 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
> apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
Er, right... because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world
peace, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense that the
altruistic goal of peacful unity could be considered evil.
I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
always have something to squabble about.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
Do you want the religious answer or the political answer?
This would be a blow to future domination of the world by Christianity
unless the single world government was a Christian theocracy, which looks
unlikely right now.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world peace,
No, because that's not God's will. Obviously.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world peace,
>
> No, because that's not God's will. Obviously.
>
So... God would prefer his favored creation to be divided into factions,
fight and squabbling, with a good deal of killing eachother, than a
harmonious planet were we get along?
Oh, yeah, there was that whole tower of babel thing..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
> always have something to squabble about.
As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
a lawyer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
> > Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
> > apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
>
> Er, right... because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world
> peace, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense that the
> altruistic goal of peacful unity could be considered evil.
>
> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
> always have something to squabble about.
That's not the way those particular type of christians you were talking about
are thinking.
They do interpret John's Apocalypsis to be a prophecy, and they expect things to
happen as described there (or as they read them to be described there).
This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
government of the Messiah himself.
So whatever first world-wide government there would ever be, according to
fundamental christian's interpretation of the bible, those must be the bad guys
mentioned in John's Apocalypsis.
That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
messenger.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> a lawyer.
I'd prefer a judge...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
> persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
> Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
> government of the Messiah himself.
Then, if the end result is a world-wide government of the Messiah, why
wouldn't they welcome this, instead of fear it? Sure, things will be
tough, and an epic battle will be unpleasant, but the final result is
positive, right?
> That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
> messenger.
Never ;) No, I fully understand that. I just don't fully understand the
rampant paranoia by certain sects of the religion...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
> > persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
> > Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
> > government of the Messiah himself.
>
> Then, if the end result is a world-wide government of the Messiah, why
> wouldn't they welcome this, instead of fear it? Sure, things will be
> tough, and an epic battle will be unpleasant, but the final result is
> positive, right?
Yeah, but even while welcoming it as a necessary step, they as the good ones
must oppose ít of course ;)
(And after all, who does *really* want to live in the times of Tribulation, if
they're not *perfectly* sure they'll be strong enough to stand the suffering?)
> > That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
> > messenger.
>
> Never ;) No, I fully understand that. I just don't fully understand the
> rampant paranoia by certain sects of the religion...
You'll never will, unless you really and unconditionally open up to their Gospel
teachings. Or brainwashing lessons if you like. Abandon questioning all ye who
enter here. I know what I'm speaking about: Been there, done that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>
> You'll never will, unless you really and unconditionally open up to their Gospel
> teachings. Or brainwashing lessons if you like. Abandon questioning all ye who
> enter here. I know what I'm speaking about: Been there, done that.
>
Yeah, I've had more that the requisite experience with these types.
Quite common where I live. They have a way of identifying themselves
with a key question that sends me looking for the nearest exit or escape
route.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Then, if the end result is a world-wide government of the Messiah, why
> wouldn't they welcome this, instead of fear it?
The same reason they wear seat belts.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-7-2009 18:33, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
>> always have something to squabble about.
>
> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> a lawyer.
a midwife?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-7-2009 18:33, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
>> always have something to squabble about.
>
> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> a lawyer.
a snake?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> > a lawyer.
> a snake?
What's the difference?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
>>> apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
>> Er, right... because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world
>> peace, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense that the
>> altruistic goal of peacful unity could be considered evil.
>>
>> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
>> always have something to squabble about.
>
> That's not the way those particular type of christians you were talking about
> are thinking.
>
> They do interpret John's Apocalypsis to be a prophecy, and they expect things to
> happen as described there (or as they read them to be described there).
>
> This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
> persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
> Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
> government of the Messiah himself.
>
> So whatever first world-wide government there would ever be, according to
> fundamental christian's interpretation of the bible, those must be the bad guys
> mentioned in John's Apocalypsis.
>
> That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
> messenger.
>
>
Given how much time these same morons spend trying to turn everyone
Christian, fund the UN, and force everyone to be American like, I have
always been rather confused as to why they ***possibly*** imagine
themselves to be on God's side, instead of the Beasts. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
> --
> ~Mike
Three theological movements: Dispensationalism, Theology of Glory, and
Antinomianism. Plus idolatry of the state and confusing the United States with
the New Israel.
Some might not be threatened by worldwide humanitarian cooperation if your
Theology were one of the Cross, where the devotion of living an examined life
(including examining one's contribution to social woes) reminds one of one's
need for the saving grace of Jesus. Here, sin and death and suffering are the
primary problem, and the cross is the primary solution.
On the other hand, if you're practicing a Theology of Glory, damnation is the
primary problem, and choosing to accept Jesus is the primary solution. Sin is
reduced to a few nominal and childish vices (gay relations, drunkenness,
impatience with spouse). Evangelization becomes more about mocking those who've
picked the wrong spiritual "football team", quite different from the
witness-and-social-reform movements of 19th century evangelists. If your focus
is on getting the best seat on the bus/ fighter-jet in the End Times, as is the
focus in many popular forms of Dispensationalism, you'll skip over the old
testament lessons that show God's concern for the poor, and look instead in
these passages for ways to come out ahead-- how you can find the be the first
to find "the signs". The entire focus eventually becomes Antinomian, where any
mention of the law, especially social sins, is somewhere between ignored and
decried. In these theologies are also a confusion of the Church, the New
Israel, with the United States. It's mere idolatry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> > > a lawyer.
>
> > a snake?
>
> What's the difference?-)
The tie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
>>>> a lawyer.
>>> a snake?
>> What's the difference?-)
>
> The tie.
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20000701.html
Not as much as you'd think.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> So... God would prefer his favored creation to be divided into factions,
> fight and squabbling, with a good deal of killing eachother, than a
> harmonious planet were we get along?
Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
marked and tracked as an animal.
> Oh, yeah, there was that whole tower of babel thing..
If I remember correctly the moral behind that story was that man was
trying to reach God's throne in a vain fashion, and God was asserting
his superior wisdom. "You can't reach spiritual heights with muscle/mind
alone."
Of course, we go up into space all the time these days without
experiencing too many mishaps.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
> beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
> marked and tracked as an animal.
Although it's the most famous contemporary interpretation of that "Mark/Number
of the Beast" thing, John's Apocalypsis is not nearly that clear. A simple
uniform sign would fit the bill, too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
>> beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
>> marked and tracked as an animal.
>
> Although it's the most famous contemporary interpretation of that "Mark/Number
> of the Beast" thing, John's Apocalypsis is not nearly that clear. A simple
> uniform sign would fit the bill, too.
I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
> myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
> think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.
Implanted chips are all the rage these days. They seem to have become quite
popular for pets already, instead of ear tattoos.
A few years ago, some company seems to actually have proposed such a chip to be
implanted into the hand as a replacement for credit cards. As you can imagine,
fundamental christians got a *bit* upset about this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
>> myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
>> think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.
>
> Implanted chips are all the rage these days. They seem to have become quite
> popular for pets already, instead of ear tattoos.
>
> A few years ago, some company seems to actually have proposed such a chip to be
> implanted into the hand as a replacement for credit cards. As you can imagine,
> fundamental christians got a *bit* upset about this.
I for one would rather not have a tag implanted into my body. Sure, a
person would have to get close to scan you, but still... It's creepy and
reminds me of the Borg somehow :/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> If I remember correctly the moral behind that story was that man was
> trying to reach God's throne in a vain fashion, and God was asserting
> his superior wisdom. "You can't reach spiritual heights with muscle/mind
> alone."
... after which, God used muscle power to bring down the tower, because
otherwise they might have reached his throne.
When you actually follow through, most of the stories make no sense. "God
intervened to make them fail, because if he hadn't, they would have failed."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
They think that the governments will all agree to outlaw Christianity in
general, or their church in particular.
The fact that quite a few governments, even in recently history, have
gone after Christians simply for being Christians, certainly adds fuel
to the flames.
In any event, there are plenty of secular reasons to regard a one world
government with alarm.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> ... after which, God used muscle power to bring down the tower, because
> otherwise they might have reached his throne.
But, He also scattered their languages so they could no longer work
together and communicate.
> When you actually follow through, most of the stories make no sense.
> "God intervened to make them fail, because if he hadn't, they would have
> failed."
>
Sometimes, just reading the stories makes me wonder ... maybe God is the
evil one ... I mean, he basically sent the Jews on a wild goose chase... :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> In any event, there are plenty of secular reasons to regard a one world
> government with alarm.
Do you have some examples of this? Is this based on a fear that a single
world government would become fascist, for example? Or is it a fear that
individual cultures will be homogenized into a single conglomerate
culture with no real identity?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > In any event, there are plenty of secular reasons to regard a one world
> > government with alarm.
> Do you have some examples of this? Is this based on a fear that a single
> world government would become fascist, for example? Or is it a fear that
> individual cultures will be homogenized into a single conglomerate
> culture with no real identity?
I think the main reason is the same as why economic monopolies are bad.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
> --
> ~Mike
Speaking as one who is a non-Christian, but by no means an anti-Christian, I
have some doubts about whether or not the phrase "a single world government"
has, generally speaking, the same meaning as "nation(s) working together
cooperatively."
At a glance, it just seems to be "common sense" that the global nature of the
problems currently confronting humankind calls for an equally global system for
addressing them. If there does exist a plausible means organizing the world's
resources on a global scale for the betterment of the human race (or better
yet, all life) as a whole, we would clearly be fools not to avail ourselves of
it.
Whether or not such a thing IS plausible, however, is quite a serious question.
The "putting all your eggs in one basket" analogy may be a tad cliche, but I
believe it to be applicable. It doesn't require one of the world's greatest
scholars in the field of history to notice that when we humans centralize
authority to avail ourselves of some of the obvious practical advantages of
doing so, things can (and often do) go horribly wrong.
Sure enough,there are(sadly)plenty of folks who tend to oppose anything and
everything they associate with "globalization" simply because they don't much
care for them thar ferriners. It's a tremendous oversimplification, however, to
imply that anyone with reservations about the possible consequences of
centralizing authority over human activity on a global scale is of that limited
frame of mind.*
Hopefully, we will be clever enough to find ways to develop global systems for
social, political and economic interaction that enable and facilitate
cooperative action without falling into the trap of creating a "world overseer"
in the process. If not, perhaps the arthropods will have better luck in a few
billion years.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
* I wish to make clear that this statement addresses the discussion that tends
to take place on this topic generally. I am most definitely NOT saying that
any particular person on this forum has implied such a thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think the main reason is the same as why economic monopolies are bad.
That was always my guess.
Plus, of course, it's unstable. Imagine a single world government taken over
by a military coup. What would you think happens next?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>>
>> ... after which, God used muscle power to bring down the tower,
>> because otherwise they might have reached his throne.
>
> But, He also scattered their languages so they could no longer work
> together and communicate.
>
>> When you actually follow through, most of the stories make no sense.
>> "God intervened to make them fail, because if he hadn't, they would
>> have failed."
>>
>
> Sometimes, just reading the stories makes me wonder ... maybe God is the
> evil one ... I mean, he basically sent the Jews on a wild goose
> chase... :)
>
Yes, well, in "one" much earlier religion, Yehweh was one of three sons
of the "true" creator, a war monger, and got his toys taken away, along
with the other two sons, for all being too stupid to correctly run the
kingdoms they where given by daddy. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yes, well, in "one" much earlier religion, Yehweh was one of three sons
> of the "true" creator, a war monger, and got his toys taken away, along
> with the other two sons, for all being too stupid to correctly run the
> kingdoms they where given by daddy. lol
That's an interesting view...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yes, well, in "one" much earlier religion, Yehweh was one of three
>> sons of the "true" creator, a war monger, and got his toys taken away,
>> along with the other two sons, for all being too stupid to correctly
>> run the kingdoms they where given by daddy. lol
>
> That's an interesting view...
>
I found it, ironically, on a Jewish site, talking about the nature of
the OT god, and whether or not the NT one is the "same" as that OT one.
Their answer seemed to be "no".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not directly related but:
Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
In other words, atheists who pretend to be believers because else they
would be discriminated against in the community they live in.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
"practicing atheists"
(i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) who don't see to be
especially "discriminated
against". I have a friend who is definitely an atheist and makes no
secret of it. He claims to
be discriminated against, but I've seen no sign of it. The best concrete
evidence he has been
able to give me is that people invite him to church or try to "convert"
him. He believes in, or claims
to believe in, all sorts of "Christian" conspiracies from the White
House under Bush to the
management where he works, though he seems to have been above average in
receiving the
credit, honor, and promotion due him for his excellent work.
It quite possible that if he lived in a small less educated community,
his fears might be more realized,
but I think not -- or if he had an offensive personality.
David
Warp wrote:
> Not directly related but:
>
> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
> In other words, atheists who pretend to be believers because else they
> would be discriminated against in the community they live in.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point of
being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind. Just the
very religious parts.)
And of course many young adults who are atheist but don't want to cause a
problem with their family.
Of course, most places aren't like that, but when the evangelicals wind up
being 75% of the population, you wind up having nobody in authority who will
stand up for you, which is really the problem. I.e., when the school board,
most of the police force, all the judges, and all the teachers think atheism
is a sign of the devil, it's hard for a kid to complain they shouldn't be
praying in grade school.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
> there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point of
> being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind. Just the
> very religious parts.)
> And of course many young adults who are atheist but don't want to cause a
> problem with their family.
> Of course, most places aren't like that, but when the evangelicals wind up
> being 75% of the population, you wind up having nobody in authority who will
> stand up for you, which is really the problem. I.e., when the school board,
> most of the police force, all the judges, and all the teachers think atheism
> is a sign of the devil, it's hard for a kid to complain they shouldn't be
> praying in grade school.
And nothing is being done about this clear constitutional violation?
That kind of situation feels somehow foreign to me. Here people are more
or less by default considered atheists, and someone telling they are actually
a christian believer is more an exception than the rule. (Usually people don't
discriminate christians in any way, but they often get questioned a lot. "Why
do you believe that?" etc.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> And nothing is being done about this clear constitutional violation?
That's the problem. When everyone involved in enforcing the laws disagree
with the laws, it's hard to change things. You have to take the complaints
so high that you're outside your own little town, so you get someone
interested in making a change to the situation, and for most people it's
easier to not say anything than to fight such all the way up to the supreme
court.
Kind of like when southerners were harassing blacks. When all the cops and
judges are white former slave-owners, you get a lot of nasty stuff going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
That's the source of a lot of America's more oppressive gun laws, I
understand. The "ban on weapons" they protested was passed because blacks
were openly carrying shotguns on their motorcycles because the police were
arresting them and beating the crap out of them.
I don't think it's *quite* that bad with atheists, but it's also I think the
case that there are far more evangelical Christians willing to do persistent
low-level harassment (like graffiti on your house and beating up your kids
at school, rather than burning your house down) than there were
average-citizen people willing to try to beat up a gang of black folks on
motorcycles. :-)
I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas if they
just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of complaining about
prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on government buildings and such.
> That kind of situation feels somehow foreign to me.
Me too. It's only in certain very provincial areas. The same kinds of areas
where you hear jokes about people holding up the Bible and saying "If
English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
> discriminate christians in any way, but they often get questioned a lot. "Why
> do you believe that?" etc.)
A can understand that, if most people around you while you were growing up
are atheist.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>
> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
> there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point
> of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind.
> Just the very religious parts.)
Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by
benighted morons
who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other
reason. Why don't y'all
enlightened, rational, and wise folk who know us so well just flood us
with nerve gas and
improve the human race!
(No icon I know is applicable here.)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
>
> (No icon I know is applicable here.)
On second thought is there one, for complete disgust?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
> "practicing atheists"
> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) who don't see to be
> especially "discriminated
> against". I have a friend who is definitely an atheist and makes no
> secret of it. He claims to
> be discriminated against, but I've seen no sign of it. The best concrete
> evidence he has been
> able to give me is that people invite him to church or try to "convert"
> him. He believes in, or claims
> to believe in, all sorts of "Christian" conspiracies from the White
> House under Bush to the
> management where he works, though he seems to have been above average in
> receiving the
> credit, honor, and promotion due him for his excellent work.
>
Your friend may be somewhat correct about some of it too, but no, sounds
like he is just worried about the cases he knows about in other parts of
the US. There is a reason why the ranks have doubled in the past 5-6
years, and its not because twice as many people just "happened" to
deconvert. Its because there is a perception, often fairly correct, that
you *will* run into problems if people know. In point of fact, I would
say that maybe 2-3 people at my job may suspect, my family knows, maybe
1-2 friends, but this is a city that, the years I moved here, actually
had a book burning planned. I have no idea what effect it would have,
but given that I have seen all of two cars, out of hundreds, showing
anything not overtly Christian, and one of those was a Californian on
vacation, I don't think the result would be positive. And, this is in
Arizona. There are states in the US that, in contradiction to the US
constitution, deny atheists the run for public office. There are some
schools that have tried, and succeeded, at running the local *known*
atheist family out of town, when it was merely "suspected" that they
where not Christian, due to a refusal to pray before a ball game. There
are top level people in the government, who in candid moments, have all
but declared that they would prefer a Satanist over and atheist, because
it least the former admitted god was real, and Bush, who ordered some
things removed from things like public health sites, and replaced with
abstinence links, who created new, and imho, illegal means to support
"faith based", which means almost entirely Christian, programs, and in a
speech actually went as far as suggesting that *maybe* atheists should
lose citizenship rights. This isn't Europe. Some people here are not
merely annoyed by, or uncomfortable with, atheism, they **hate** it,
would like to see it banned, if they could, and people *have* lost jobs,
friends, etc. over the discovery that they where one.
We are the new "gay movement". Everything wrong with society is our
fault, supposedly, even when its the religious people that came up with
the ideas that screwed things up, and we are all plotting, according to
entire counties, in some cases, to erase religion, somehow. They want
us, out of sight, out of mind, unwilling to speak, and accommodating to
everyone, and there are entire books being written by various clowns in
the US about how it "hurts our cause", to actually point out that we
don't believe religion, why, and by being *willing* to express anger at
certain ideas, and actions, instead of playing nice with the liberal
Christians, in the hope they all grow back bones, and actually stop
voting for dishonest, ignorant, superstitious, or just plain stupid,
people all the time, because they claim high levels of piety.
Hell yes there are "closet" atheists in the US. Its 90% of the people in
that category, including the "accomidationists", who think, despite 200
years of evidence otherwise, that you can make progress, by quietly
sitting at the side lines, mouthing prayers you don't believe in, (like
I do every time I have to attend some family gathering with the god
botherers in my own near relatives), and not saying anything about how
silly the whole mess is, or pointing out when some idea, generated from
it, is dumb, counter productive, or actually likely to have the
*opposite* results, and you have clear facts to prove it. Most of us
will either a) not attend things that we *have to* pretend at, b)
pretend, to play nice to people we don't want to hurt, or c) pretend all
the time, because we know that there *are* people in our lives that
would ruin us, if they knew about it. Which one you are, and often even,
to what degree, and when, depends on if you recognize there *are* others
that can support you, whether those people are any where near you at all
(i.e., don't move to most of the south eastern states), and how big a
risk you think it is to admit it. Some places, its almost no risk at
all, others... there are still places you might not make it out alive,
if you also make the mistake of pissing off the local wackos while
admitting it.
Nah.. The one guy a while back that was found beat to death by rednecks
in one of those states was obviously a total coincidence, never mind the
fact that he had *recently* annoyed the local city council by admitting
being an atheist, and the last recorded case of such a beating in the
area was 50 years or more ago, to a black man... Total coincidence...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>
> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
> there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point
> of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind.
> Just the very religious parts.)
>
> And of course many young adults who are atheist but don't want to cause
> a problem with their family.
>
> Of course, most places aren't like that, but when the evangelicals wind
> up being 75% of the population, you wind up having nobody in authority
> who will stand up for you, which is really the problem. I.e., when the
> school board, most of the police force, all the judges, and all the
> teachers think atheism is a sign of the devil, it's hard for a kid to
> complain they shouldn't be praying in grade school.
>
They are not 75% of the population, well.. except in the south. The
problem is, they are 75% of the electorate. :( For some reason,
religious people will ignore "everything" about a candidate, as long as
they babble about how faithful and "family values" they are... Drives me
nuts.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas if
> they just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of
> complaining about prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on government
> buildings and such.
>
Ah, yes. Jews should do the same, and Pagans, and well.. pretty much any
and all non-Christians that have been attacked, slandered, defamed,
driven out of town, or otherwise harassed, for pointing out "exactly"
the same things. The problem is, its a damn simplistic bit of advice,
given that none of these things are being posted to show off how
Christian the locals are, its being done to promote revisionist history,
distort the playing field, so people are more likely to allow more
extreme things, and, when successful, is pointed to as an example of our
"Christian nation, which therefor means that gay marriage, real sex
education, evolution, fact based medicines, secular programs, secular
education, which doesn't have a specific religious agenda, and just
about everything else, is the 'true way things should work'". Its real
simple, if you can't conquer some place, then rewrite the history, just
rewrite the history, and be as loud as possible, in hopes that you can
win, before the ones that are not falling for it react to the problem.
You do know, BTW, that, "In God We Trust", was invented by "precisely"
the sort of ignorant twit that we currently have trying to claim that
the public education system, which is mandated in the constitution under
the rights and requirements of a state, to enter the union, i.e., not
even an amendment, but the original document, is unconstitutional?
Seems, some overly pious guy working for the mint was unaware that "E
Pluribus Unum" was **already** the national motto, so opted to make up
his own, and some other equally clueless fool went, "Ah, OK, sounds
good, lets start putting it on all the money!" Joked a while back on a
blog, "So, when is it they are going to finally replace the original EPU
motto, and replace it with, 'Yo Football!', again?", in response to some
of this wonderful revisionism they love to do. They claim to be
protecting the nation. Their real goal is to do everything possible to
reinvent it, and its history, to create a defacto state religion,
legally, without having to break the law, by declaring it directly.
If this wasn't their goal, and some of them where not stupid enough to
actually admit it to their followers, because they know those followers
want such a thing, no one would have a single problem with this sort of
things. But.. its telling that they back down 90% of the time, when its
suggested that "other" documents should stand beside the ten
commandments, or someone suggests that a comparative religion course in
a school would be OK, but not one slanted in favor of Christianity, or,
anything else that would let them do these things, without implying,
suggesting, or demanding acceptance, of the idea that Christianity *is*
the national religion for some reason other than its unfortunate popularity.
And, your right, we spent 200 years "not" challenging such things. In
that time we went from a nation with where 90% of the population
couldn't read, but the ones that did *knew* their Bibles, and most of
them where heavily invested in religion (accept for some of the ones
that read it), to one where everyone can read, but 90% of the country
doesn't bother to understand anything past what the preacher tells them,
most don't read anything challenging, even the well educated people are
dumb as bricks, too often, outside their own narrow expertise, and
people are **actually** claiming that the facts taught in Civics classes
for the last 200 years, about the founders, their ideals, the meaning of
the constitution, and its intent, and even, sometimes, like the case of
the moron in Texas claiming that public education isn't constitutional,
confusing documents, or insisting that the ones they obviously
***haven't even read***, say the complete opposite of what they do say.
We kept quiet, watched the march of progress, oohed and awed over all
the discoveries and advances made in our technology and skill at making
things, and spent a lot of time telling the few of our number that spoke
up and said, "But... look at how stupid some of these people are!", to
shut the hell up, because it would upset the magic Utopia that was just
around the corner, where everyone had equal access to all information,
and the time and means to get at it. Its not *almost* that universal.
And the result... Instead of unlimited access to things that can tell
people how the real world works, you get pure idiocy like timecube.com,
conservapedia.com, and an **endless** collecting of religious sites, all
babbling stuff that neither the founders, nor a half dead goat herder,
sitting 5 miles away, during one of their Jesus' supposed speeches,
would have believed.
We tried being nice. We are not the **worst education** people on the
planet, outside of the Middle East, and even then, some of the places
over there may be better off, our colleges can't admit 90% of the high
school graduates without remedial courses, and even the ones that pass
those, can't afford the rest, in most cases, or graduate *still*
believing things that are completely *wrong* based on the courses they
just took. You don't need to rent the movie Idiocracy, all you have to
do is go to the nearest Bible thumper neighborhood, and listen to the
gibberish they say about how everything around them works, including, in
some cases, the nearly paranormal, and insane theories about how stuff
they *buy* in stores work, or get made.
And, there are people, who have used the, "be nice, play friendly, and
kiss ass at every opportunity, even if you have to lie 90% of the time
to do it", crowd, who have gotten elected to 80% of the positions in one
political party, and too many in the other as well, especially in
*local* areas, who actually believe that the solution to every problem
in the US is to get rid of more of the fact based 'atheist' education,
programs and laws (everything that isn't theologically driven is atheist
to them), and replace them with stuff that even liberal Christians know
is total bullshit (but, of course, according to these same people, such
Christians are not *real* Christians, so their opinion doesn't count,
except when they need to kiss ass, to get reelected).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>
>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible
>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to
>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many
>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
>
> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by
> benighted morons
> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other
> reason. Why don't y'all
> enlightened, rational, and wise folk who know us so well just flood us
> with nerve gas and
> improve the human race!
>
Much simpler. You can just succeed again. I understand someone in Texas
actually suggested this recently, but.. They seem to recently be
importing some of their real kooks from Nebraska, or some place. Latest
one is a global warming denier, who basis this on a 500 year old map,
showing Antarctica as the size of Africa, or bigger, complete with
rivers and lakes. Those of us getting a good laugh at it wondered if he
also found proof of "dragons" or "sea monsters" when examining it. lol
But, no. There are small pockets of sane in those states. And, sadly,
most of the people in them seem to be in general denial of how screwed
up and backward the rest of the state *actually* is, based on
descriptions from people that lived/live in them and don't share the
local predilection for shear crazy.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a719598$1@news.povray.org...
> Sometimes, just reading the stories makes me wonder ... maybe God is the
> evil one ... I mean, he basically sent the Jews on a wild goose chase...
> :)
If you are in for a bit of SF, you should read Philip Pullman's "His Dark
Materials" trilogy (Northern Lights; the Subtle Knife; The Amber Spyglass).
Very entertaining and proposing an interesting view on the nature of God.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
> "practicing atheists"
> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing)
I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God
exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not
referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Very entertaining and proposing an interesting view on the nature of God.
I found these to be tedious and silly, myself. It wasn't an interesting view
on the nature of God, IMO. There was still all the unexplained supernatural
nonsense with a token toss of "science" into the mix.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas if
>> they just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of
>> complaining about prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on government
>> buildings and such.
>>
> Ah, yes. Jews should do the same, and Pagans, and well..
I didn't say they *should*. I said they *can*. I.e., in contrast with being
black 100 years ago, where you couldn't avoid the racism by faking it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
