally, I almost see talking about Christianity as a whole as way too vague. In many cases, there are more differences than similarities between large sects of Christianity that in reality, one could argue that the only shared beliefs in Christianity are a belief in God and that Jesus Christ was his son, sent to the earth to die for the world's sins who was resurrected. Also, Christians generally agree on the content of the Bible (as far as what books are part of the canon - interpretations and translations vary greatly). Outside of that, modes of worship, sacraments, and rules very so differently
that comparisons are difficult. This is not "no true Scotsman," this is simply pointing out that Christianity contains many different divergent beliefs. It does not make them un-Christian, but it does make sense that one could see a conflict with their own beliefs to the point where they couldn't reconcile another group's beliefs as anything resembling their own.
I'm not sure that those two things are actually opposed at all. The Religious Right will quote the Bible all day, and in most cases have an extremely unwavering, literal interpretation of the Bible. Literal interpretations of the Bible allow for things such as hatred of gays and the belief that religion should govern.
Not to mention James Dobson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, and my all-time favorite nutcase Benny Hinn.
Depending on where you live in the country, you'll be surrounded by any number of belief systems. some people live in cities where Christian morals will be upheld to the highest level of law possible. some people live in areas that don't figure religion into a large part of every day life. I live in MN, where we fall into a bit of the later. people get pretty upset around here when lawmakers use religion in politics, and when someone's right to whatever they want to believe is threatened.
what i'm trying to say is THIS... many people are Christian because it's what they are raised to be. they've never known anything else, and they really don't find anything wrong with that idea. i would recommend EVERYONE to study religious subjects and understand what it you are reading from an unbiased outside perspective. Many of those who bash Christians and are self proclaimed Pagans/Satanists/whatever are usually just mixed up kids looking for attention... but on the flip, I could easily lump many young Christians into this same category. Looking for an ideal to have some basic answers, looking for companionship, looking for something that tells us "we're not alone." In fact, many non-churchgoing people in this country simply claim to be Christian even if they've never foot in a church outside of high school simply because they are uninterested in looking into any other options (including actually reading the Bible), or because there mom and dad have a picture of Jesus on the wall. My guess is, most people are quite comfortable not going to church or following moral laws to a tee.
oh yeah, the story...
recently I bought a house with my then girlfriend. we since have become engaged, but it was far more important to us to organize our budget and make sure we had a roof under our heads before getting married. For some reason, people whom had once never let known their religious belief felt the need to come out of their Politically Correct shells and constantly barrage my poor girlfriend with tirades about Christianity and that what she was doing was wrong. On top of this, for some reason the choice that we made not to have children was viewed as alien, strange, and somehow disgusting to these people. the very fact that we lived together in an apartment before ever buying the house was never an issue though for some reason, and they very fact that these same people were likely having premarital sex with their significant others before they got married didn't matter either. don't get me started on the divorced ones. these are the same people who have no idea that Europeans are living pretty nice, normal, secular lives and not doing so bad for themselves.
As someone who is a respectful Spiritual human being... i hear a lot about Christians complaining about the fact they are losing their "rights." these are the same people who won't think twice in denying those same rights to people who aren't a part of their flock or share even remotely similar belief. you can argue that they are just protecting their religious rights and being good Christians and holding a moral ground... but to them I say... you shouldn't pick and choose your Bible versus.
Do the women in your family wear headcovering?
When was the last time you kept your hair short around your temples?
Do you wear mixed fabrics?
Had a wet dream?
these are bad sins in the Bible... but I guess it's easier to point out that gay people shouldn't marry. Many of these people are the same types who think taking Christmas Trees or Easter Bunnies out of public offices is disgusting, when if they really knew the true history of the tradition, they might not ever let them in their own houses again.
Emphasis mine. Why's that?
Regardless if you refuse to, there's nomenclature for everything nowadays you Unitarian Agnostic.
Seconded. You never know which religions are going to touch you in that very special, very legal way, and fill that inner emptiness. Even if nothing seems plausible or right and you become an aethiest, you still have found a belief system. No matter which path you take, as long as you're comfortable with it, its cool, and finding that path is half the fun.
GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
If you were to read: "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People" that book would more or less show how I feel on most subjects.
Yeah..this post really did nothing. Sorry.
So why are you Christian?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
When you see some goth kid threatening to burn a Bible or something like that, it's hard to take them seriously (much as I imagine, it's difficult to take a preacher in the streets shouting about the end of days seriously from an atheist's point of view). There's not much religious conflict larger than that around where I live, and therefore, little strife.