jefferiah

My, my, I do declare, how utterly uncouth! Of course the quality of a leader is proportional to his fashion sense. Saddam had some amazing suits.

Well said. Agreed.

John 15:13: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Ah I see what you are saying. No, I am quite sure Betsy is a Christian, and that her question was not an attack. There are many Christians who do not celebrate Christmas for the very reason Betsy has outlined. I think many Calvinists (as Calvin himself was) are against Christmas if I am not mistaken. Also there are Christians who are against the figure of Santa Claus. I think the Christmas tree is believed to be derived from the pagan Ashurah pole....not sure if I spelled that right. Once again though, I think the heart's intent governs the matter. Pagans do not own trees, so therefore, IMHO, it is not heresy. Do you remember the Seinfeld episode about the holiday George's father invented because he hated Christmas commercialism....Festivus (For the rest of us)? But he had sort of an Ashurah pole too. Anyways, people actually celebrate festivus now. Anyhow......

If you do not believe, then why should it offend you. Really why is it that people feel the need to object to "terms" and such. And yes you are also jumping to a conclusion. A simple question for you.... How many threads slamming atheists have been started here in the last 5 months?

Agreed, but I agree with Pliny more. I don't want to ban people from saying what they think. So rather than have us all convicted of hate crimes everytime we disagree with someone, whether it be an english man criticizing the french, or vice versa. You know, its good to point out that other people can be just as racist bigoted, but I don't want to join in their lawsuits and start creating an even more PC regulated society. Maybe the intent of the poster was to say----well if this is a hate crime when english people do it, then it is also..... In which case, then I can agree.

When did Betsy say she did not believe in God or Jesus, Ft. Niagara? She defends Christianity on other threads. I rather think her question was from that perspective.

I another thread, you stated that, though an atheist, you do believe in morality and altruism. Well in order to have morals-----there must be a good and an evil. The nature of morality itself or a belief in personal moral morality implies that something is evil. Now if someone violated a moral standard of yours, perhaps a Cybercomistic Heresy, you would not necessarily put a brick through their window, burn them at the stake, or draw them and quarter them. So let me say this again---morality implies evil. Jesus was very very strict and yet at the same time more merciful than anyone else. Even adultery of the mind was an impurity. And sin did not come from outside but from the evil hearts of men, he said. So when I call a belief evil (which you would insist is relative to my opinion) it is no different than calling anything else evil. If we don't stone the adulteress, we dont burn the witch. And I am an adulterer Cybercoma and I have commited heresies myself. Now your argument is that some people might seek to eradicate evildoers. From a personal perspective, even if you dont share my view, is that ever a reason to change your morals. If we stop calling things evil because some people might attempt to eradicate evil by force (or use it as justification as you say) then we must also drop morality itself, which you yourself feel is important, because it implies that certain things are evil or bad, distasteful, and there is always a chance that someone might see justification in morality for eradicating someone. And without morality, there is justification for absolutely everything, Cybercoma.

No, the justification is believing that you must eradicate evil with the sword, which is not what Jesus taught. But he did have a clear meaning.

I dont have to prove it. I believe it for one thing, and I cant believe that one is right and the other is right at the same time. It does not gel. Betsy is a Christian, I assume. So her question is, is it ok to celebrate Christmas when it was originally a pagan holiday. Paganism is not right if you are a Christian. So is it ok? I said I think it is ok. But I don;t know either, I mean its up to her and how she feels about it. I said that even though paganism is antithetical to Christianity (in fact the sentiment of the Pagan is "Do what thou wilt" which is just an ancient manifestation of will to power) pagans do not own the day itself. They don't own trees. And if they had a ceremony where they drank water I would not stop drinking it. You have to accept that disagreeing with things does not imply you must attack them or hurt them. I understand your concern about people getting hurt, but people must have the freedom to have views which oppose, even when they cause division and strife and wars among people who are reactive. If you cannot accept Christianity I cannot change that. Look at the question from a Christian perspective. Since you know about Christianity and you know that there is no room for other gods in the life of a Christian, then try to answer her from a Christian perspective.

Two different things, Cybercoma. A is not always B. Believing something is wrong does not mean you have to bomb it. You don't return evil with evil. You understand that what wiccans believe is heretical to Christianity. That does not mean I am going to go roast some Wiccans, but it means I can't believe 2 plus 2 is 4, and also 2 plus 2 is 5 at the same time. I am not an ecumenicalist. That does not mean I dislike other people, it means I don't agree always. It means that I can't believe in Isis and also believe that Yahweh is the one true God. The Inquisition burned heretics and tried to control them. In fact, maybe they didnt even believe in God at all, but rather believed in their own power and that they knew how to keep the herd in control. Jesus did not. He was killed. He did not make people follow him by using militant means. He said what he believed. You could listen or you could pass him by.

deleted----an editing mistake---i made a new post attempting to edit the one above

Hmmm well I am not accepting Dostoevksy's words as gospel truth, either. But then I think the fact that atheists might point to a problem in it may be a misunderstanding of the point, or a rebuttal of a Christian's take on it. Or maybe I am wrong. In one sense the Grand Inquisitor is convenient for Dostoevsky to use as a display...I mean since he is the writer, he gets to make the rules and you know. But perhaps the reason this story is so important metaphysically (even if you are not Christian), is it shows an interesting perpespective on what the temptation of Jesus meant. And if you wish to perhaps draw a parallel, to two distinct sides in human philosophy. You often mention horrible things like the Inquisition. I think this story points to the fact that the Inquisitor did not resist the temptation but agreed to it. He was not serving the ideal of Jesus. And actually we are all guilty of that. The Inquisitor was smart enough to understand the meaning of the Temptation. But he made the wrong choice. A parallel could be made to Neitzsche and the Will To Power!! The idea is nothing brilliant on Neitzsche's part. He was simply able to cleverly represent in abstract a concept that is much much older than he is. The Will to Power is sort of what Satan proposed to Jesus. Jesus wisely rejected it. Another parallel could be drawn to The Lord of The Rings...... The ring was evil, but powerful. The folly of the characters of Saruman and Boromir was that they could use the ring to do good. This was the temptation. Boromir was repentant, Saruman was not. You know, Satan, was not tempting Jesus to eat lots of rich food and drive a Ferrari. He appealed to his sense of compassion and proposed that if you had the power I could now give you, think of the good you could do. So really there is no point I am making. I am not using the story as a critique of atheism or anything like that. It is more of a discussion point. But you know metaphysical discussions can get pretty tiring too. And I know you said you like my explanations in the other thread (whether you genuinely mean that or not), but in any case, I am just a plain little man and I am not really qualified to explain God to you. You know, I can't explain everything to you. I can't tell you the meaning of suffering. I can't explain every part of the Bible. I can't explain Dostoevsky aptly either. But I can tell you that my belief in God does not justify any bad actions I commit. I do bad things, but not because I feel I have a divine right to. I am human, Cybercoma.

Well, I guess that's a matter of personal conviction, Betsy. The way I see it, the intent behind Christmas is not to celebrate pagan beliefs. I mean the simple fact is what they did was take a pagan holiday season and changed it. This way you get to keep the holidays. And as Cybercoma says "You get to spend time with your family." It's hard to do that if you don't have a common holiday. Now if September 15 were declared by some strange cult to be Nero Day, would that make Sept. 15 an evil day? They do not have the monopoly on deciding the meaning of September 15 anymore than Christians or pagans ever did on deciding the meaning of the 25th. Or if today were some sort of Wiccan Holiday it would not be an evil day for me.....the day is just the day. Wiccans do not own the day nor its meaning. And I honestly don't think that the hearts of Christians are acting in worship of a pagan deity because they eat a nice meal together. But, this is just my opinion now. You know you have to make up your own mind on this matter. As for the materialism angle----If you wish to think of Santa Claus as being a bad addition and commercialism and materialism as being bad additions to the meaning of Christmas, I can understand that. I worked at Wal-Mart when I was younger during the Christmas rush. This particular year the "Tickle Me Elmo" was a video game called Pokemon Yellow. A shipment would come in, and it would be sold out in an hour. My shifts usually started at midday or afternoon and so on days when it would come in I would not even arrive in time to have a chance to sell one. I can remember one customer----you know, he looked like he was going to faint when I told him (I am sure he looked at Toys R Us and every other place possible). He puts his hands on me and says "What am I going to do? What, tell me what?" (I finally did get the opportunity to sell one. I arrived at work one day, during the last week of the rush, and there was one copy left. If you work in a busy store like that, you know how rude people can be. You know, for all the bad things some people wanted to say about Wal-Mart, its the customers who make you feel like slave labour at times. So anyways when I arrived at work my fellow "associates" in the electronics dept. said to me (manager included), "Jeff, you take cash today. The last Pokemon yellow is under the desk. If someone comes in and asks for it and rubs you the wrong way, looks at you the wrong way....tell him there's none left. Sell it to someone nice." So Christmas puts a lot of pressure on some people. But I know people who know how to balance that out, and some parents do a good job of teaching children that some people are going to get more expensive gifts than you do. That's a reality in life, and people do not have to make it out to be such a sad thing. If you don't believe in materialism then you do not need to complain when someone has a lot of material. Jealousy shows that one is materialistic. I know parents who will break the bank and go into debt to perform on Christmas and parents who are more frugal and expect their kids to understand. And the kids understand. You don't teach em understanding by allowing them to push you around and guilt you for not getting them as much as the guy who has three vehicles gets for his kids. When he gets them more he is doing what he is able to reasonably do with the ammount of money he has. And kids of frugal parents can learn to be content. But then I have nothing against parents getting some gifts for their kids---it can be pretty fun, and exciting for kids. Bah, eh, you know what though Betsy....I hate decorating, myself. I could have a nice meal without having a tree up and worrying about silly lights. I am not a big fan of Christmas----but I am still going to eat the turkey. And if I get a new cd or a new book or a shirt out of it.....well hey, thats just a nice bonus.

Bah, eh you know what Cybercoma...on second thought.....it aint all that important to read it anyway. You can if you like, though. But it is kind of long, and sort of a section in the middle of a book---kind of like watching Lost episode number 35. And yeah, I kind of hate when people ask me to read something.

I don't have one. But it is quite a thought-provoking piece of literature. From a critical perspective Ivan Karamazov analyzes the temptation of Christ. His Grand Inquisitor is actually not a believer but one who instead of rejecting those temptations accepts them. It has a great deal to do with Jesus allowing freedom. One of the many themes Dostoevsky deals with in this book is the existence of suffering. Dostoevsky was a brilliant man. He basically rejected Nietzsche's ideas through his characters and published them as examples of folly before Nietzsche did. He was well acquainted with the problems of suffering. I am sure his intellect was a cause of suffering to him. An interesting fact is that in his youth he was sort of a rebellious socialist. He was arrested for treason for belonging to a socialist organization. (His books which predate the Russian revolution by quite a few years show the seeds of the revolution already among the people, among his characters.) He was given the death penalty for treason. He was sentenced to solitary confinement in a silent cell for months before his execution was to be carried out. On the day he was blindfolded and marched before the firing squad, the Czar (who had already had this planned) had a messenger sent to commute his sentence. It was a mock execution. Dostoevsky was sent to hard labour prison. It was hear that he ran into some of the most psychologically depraved individuals he ever met and became sort of a hobby criminal psychologist, and also here that he began to read the Bible, and form an understanding of grace. The mock execution left a lasting impact on his life, since he already had nervous problems (he was an epileptic). And also I think it made him a firm opponent of capital punishment. Anyways, I am not praising this piece, nor am I criticizing this piece. I do not have a point. It is an interesting snippet from the works of Dostoevsky. I don't necessarily recommend reading him...he is quite dark and gloomy and can lure you into the depths of depression at times. He was brilliant and perhaps in some ways he wasn't. He seemed to have developed some radical ideas about the superiority of the Russian church, etc etc. He was a compulsive gambler and wrote his books while running from debtors. As Robertson Davies might say....he had a rear end too. He may have even been an anti-Semite, I am not sure. People have said so. Nonetheless, whatever he was, it is an interesting piece. Anyhow

This is a story within the novel The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan Karamazov, the atheist intellectual brother, tells this legend he has composed to his youngest brother Alyosha (Alexei), the young novice in an orthodox monastery. The character of Ivan I think is probably one of Dostoevsky's representations of himself---his intellectual youth before becoming a Christian. Anyhow....here is the Legend of The Grand Inquisitor: http://www.academic.marist.edu/nork/fdfinal.htm

God did nothing to prevent humanity from killing his own Son. Free will, Cybercoma. Have you ever read The Brothers Karamazov? New thread coming right up

No actually God warned them that this is what would happen if they were to look back. If I warn you that eating amanita mushrooms could kill you and you then eat one......

Also the selfish desire to do good (because doing good benefits ourselves) can develop into a deeper moral understanding later. The prodigal son learned his lesson that it was better to be a servant in his Father's home than to be free on his own. The shrewd manager as well, was commended for saving his skin. Since you seem well versed in things from the Bible....do you remember the place where Jesus says we must "accept" the kingdom of heaven, like a small child. He was not saying we should act like children, as if children are the epitome of innocence. I can remember being a child. I was spiteful, vengeful, selfish etc etc. But you always accept things that are given to you. When you are 7 and you put on your rucksack and threaten to run away, within a few hours you will be back at your table eating the food your parents made for you. In another thread you mentioned how God turned a woman into a pillar of salt, and said he was vengeful and mean because of this. And also that it was cruel to women somehow, because she happened to be a woman. God told them if they looked back this would happen. If your mother told you not to eat the mushrooms in the front yard because they are poisonous, but you ignored her and ate them, and you became violently ill, would you then call your mother vengeful?

No the idea is that no one is capable of entering heaven because of his own goodness, but that true repentance and humility and acceptance of God changes one's heart. And there is mercy and forgiveness. Was it you who cited a quote which stated in effect...."only religion makes good people do bad things"...... There is no one who is righteous. No not one. But nonetheless atheist communism was based on good intentions.....so therefore if you wish to think of regular people as being "good" then look at what happened in Russia. Or look how the masses in France went on a beheading crusade in rebellion against that which was status quo. The good intentions of humans, religious or secularly political, result in death quite often.

Rabble-"Babble" is aptly named. Nowhere else have I seen so much babble in my life.. But I must admit they do an exceedingly fine job of living up to the leftist standard. For, over at Rabble, they are all collectively sharing a brain cell. (Too bad not one of them has a spine they could all share as well.)

What was the punishment for adulterers, Cybercoma? If Jesus did not stone the woman, then do you think he would stone the homosexual. The general morality does not change. And we are all under a death sentence according to those laws.

That last snippet of yours (within the edited post) is an irrelevant point. It is what someone did in the Bible. Lots of people did bad things in the Bible. Herod, Haman, King David putting Uriah on the front lines, Paul crucifying Christians. No where does it say do what this man in Judges did, or do what David did, or crucify Christians like Paul. Also Jesus did not change the standard morality, but he pointed out that customary laws were excessive and could be taken too seriously. IE hand washing, the Sabbath observance (he did a good deed on the Sabbath). I think it is very easy to get a good idea of what he meant. Even if there are points where people could argue, well so what. Many things in life are like that. Jesus did not condone stoning the adulteress, but nonetheless the "law" (morality) was not changed, because he said to her "Sin no more." You seem to only think of law as the punishment. His own actions and the parables about the dishonest steward and the unforgiving servant, make it clear that law is the moral itself. If not then he would have stoned the woman. And he also makes it clear that laws concerning protocol and food are not as important.