All Theocracies

[Atheistbro]

This is utterly undebatable. EVERY THEOCRACY that has ever existed ever has blatantly committed terrible acts of violence, and crimes against humanity. Crusades, witch hunts, inquisition, and most notably the modern theocracies like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and most other countries in the middle east. Post on this tread if you agree or haven't heard the overwhelming evidence that supports this fact.

[LedZap]

That may be true , but humans will do those things anyway , regardless of the presence of religion. And that is undebatable as well.

[Phoenix]

This is utterly undebatable. EVERY THEOCRACY that has ever existed ever has blatantly committed terrible acts of violence, and crimes against humanity. Crusades, witch hunts, inquisition, and most notably the modern theocracies like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and most other countries in the middle east. Post on this tread if you agree or haven't heard the overwhelming evidence that supports this fact.
Thank non-exist man in the sky. Another freethinker.

[LedZap]

Hey ! I'm a free thinker.

[Phoenix]

Hey ! I'm a free thinker.
Yes, but we need as many as we can get.

[Prometheus]

Hey ! I'm a free thinker.

Bawhahahahahahahaha............ AAAAAhahahahahahahahahahaha....................... ..................... good one zap....... and i'm a conservative !

[LedZap]

Bawhahahahahahahaha............ AAAAAhahahahahahahahahahaha....................... ..................... good one zap....... and i'm a conservative !

Kewl.....but deflection will get you nowhere.

[Montanarchist]

Religion in and of itself is not bad, it's the cultist elements of obediance, worship and the belief in a higher prupose that comes with most forms of organized religion that is undesirable, but those things exist within the state apparatus by default, to a greater or lesser extent.

Since I know the unavoidable comment regarding the Atheism/Communism connection will be posted, I recommend reading Karl Marx as a Religious Eschathologist (http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE4_1_5.pdf) by Murry Rothbard. It puts communism and it's history in a different perspective.

[Limbo]

and most notably the modern theocracies like North Korea

Is there any shame remaining on the left? Even one little scrap of integrity? Just say black is white enough times and hope you suck some people in seems to be the new norm for lefties.



Since I know the unavoidable comment regarding the Atheism/Communism connection will be posted, I recommend reading Karl Marx as a Religious Eschathologist (http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE4_1_5.pdf) by Murry Rothbard. It puts communism and it's history in a different perspective.

This is an interesting read actually. Although there are some superficial parallels between various religious belief systems and communism, there are also profound differences. A communal form of existence is promoted in Christianity as can be seen here:


Acts 2

44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46

This is completely different than modern communism as espoused by Marx and his ilk.

[Phoenix]

This is an interesting read actually. Although there are some superficial parallels between various religious belief systems and communism, there are also profound differences. A communal form of existence is promoted in Christianity as can be seen here:



This is completely different than modern communism as espoused by Marx and his ilk.
Not really. It's different than Stalin and possibly even Lenin, but I'm fairly sure that's what Marx intended.

[yee-haw]

Not really. It's different than Stalin and possibly even Lenin, but I'm fairly sure that's what Marx intended.

I am the walrus?

[Montanarchist]

Is there any shame remaining on the left? Even one little scrap of integrity? Just say black is white enough times and hope you suck some people in seems to be the new norm for lefties.North Korea worships Kim Il Sung as the eternal president. I think you could call it a theocracy. A stretch perhaps, but not too much.

This is an interesting read actually. Although there are some superficial parallels between various religious belief systems and communism, there are also profound differencesIt is the superficial parallels that are interesting in this case.
A communal form of existence is promoted in Christianity as can be seen here:



This is completely different than modern communism as espoused by Marx and his ilk.I actually agree with phoenix, that is pretty much exactly what Marx saw as the final goal for society.

[Limbo]

It is the superficial parallels that are interesting in this case.I actually agree with phoenix, that is pretty much exactly what Marx saw as the final goal for society.

But in the Christian form of communal living, you voluntarily help your neighbors when they are in need. This is very much alive and well in the United States to this day.

In the Marxist model, the government forcibly takes your possessions away and gives them to others as it sees fit AND it discourages any form of freedom and the free market which it sees as evil. Completely and utterly different.

[Montanarchist]

But in the Christian form of communal living, you voluntarily help your neighbors when they are in need. This is very much alive and well in the United States to this day.

In the Marxist model, the government forcibly takes your possessions away and gives them to others as it sees fit AND it discourages any form of freedom and the free market which it sees as evil. Completely and utterly different.That is the transitional state, the "dictactorship of the proletariat". Marx thought that it would make people more solidaric in the long run.

Obvious thinking-fail, but above all he was a communist.

[Limbo]

Obvious thinking-fail

Obvious yes. But I'm still not going to give atheist bro any slack about the absurd claim that North Korea is a theocracy. From Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: the·oc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·oc·ra·cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1622

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

It has nothing to do with leader worship. A theocracy is a government where the leader or leaders claim to be recieving direction directly from God. There is no wiggle room on this.

[hitekredneck]

here's one for ya, limbo....before communism, the chinese considered their emperors to be divine...does this classify as a theocracy?

[freakazoid]

here's one for ya, limbo....before communism, the chinese considered their emperors to be divine...does this classify as a theocracy?

Nah, I'd call it a stupicracy (stupidity of the people).

[Limbo]

here's one for ya, limbo....before communism, the chinese considered their emperors to be divine...does this classify as a theocracy?

I suppose if any emperor claimed to be getting direct guidance from God and or gods in his role as leader, or to be God's/the gods' chosen representative here on earth, then yeah, that would classify as a theocracy.

[Rec]

A theocracy is a secular term, and a contradiction to the message of Christianiy. No where are we instructed to set up a kingdom on earth, as in a physical one. We are to interject the wholeness of the message of the kingdom in our everyday living, while, as long as it is not worship, to support the governing authorities.

[Phoenix]

How things work in practice and how things work in theory are two different things. Sure, the parts of the bible that aren't busy having god command genocide, endorsing slavery, being sexist, etc. may have some really good tenants in them. And parts of the Bible do have good tenants in them.

But the Catholic church didn't give a shit. Burn those heretics!

[Rec]

The ideals of the Marxist and communist manifestos in theory were not in practice suppose to lead to censureship, mass murder, ethinic cleansing either, they may have had some really good tenants in them and perhaps the ultimate ideals were not all meant to be perveted..


But the Nazi and Communist governments didn't give a shit,,,,,murder all that did not submit!

[Phoenix]

The ideals of the Marxist and communist manifestos in theory were not in practice suppose to lead to censureship, mass murder, ethinic cleansing either, they may have had some really good tenants in them and perhaps the ultimate ideals were not all meant to be perveted..


But the Nazi and Communist governments didn't give a shit,,,,,murder all that did not submit!

Exactly. That's the problem when some fucking wackos decide to take up an idea and kill anything that stands in their ways. That isn't the way it's supposed to work.

[Rec]

I know Phoenix, it is called human nature,,,,,,sentient beings that are capable of such great things both good and evil. Notice that is a recurring pattern since the beginning?? hmmmmmmmmmm

[Limbo]

Sthe parts of the bible that aren't busy having god command genocide, endorsing slavery, being sexist, etc.


God never endorsed slavery as we know it. Slavery in bible times was not similar at all to the kind of slavery that took place in the United States. Slavery was more like an employee-emplorer relationship where people worked off their debt. I have pointed this out before and you have not challenged my assertion, yet you continue to make the claim. Show me where I'm wrong or I'll just assume you are purposely trying to be misleading.

God being sexist... good one. Care to back that up?

Now for commanding genocide, you must be referring to Canaanites. Surely when God takes such drastic steps of judgment his justification is to save mankind itself. God's (assuming him to be the creator of the universe and of mankind) judgment is obviously far superior to that of any man, and God may be choosing the lesser of the evils so that mankind can survive and so that evil can be surpressed. As an example, dropping the bomb in Japan, whiile horrible, saved many thousands if not millions of lives. Sometimes hard choices have to be made to save lives or stamp out evil.

Your comparison to Marxism having " a few flaws" is crap... sorry.

[Rec]

Slavery was a part of the pagan systems of all the early civilizations, the Greeks and the Romans held the idea of the aristocratic and emperor systems, that held that a slave was a necessary part of the kingdoms. They were considered a no person,,,,,in fact one of "no face". Human life other than the ruling class held no sanctity of the slave class. Often using them in their comedies of life situations, where a person needed to killed in the action. A slave with no rights as a human was used. The first notice of a change in the perspective of the human person is personified in the New Testament in the story of Peter. Who betrayed Christ three times before the morning of his crucifiction. Peter, the humble, no class peasant, a fisherman, is moved to grief and tears over his dismissal of the knowledge of the Christ. The recordings of his great agony of sorrow puts a real face on the lowest substrata of that time,,,,a lowly fisherman, with all the hurt, sorrow and tears of the human condition, a true human being..not of the Priestly or ruling class. In Peter we see the elevation of the human dignity of the human race. The forgiveness and the fire of zeal that enables a lowly figure to become one to the most fiery orators of the early church.
Then Paul entreating a christian who was the owner of a runaway slave, to take him back into the household with treatment as one of a brother. Just two of the decisive and revoluntionary changes in the Christian message as so opposed to the lowly and slave classes of the pagan world.

It is very easy to pass judgement on a ancient text with a literally reading of the text. It is not a proper reading, it is a narrative with the styles of poetry, methaphor, analogy. As well as literal meanings. If you can debate the idea of a God, then you are required to define your definition with your supporting propositions. And why not throw this argument back to you of the modern worldview, what makes your interpretation of said texts the right ones, is it not relative to your understanding, your attitude when reading it, your expectations of what you read, or rather your reading withe a preconcieved set of notions that will justify your determination of the correctness of your take on things? Are you sure, so very sure that you completely understand just what the multile layered structures of spirtual considerations are to be gleaned from your perusal of said texts? And lastly, is it your contention that you, accepting the concept of existing God, in your mind, as evidenced by your questioning his motives, that you can in any way ascertain to the level of all-knowing His possible answers fully??? I think not, as that would be trying to reason from a finite mind to an infinite one and actually understand it.

I find it quite amusing that and it is true for some, a fundamentalist, religious, is accused of taking the Bible literally, which some do, and then painting all Christians with the same brush, which is untrue. Thereby causing all amounts of wrong in the world and yet a non-christian uses the same literally reading to attempt to destroy it. lol

[Limbo]

My problem is with Phoenix's use of the word slavery in a way where he intends the reader to assume slavery as in people captured against their will, and forced to work for others with little or no pay or reward. This is the characteristic of slavery as it was practiced in the United States and Europe, but it was not always the case in the ANE (ancient near east) as described in the bible.

For example, Haniel describes slavery in the O.T. times this way:


"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant."

This was the equivalent of agreeing to work for someone for wages (to pay off your debt and be set "free" if you will, to be redeemed)

The quote is from, "A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003, page 665".

[Rec]

And too in the pagan cultures, in the conquest of war, the population was assumed into the kingdom as a slave class. In pagan antiquity, yes there was a voluntary service, earning freedom, but of the lowest class of society there was the common man then the slave class which was considered non-human. The principle behind it was the cultural system of the elite ruling class, the priestly class, used by the elite rulers for the partial control of the common masses. What made the whole idea of Christianity such a revolutionary astounding idea, is that the lowest class, the common man was the part of humanity that was reached first with the message of Christ. This was part of the infuriation from the Priestly class that such a commoner would refute their positions through the lower class that they, in all reality controlled by the excessive burden of the law. Which noone could actually keep with any faithfulness and completeness!

[Limbo]

And too in the pagan cultures, in the conquest of war, the population was assumed into the kingdom as a slave class. In pagan antiquity, yes there was a voluntary service, earning freedom, but of the lowest class of society there was the common man then the slave class which was considered non-human. The principle behind it was the cultural system of the elite ruling class, the priestly class, used by the elite rulers for the partial control of the common masses. What made the whole idea of Christianity such a revolutionary astounding idea, is that the lowest class, the common man was the part of humanity that was reached first with the message of Christ. This was part of the infuriation from the Priestly class that such a commoner would refute their positions through the lower class that they, in all reality controlled by the excessive burden of the law. Which noone could actually keep with any faithfulness and completeness!

yes, that is all true. Phoenix makes the mistake of assuming a superficial reading/understanding using modern day cultural norms as the frame of reference to be all that is necessary to understand the issues involved.

A lot of the constant focus on issues related to the O.T. takes away from Jesus' teachings which critics rarely attack directly.

Here is a tiny sample from the sermon on the mount:


3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[Rec]

To have and to hold a complete understanding of Christianity, it is for a newbie to read the New Testament first, then tackle the Old Testament as the foundational premise for the promise of the completion of creation, redemption of the human race. The whole set of readings from the first to the last can be seen then as the fruition of the relations of God with humankind. The whole gist of the complete work is in the person of Christ solely, that is Christianity, not a system of laws, nor a book, it is a person. To see Christ is to see God in the flesh with the divinity cloaked or set aside in a manner of speaking.

To the questions of who is God and what is God, it is all answered in the person of Jesus Christ, and to see that as a human, it is possible once and for all for the door to the Kingdom of Heaven to remain open until the end of the ages, or when the restitution of all things are as the original, perfect work of God. We can see the finished product for the human side and God's side in Jesus Christ. God is not an abstract set of propositions, he is incarnate in the Christ. He is both the physical and the spiritual. He stands as the bridge between both worlds. The visible and invisible. A foretaste as it is written, or a glimpse of the perfect state of the human species at its finest. It is the most revoluntionary idea in the history of mankind. It contains the most revoluntionary ideas of any manmade system that has ever been or ever will be. It is complete, in the past, in the now and in the future. God has become part of the human history and one of us, just for our sakes, and out of His great love. He sees us here in the mess that we choose to make by our stubborn will to power in all things, over all things and through all things,,,believeing that we have the power, the wisdom and knowledge to make it all better, bring the utopia all ourselves, yet we look back over the history of mankind, even to the great age of today, and it is still the same, only with more sophisticated ways to will to power, to harm and hurt. And then we wonder why, nothing works, it is all bound up in the Christ, and so shall it ever be, no matter how hard we kick at the goads that bind, until we accept what is so freely given. Believe it or not, it is.

[Carrot]

Now for commanding genocide, you must be referring to Canaanites. Surely when God takes such drastic steps of judgment his justification is to save mankind itself. God's (assuming him to be the creator of the universe and of mankind) judgment is obviously far superior to that of any man, and God may be choosing the lesser of the evils so that mankind can survive and so that evil can be surpressed. As an example, dropping the bomb in Japan, whiile horrible, saved many thousands if not millions of lives. Sometimes hard choices have to be made to save lives or stamp out evil.

"Pfff, just kill them all".

[Rec]

Interesting note here, in all the recorded history that mankind has written, along with the ancient Text of Christianity, it was a human that first murdered a human. The introduction of killing was instigated and carried out by one human upon another. And is still going on right now!

[yee-haw]

Interesting note here, in all the recorded history that mankind has written, along with the ancient Text of Christianity, it was a human that first murdered a human. The introduction of killing was instigated and carried out by one human upon another. And is still going on right now!

Seems to be in our nature as humans to murder, I'm sure we have all had those moments where we just want to strangle the snot out of someone..
Cultured people don't act upon these impulses and a good thing, It would be like the old west all over again.

[Baron Somebody]

Seems to be in our nature as humans to murder, I'm sure we have all had those moments where we just want to strangle the snot out of someone..
Cultured people don't act upon these impulses and a good thing, It would be like the old west all over again.

I for one would have personally thrived in the Old West...

[Carrot]

I for one would have personally thrived in the Old West...

EVERYONE thinks that though.

[Phoenix]

God never endorsed slavery as we know it. Slavery in bible times was not similar at all to the kind of slavery that took place in the United States. Slavery was more like an employee-emplorer relationship where people worked off their debt. I have pointed this out before and you have not challenged my assertion, yet you continue to make the claim. Show me where I'm wrong or I'll just assume you are purposely trying to be misleading.
When you buy the rights to command another person (the length of time does not matter) without the permission of that person to do so, I consider it slavery.
Oh, and there's always Exodus 21:20.
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Which clearly demonstrates that not only are these "slaves" property, but it's perfectly okay to beat the shit out of them, as long as they can stand in a day or two.

Also, there is at least one exception to the rule that clearly shows that you are supposed to take slaves after victory in war.
Deuteronomy 20:11-14
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Or if they're pagans
Leviticus 25:44-46:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen , the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Also, view of slavery in your oh so precious New Testament
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)


God being sexist... good one. Care to back that up?
How about this.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Or this.
Colossians 3:18
18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Or this.
1 Timothy 2:9-15
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Or my favourite example, Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Take your pick. I've got more.


Now for commanding genocide, you must be referring to Canaanites. Surely when God takes such drastic steps of judgment his justification is to save mankind itself. God's (assuming him to be the creator of the universe and of mankind) judgment is obviously far superior to that of any man, and God may be choosing the lesser of the evils so that mankind can survive and so that evil can be surpressed. As an example, dropping the bomb in Japan, whiile horrible, saved many thousands if not millions of lives. Sometimes hard choices have to be made to save lives or stamp out evil.
Well then fuck the Canaanites. What about when God killed all of the [B]firstborn, a group of people who could not have committed any crime, of Egypt.
What about when God just assumed that Noah was the only holy man left and flooded the earth? I'd say a few million people died that day, though at least he learned from that one.

[Rec]

How many Christians right now, do you know that actually live by those passages???? Only a fringe element,,,,,that was the culture then, the teachings of Christ are for all times. The Old Testament is null and void as far as the keeping of every jot and title there. The New Testament is the new covenant taught by Christ. And the Christian in this age believes that God gave us all a intellect and reasoning power to know the differences in keeping a cultural habit as opposed to keeping a lifestyle based on the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings. If you are not a Christian, you would not have the judgement that it takes to separate a culture of then and one now, and the basics that relate to both of them.

[Rec]

Now explain to me how you would reconcile your held beliefs about Communism as opposed to the actuality of how it was implemented by Satlin? One that you hold no like for? You keep telling us that we do not understand Communism as you see it, perhaps that is also because we are not Communist?????

Understand the point I am trying to make???? with all due respect!;)

[Phoenix]

How many Christians right now, do you know that actually live by those passages???? Only a fringe element,,,,,that was the culture then, the teachings of Christ are for all times.
I'm not arguing that modern-day Christians live by this shit. I'm simply reiterating that while there are reasonable Christians, there is no reasonable Christianity. Just as the are reasonable Muslims but no reasonable Islam. The religions' holy books are reflections of their times, not divine teachings. That's the problem.

The Old Testament is null and void as far as the keeping of every jot and title there. The New Testament is the new covenant taught by Christ.
From your Bible, Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

But, I digress, the Bible contradicts itself on this point.
Ephesians 2:13-15
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

It depends on which side of the bible you want to read.


And the Christian in this age believes that God gave us all a intellect and reasoning power to know the differences in keeping a cultural habit as opposed to keeping a lifestyle based on the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings. If you are not a Christian, you would not have the judgement that it takes to separate a culture of then and one now, and the basics that relate to both of them.
I know how to separate the culture of now and then, but these are "God's Law," and according to your Messiah, they were never revoked.
Again. I don't argue that mainstream Christianity today follows that vile book to the letter, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible puts forth that these are the words of God. The same god who in Malachi 3:6 said "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."

The followers have changed, yes, but the foundation is still rotten.



Now explain to me how you would reconcile your held beliefs about Communism as opposed to the actuality of how it was implemented by Satlin? One that you hold no like for? You keep telling us that we do not understand Communism as you see it, perhaps that is also because we are not Communist?????

Understand the point I am trying to make???? with all due respect!;)
There are many different Communist trails of thought. One of them stems even from your bible. The point is that Communism is a trail of thought that predates even Marx. Really, the only thing that qualifies an ideology as Communistic is that it place the needs of the society above the needs of the individual. Past that, it's just adding on to it. E.g., all Marxists are Communists, but all Communists are not Marxists. Same works with Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, Maoism, whateverthefuckism. We Communists pick and choose our doctrines, just as Christians pick and choose their morality from the Bible. There simply isn't one unified source that you pick and choose from as a Communist.

Granted that there are also many Christianities. Some of which some Christians don't consider Christian. For example, I know some people who don't consider the Roman Catholic Church to be Christian. The same goes for Communism as well, Trotskyists refuse to accept Stalinism as Communistic.

Simply put, I attack the foundation of Christianity, not its followers; there is no unified foundation for Communism.

Of course, there really isn't one unified foundation for Christianity, some add the apocrypha to the Bible.


To be fair, I don't have a problem with people who want to follow the Bible. I simply have a problem when decisions that affect every-day life are made wholly (or almost wholly) from the Bible without actually considering the position. E.g., the only ones who could possibly get hurt by having gay sex is those who volunteered to be involved, therefore it should be no business of the state.

Really, what I have a problem with is victimless crime, as well as religious dominance in government (e.g. stoned for converting away from Islam). If all religions kept to their selves, I wouldn't have a problem. These aren't the reasons that you should convert away from Christianity per se, rather the reasons that I'm not a Christian.

[Rec]

We all, most sane and reasonable people have a real problem with victimless crimes or no, with the idea of crime itself. No system on this earth can solve that problem, all avenues have been tried and failed.
In fact the very idea that crimes exists is contrary to what we all KNOW should be. And there again, is one of the important questions that we all think about and reflect on.

Now we all agree that the human being is the cause of the harm to other human beings, in all shape, sizes, forms imaginable and some that go beyond that point. And try as we may, we never can get it straight enough to do away with the problem. That being granted, then the next logical question becomes, why are humans structured this way? As for me, looking at all the systems of this world, from the human point of view I find none that can answer the why, other than Christianity,,,,nor can I find any one of them that offers a central hope that it can ever change...yet Christianity does. It also offers a way of life that can be very personally rewarding, and that the effects can affect others around me in my sphere and community. Does it often get all mangled and perverted? yes it does, but it also offers the way to keep than from happening and a way to strive in a progressive goal of becoming better and better,,,,, and easier. And most importantly of all, the decision was my choice, neither by force or coercion. I am content, I do not have to defend it, yet I find myself doing so, because of the depth, length, width of my understanding touching all things just continues to get better and better. Will I understand all things now? No, I am not built for it now, I and others have a flaw, a limitation that cannot be overcome quite yet. But the promise of that to come, at the end. You see Phoenix, my life has a goal and a purpose that is so broad and so wide that it can encompass anything that comes my way, good, bad, ugly and still stays the same.....that is a certainty that lies within me, my individuality, my personality that shall remain the same no matter what. So that makes it important for me to study, learn, and decide the path to take and once it is decided, it is decided, once and for all. Not many things in this life can stay the same that way at rock bottom.


You called the Bible a vile text, yet you made the point that people pick and choose their morality from it, that is not the mandate of the Text itself,,,,,it ask us all to make a choice, freely in every act that we do, to do the best we can with our puny judgements,,,,,,and that if we truly understand that our actions are not to harm,, hurt another then we should do it with all post haste, and if not, cease. Now the actions and judgements carried out from those precepts, fall completely on the agent making the choice,,,,,not the Text itself. Christ is the only example with His life and teachings period. That is why we are called Christ, ians.


And that same vile Text as you put it, also says that you, me and all others have the freedom to choose any lifestyle we want, but with that freedom comes the responsibilty of the repucussions and consequences of that choice in the effects around us and the affectatations on the people around us also. The Old Testament said "Thou shalt not murder" (the correct word) and Christ comes along and says, you all know that you should not kill, but I tell you that when you hate another human being, you are in a sense killing all that person is......and that is the best way, I can note the difference between the two. And still, it is a freedom of choice to do or not to do!!!

[Phoenix]

The problem is that in almost every version I've heard it, that "choice" of whether or not to worship the god of the bible is very much coercion. Worship me or burn eternally doesn't sound like much of a choice.

Of course, there's always the Xecenist interpretation of the whole matter, and that is that the passages describing genocide, slavery, sexism, etc. were put there by the scribes to justify their own ends, and not the word of the deity.

[Rec]

I have never accepted from my studies in the Hebrew and Greek languages the idea of a hellfire as a literal interpretation. As the flame or fire is used as a analogy of retribution of judgement. The judgement itself, the carrying out of the retribution is never clear other than the willful separation from God by ones own choice in the matter. Just as the symbol of light is used for knowledge, purity regarding the things of the Kingdom.

And my Christian walk does not depend on what others do or do not do, but what I honestly get from that Book, especially in the New Testament, the Books of Wisdom and the Psalms and looking at the Old Testament through the teachings of Jesus Christ. I hold no creed other than the ones pertaining to Christ. No man on this earth is my master, or leader other than in a discourse upon the living out the life, period.

[Phoenix]

I have never accepted from my studies in the Hebrew and Greek languages the idea of a hellfire as a literal interpretation. As the flame or fire is used as a analogy of retribution of judgement. The judgement itself, the carrying out of the retribution is never clear other than the willful separation from God by ones own choice in the matter. Just as the symbol of light is used for knowledge, purity regarding the things of the Kingdom.

And my Christian walk does not depend on what others do or do not do, but what I honestly get from that Book, especially in the New Testament, the Books of Wisdom and the Psalms and looking at the Old Testament through the teachings of Jesus Christ. I hold no creed other than the ones pertaining to Christ. No man on this earth is my master, or leader other than in a discourse upon the living out the life, period.
Good to see you're not just another one of those.

[Rec]

Oh but I am, in a way, still named Christian, but as an individual as God has made me, as you and all others, special, unique one of a kind, the place of our being can never be filled by another,,,,,it just waits for our own discovery of our place in the scheme of things rewarding us with the contentment of knowing who we are, why we are, and what we should be working to be,,,,,,one of a kind, in a community of the same,,,,,a true unity in diversity, as is all things, at the bottom! Just my opinion!

[Limbo]

When you buy the rights to command another person (the length of time does not matter) without the permission of that person to do so, I consider it slavery.
Oh, and there's always Exodus 21:20.
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Which clearly demonstrates that not only are these "slaves" property, but it's perfectly okay to beat the shit out of them, as long as they can stand in a day or two.

The usual Phoenix exaggeration when you are trying to make a point. This was revolutionary for its time. If you injure a slave, you will be punished, up to including the death penalty if the injuries you inflict cause the slave to die.

Slavery is an ambiguous, umbrella term that covers many different types of arrangements in the ancient world, some voluntary some not. The rules brought in in the O.T. were a huge step in the right direction and about as far as you could go in one step without completely breaking down the fabric of the society at the time. The fact that this isn't good enough to please a Marxist teenager 3000+ years later is unfortunate I suppose, but neither here nor there in the overall scheme of things.



Also, there is at least one exception to the rule that clearly shows that you are supposed to take slaves after victory in war.
Deuteronomy 20:11-14
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Or if they're pagans
Leviticus 25:44-46:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen , the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Also, view of slavery in your oh so precious New Testament
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)


How about this.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Or this.
Colossians 3:18
18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Or this.
1 Timothy 2:9-15
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Or my favourite example, Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Take your pick. I've got more.


Well then fuck the Canaanites. What about when God killed all of the [B]firstborn, a group of people who could not have committed any crime, of Egypt.
What about when God just assumed that Noah was the only holy man left and flooded the earth? I'd say a few million people died that day, though at least he learned from that one.

Honestly Phoenix, this is just a grab bag of nonsense. You can apply your politically correct modern day morals when judging a culture thousands of years old all day long, but it won't get you very far. You can misrepresent what things really meant all day long, but again that won't get you any closer to the truth.

I can see you are stabbing around in the dark trying to prove your point, but again you have side-stepped the teachings of Christ and only shown that the ancient world wasn't very politically correct. Big deal.

I'll deal with the rest of this nonsense later when I have time.

[Limbo]

Or my favourite example, Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Take your pick. I've got more.


OK, I will just take one of your points and show it is exaggerated and bogus. I could have done it with any of them, but this one you said is your favorite.

I assume you are trying to insinuate that the bible is condoning rape. I can guarantee that you no Rabbi or Jewish religious scholar would say this passage has to do with rape where a man violently forces himself on a woman against her will. This passage refers to a man coercing a woman into having sex (through lies,enticement, deception, etc - you know, the kind of stuff that goes on at nightclubs every day).

The Hebrew word for rape is actually very clear and unequivocal, and is NOT used in this passage.

Here are other translations of these two verses:




If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

[Rec]

Discourse on the meanings of the Holy Text must be posited on a study of and understanding of the culture in which it was written, the translation of one language to another with the inflections it contains for meaning, the reading of the whole account,whether it be by chapter or the whole book. The situational context in which the subject or subjects are posited in with the mulitlayered purposes and meanings written in parables, metaphor, poetry etc. Very few people will take a reading as a complete study of the material before them, to do so will aways be a superficial and incomplete one. To really desire to understand and comprehend what is presented before us is a prerequiste for true understanding. And, as much as possible to open the mind, which will hold preconcieved notions that will color the results unfairly and purposefully. Any avenue of knowledge for understanding is a deeper study, rather than a shallow reading held before one for sceptisim or solipsism or solely for the purpose of prejudging what a shallow reading is not intellectually privy to do.

Perceptions garned from the senses are not allowed to be extended into the conceptually world of the intellect to reach a medium of any understanding with any depth in the comprehension of the material present before one. And in the discourses resulting from such actions are clearly discerned in the approaches and the faulty determinations garned from them.

[Phoenix]

OK, I will just take one of your points and show it is exaggerated and bogus. I could have done it with any of them, but this one you said is your favorite.

I assume you are trying to insinuate that the bible is condoning rape. I can guarantee that you no Rabbi or Jewish religious scholar would say this passage has to do with rape where a man violently forces himself on a woman against her will. This passage refers to a man coercing a woman into having sex (through lies,enticement, deception, etc - you know, the kind of stuff that goes on at nightclubs every day).

The Hebrew word for rape is actually very clear and unequivocal, and is NOT used in this passage.

Here are other translations of these two verses:
Rape is irrelevant. The point is that the woman should decide who she will and will not marry, not her drunken boyfriend.

And the point isn't that this is an ancient culture. For the umpteenth time
I GET THAT

The point is that these are the laws as presented by the God of the bible. Whether they're fabrications or not is beside the point. The creature described as God in the old testament is a LUNATIC at face value. Now you can cut out whatever you want, but I'm arguing against the God of the Old Testament (who is ultimately the God of the New Testament) who does not change, at face value, and verbatim. He's an asshole, simply put, when looked at in that manner.

[Limbo]

Rape is irrelevant. The point is that the woman should decide who she will and will not marry, not her drunken boyfriend.

Well, of course it is better to chose who you marry. We have many freedoms now that we take for granted that were only seeing their birth pains 3 or 4 thousand years ago. It took some time to turn the savage cave man into modern man. If the Canaanites and others like them had been allowed to prevail, perhaps we would still be backward savages practicing child sacrifice, incest, bestiality, etc., as they did.

In regards to the ancient cultures of the ANE, I can't stress enough how different their lives were to ours. Life expectancy was probably around 22 or 23 years at best, infant mortality was such that perhaps half of children lived past the age of three. People married pretty well right after puberty in many cultures.

In any case, the point of this "rape" law is obvious though. If you sweet talked some babe into the sack, there was a really good chance you would knock her up (no birth control obviously). In that culture women were completely dependent on men to provide for them and their children, so the money was for the woman as was the duty of the man to support the woman through marriage.



And the point isn't that this is an ancient culture. For the umpteenth time
I GET THAT



You don't "GET IT" apparently because your posts show no understanding of it.

[Phoenix]

The point still isn't that their culture sucked. That was the culture back then, I'm not arguing that God is evil because their culture sucked, I'm arguing that God is evil because he was the architect of that culture, or at least according to the bible.

Or we could cut the shit and just say that the Bible is fabricated, being a reflection of their culture, and that the fact that the perception of God changes as society changes is pretty damn good evidence that the god of the Bible is a fabrication.

[Rec]

Nowhere does the Bible say that God was the architect of the culture, that is a manmade designator, of modern thought. God originated the family unit as the beginning of society, then came the patriarchs, the tribes, the amalgamation of tribes existing together, then rulers, both despotic and benevolent, then civil units, ,,,,,,,ALL with the mandate of rule of law, whether of one or the many....the governments that came later are the product of people having a say in the rule of law, by a constitution of sorts. Even beginning in the families there was the head of the family in decision making. The adverse and perversion of the rule of law in mans hands alone is what the strife and warring came from, justified by whatever reasons used for that purpose. To say that God is evil because of the moral law passed down through the Bible is false, that is the only thing that keeps man from the animal......the ability of the intellect over the senses to be creative. That entails the freedom of choice, which by necessity entails choice, which is the fuel for the products of evil or good. Evil is not stopped by law and precepts alone, human's history confirms that,,,,,,,,it is by the laws that we know what is moral or no according to the rules of society. The moral law is part and parcel of the human nature. It is not rigid, by the gift of free choice, but allows the existent of the opposite of good, which is the evacuation of the good with the rebellion against law and order that produces chaos.

The notion of a choice allows the law to work for good or bad,,,,for order or disorder. Morality cannot be legistlated ever, it has to operateon the notion of free will.

Blame God and the Bible if you wish, if you are not capable of honestly looking in the mirror and the world around you and seeing that this is a lawful reality, even in Physics, and the sciences. Without law and the origin of the idea of law, there would be no order with the capacities instilled as a gift within the human predictament.

[Limbo]

The point still isn't that their culture sucked. That was the culture back then, I'm not arguing that God is evil because their culture sucked, I'm arguing that God is evil because he was the architect of that culture, or at least according to the bible.

Or we could cut the shit and just say that the Bible is fabricated, being a reflection of their culture, and that the fact that the perception of God changes as society changes is pretty damn good evidence that the god of the Bible is a fabrication.

Say what you want, but the Jewish culture led mankind out of the caves and started the march toward the civility we take for granted today and blazed the trail in science and technological advancement. God worked with what he had, pointing them in the right direction, protecting them from extinction, and ultimately perfecting the message when Jesus came (at just the right time to have the most profound effect). Just like a long journey starts with a first step, mankind could not be changed overnight, but God shepherded his people slowly but surely.

The dissatisfaction of 21st century Marxist teenagers aside, I think things worked out great, and we are reaping the benefits of the groundwork laid by the wise, God-inspired Jewish religious leaders and prophets from the ancient world.

[Phoenix]

Yeah. The Hebrew culture brought us into modern day morality after its oppression all throughout history; not to mention that the Christian culture that stemmed from Jewish culture burned anyone who disagreed about God, and kept knowledge in the church for several hundred years. They then went on to be shoved the hell aside by logic and reason in the Enlightening. Jewish culture had nothing to do with it. Our modern day morality grew from those who challenged the church, not upheld it. And I damn sure didn't come out of a Mosque or a Synagogue.

That aside, your God supposedly created this shit. Why didn't he just put modern-day morality and rule of law in his Commandments, eh? That would have saved us a whole bunch of shit.

[Rec]

Said as one respectful person to another. You do not know all of it, you choose not to know any of it, and that by the Text that you refute gives you that choice to do so, as shall I. Continue on with you hate and contempt. I shall respect you anyway, and tell you that I love you to pieces, but not all of your ways, as you can return that to me. I say it in peace, and love Phoenix. My tenant here is too slip the sandals off, dust them throughly and carry on. Peace, young man, peace, I hope and pray that you find whatever you are looking for. Blessed be Rec

[Limbo]

Yeah. The Hebrew culture brought us into modern day morality after its oppression all throughout history; not to mention that the Christian culture that stemmed from Jewish culture burned anyone who disagreed about God, and kept knowledge in the church for several hundred years. They then went on to be shoved the hell aside by logic and reason in the Enlightening. Jewish culture had nothing to do with it. Our modern day morality grew from those who challenged the church, not upheld it. And I damn sure didn't come out of a Mosque or a Synagogue.

So Christians burned "anyone who disagreed about God"? Wow, I must have missed that in history class somehow.

The enlightenment got rid of much religious dogma and doctrine that was superfluous to the teachings of Christ, which was good. The enlightenment also produced a fringe radical uber-liberalism that now threatens the very existence of Europe, It also produced Naziism, Marxism and communism, that is REALLY bad. In fact, it has been the cause of suffering unprecendented in the history mankind.

The pendulum can swing to either extreme, God's morality as taught by Jesus is never changing in principle.




That aside, your God supposedly created this shit. Why didn't he just put modern-day morality and rule of law in his Commandments, eh? That would have saved us a whole bunch of shit.

The ten commandments are surely part of the basis for modern day morality.

Have you ever read the sermon on the mount? If that isn't the template for the best parts of modern day morality, I don't know what is.

See here for example (http://www.biblepath.com/beatitudes.html)

[Limbo]

My tenant here is too slip the sandals off, dust them throughly and carry on.

Yeah, that's my problem Rec, I never know when to shake the dust of my feet! :)

But I usually give the other the last word at least.

[Rec]

Perhaps I will interact with him again, and perhaps not. There are none so deaf, that absolutely do not want to hear,,,,,their choice always. I might have one last postleft in me, if I can get my facts straight. Most of the time I post from the mind, and it is not infallible now,,,or ever!!! lol

[Limbo]

That aside, your God supposedly created this shit. Why didn't he just put modern-day morality and rule of law in his Commandments, eh? That would have saved us a whole bunch of shit.

The funny thing is Rec, we have one atheist saying that if there is a God, he should have done a better job giving us detailed rules of morality that we could implement (see above). Then we have another atheist saying that the bible is loaded with detailed morality, rules and so on that he finds offensive (see below).

There's the rub, Judaism/Christianity is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't... Can't win.



I just find it hard to believe that anyone would say that "Christianity is not a system of government or a societal structure" - Limbo when it obviously IS. Christianity itself is NOTHING BUT a system of governance. Do this and don't do that - THIS is governance. Not only that they have penalties and rewards, recommendations and laws! Just this alone qualifies it as a system of governance and a social structure (are they different??) but we have examples of societies TOTALLY governed by religion (theocracy) and Christianity is among them.

[Rec]

Often it can be pneumatophobia (a irrational but desperate abhorrence of incorpeal substances or spirit. And that goes along with hylomia (madly doting or matter) Or just the desire not to accept. It cannot be on intellectual grounds alone, for there is enough evidence, so it could be the will or just plain ole sceptism, which is the easiest, that way one is not responsible to anything or anyone, but themselves.

It is with all religions, but especially Christianity....rarely will you hear of any of the Eastern or Asian religions critique as you will Chrisitanity. However, the more critical, the better prepared the answers will become and although they do not realize it Chrisitainity is the religion that is very self critical in the sense to get it right, always has been and always will be. The message stays the same, the delivery can and does change with the culture...as with anything else.

[Carrot]

Surely, the fear of death, the desperate need for an absolute answer and indoctrination has nothing to do with it. No, you have quite obviously purely logically come to your position and the only way to explain their disbelief in something that requires faith alone is that they have an irrationsl abhorrence of incporpeal substances or spirit and just refuse to accept it!

[Rec]

And why is it a prerequiste to have a fear of death, a desperate need for all answers and any kind of indoctrination to become a Christian? It is not, nor never has been for all people, all times and all places.
Of course it is logical for me and others and a choice, and never did require any more faith for me than to accept the possibity that there are black holes, positrons and merons, although they have never been observed.
There are many reasons for belief and disbelief, as their are individuals. Mentioning a few does not lock all people into the same mode. That is illogical.

[Carrot]

That's what belief fullfills.

It qualms fears of death, and it provides absolute answers. That IS religion. Indoctrination of one sort of another usually keeps the numbers up or directs which religion is chosen, but the first two (and main) factors do allow for that to be skipped for certain types.

[Rec]

I do not agree, I do not have religion,,,,I have a belief in Chrisitiantiy, which is at the bottom belief in a person, Jesus Christ, his life, his example and his teachings, the whole ideas wrapped up in a person, not a system. That is a big difference.

[Rec]

Contrary to the above assumptions, the intellectual part of my quest and ultimate decision was based on the coherence theory. It meet the demands of a standard of verification or test of truth most adequately. It included reason, facts, system, integration, relationships, consistency. Its obvious limitations lies not in the criterion of coherence, but in man's limitations or his inability to obtain ALL facts of experience. Only an omniscent mind possess all facts of experience; consequently, man must be content to deal with all facts at his disposal at the present time, allowing that point to be regarded as proved true which is the most coherent under prevailing circumstances. That person, school of thought, or idea which is supported in a coherent manner by most of the facts must be accepted as verified.

One who objects to coherence as a criterion places himself in a delicate position logically, for he thus implies a preference for incoherence, which is absurd: furthermore, to attack coherence necessitates the use of a criterion that is either coherent and rational, or incoherent and irrational: to appeal to irrationality is absurd, thus obligating a person to accept coherence as his criterion of truth.

A moot question could arise as to whether or not there could be several equally coherent systems, each containing all the facts of human experience.

And that is my basis for accepting the facts of Christianity.

The faith comes into the picture, that I am not cognitivelty flawed in anyway, am of a sound mind, physically and intellectually, and able to percieve the world around me and understand it with perception and the conceptual principles that reside within my mind and personality. That being the acknowledgement that it contains the physical (perception) and the incorporeal (conceptions). Which completes my worldview in both modes in all my being as a existent sentient human.

[Carrot]

Hey, you were the one who said:


Often it can be pneumatophobia (a irrational but desperate abhorrence of incorpeal substances or spirit. And that goes along with hylomia (madly doting or matter) Or just the desire not to accept. It cannot be on intellectual grounds alone, for there is enough evidence, so it could be the will or just plain ole sceptism, which is the easiest, that way one is not responsible to anything or anyone, but themselves.

And then said I was lumping together belivers because ALL religiously based beliefs systems qualm fears of death, and give us purpose (which they do).

If you can't see why YOU saying that disbelief "is not on intellectual grounds alone" (along with the rest of that quote) then there's hardly much more I can point out.

[Rec]

Not what I meant, was speaking general about some not all of reasons for some that disbelieve. Of course , it would have to a general statement as I do not know all that disbelieve and their reasons.