Religion: Better For Moral Health Of Community?

[lilpixieofterror]

Incoherent. I suggest you re-read Revelation.

I'd suggest you read an actual book about Revolution instead of foaming at the mouth and showing your historical knowledge is next to nothing. Funny how Augustine took a non literal approach to Revelation and a non literal approach has been the favored interpretation since the days of the early church fathers, eh? Again, try some stronger meds.

You also might want to read some history books - start with the year 70CE.

So you have evidence that Christians plotted a revolt of Rome in 70AD? Oh wait... wasn't it the Jews that revolted and Rome had to send in its argument to quash the revolt? Of course, the sources you've cited to prove your case is 'zero' and the evidence you've brought forth to prove your interpretation is accurate is 'none', but hey... Norm doesn't need evidence. Bald assertions combined with extreme paranoia, fear, and delusions is all the evidence you need, right? I'd suggest you get some stronger meds because the ones you are on seem to have done nothing for your paranoia and delusions.

[lilpixieofterror]

Conversely, it is the backbone of conflict. You argue the absense of it takes charity mostly away. I could concur World Vision would disappear without religion, but I also can't unsee religion's role in conflict, particularly in justifying violence and power grabs.

And money also is a pretty good motivator for justification of violence and power grabs. Humans will make any excuse they want for those two things. Religion or not.

[Cerealman]

Do they realize if taken literally revelation shows Christians will die by the thousands right?

[lilpixieofterror]

Do they realize if taken laterally revelation shows Christians will die by the thousands right?

Well, they do have the issue that the church fathers didn't take Revelation to be literal either and most scholars (past or present) don't either. Evidence doesn't matter though, paranoia, fear, and extreme hate towards anything they disagree with is what matters here and anything to justify those things (no matter how loose or outright silly) is the goal here. Good evidence and arguments be damned if it gets in the way of a good conspiracy theory, it appears...

[seer]

Ha ha! Actually, last Friday night, Seer!

Our Shul runs a soup kitchen for homeless folks. And, yes, I've had homeless folks stay at our house on numerous occasions. We normally invite at least one homeless person to our Thanksgiving dinner every year. Always have.

Even when I was a Christian, I was involved in outreach programs for the poor. It comes from my involvement with my best friend who's mother was an officer in the Salvation Army. They are required (as officers) to live in a poor community for at least two years. She taught me all about how to run an effective soup kitchen. The key is to enlist a very large list of volunteers so that the same people aren't doing it all the time. For example, I work every other Friday night (as head chef) - twice a month.

I actually did take Christianity seriously, as I do the social reform aspect of Judaism. It always came down to the fact that the religion got in the way of doing good. I do good because it is the right thing to do, not because some book told me to do it.

The difference with our soup kitchen at Shul from soup kitchens I've run for Christian groups is that we don't force the folks to listen to our proselytizing.

NORM

Good for you Norm, the point is don't accuse us of not being involved. And as far as proselytizing, yes when we hand out food there is usually a table with bible tracts - you can take it or leave it. At the soup kitchen we do say the Lord's prayer - no one has to say it, many don't. See Norm we believe that their spiritual health is also important, but no force (on any level) is used. And to be honest, I have only served at the kitchen - I'm a lousy cook. But please stop with your nonsensical broad brush claims.

[seer]

I'm thrilled as punch for you, Seer. You don't require much from life. Just all the answers. It appears that you have them. Plus, as long as you believe in the atonement theory of salvation, you won't be obsessed with taking over America.

Just stay like you are, Seer.

NORM

It doesn't change the fact that you are a bigot Norm.

[NormATive]

I'd suggest you read an actual book about Revolution instead of foaming at the mouth and showing your historical knowledge is next to nothing. Funny how Augustine took a non literal approach to Revelation and a non literal approach has been the favored interpretation since the days of the early church fathers, eh? Again, try some stronger meds.





So you have evidence that Christians plotted a revolt of Rome in 70AD? Oh wait... wasn't it the Jews that revolted and Rome had to send in its argument to quash the revolt? Of course, the sources you've cited to prove your case is 'zero' and the evidence you've brought forth to prove your interpretation is accurate is 'none', but hey... Norm doesn't need evidence. Bald assertions combined with extreme paranoia, fear, and delusions is all the evidence you need, right? I'd suggest you get some stronger meds because the ones you are on seem to have done nothing for your paranoia and delusions.

Seriously. Re-read Revelation. Also, maybe something about the Jewish revolts and consequent crackdown by Rome. Hint: all "Christians" were Jewish in 70CE.

Even your own Gospels can offer a clue. Why do you suppose Peter pulled a sword on the Roman soldiers attempting to arrest Jesus? Because...

Cheers!

NORM

[NormATive]

It doesn't change the fact that you are a bigot Norm.

You are misusing that word, Seer. I'm not a bigot. Please stop using it. You could call me an anti-fundamentalist. That would be OK. Or, non-theist.

But, I am not a bigot. I do not discriminate against anyone.

NORM

[seer]

You are misusing that word, Seer. I'm not a bigot. Please stop using it. You could call me an anti-fundamentalist. That would be OK. Or, non-theist.

But, I am not a bigot. I do not discriminate against anyone.

NORM

You are a bigot Norm:

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

[NormATive]

Good for you Norm, the point is don't accuse us of not being involved. And as far as proselytizing, yes when we hand out food there is usually a table with bible tracts - you can take it or leave it. At the soup kitchen we do say the Lord's prayer - no one has to say it, many don't. See Norm we believe that their spiritual health is also important, but no force (on any level) is used. And to be honest, I have only served at the kitchen - I'm a lousy cook. But please stop with your nonsensical broad brush claims.

You brought up soup kitchens, Seer. You asked me if I ever worked in one (assuming, as you are prone to, that non-theists are despotic).

I say that you are not serious about your religion because all you do is talk. Your Bible tells you that you should be bringing about the new world order by force (father against son, brother against brother is how it goes in the Christian Testament, I believe).

You waste all your time on the Internet. I mean, 2,800 posts in six months!? You couldn't possibly have the time to do much of anything else.

NORM

[NormATive]

You are a bigot Norm:

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

That does not define me at all. I don't hate you, Seer. In fact, I want you to enjoy the freedom of mind that I have by not wasting your time with false hopes. That's compassion, in my book. Far from bigotry.

NORM

[whag]

And money also is a pretty good motivator for justification of violence and power grabs. Humans will make any excuse they want for those two things. Religion or not.

Religion isn't an "excuse" for violence. The religionists who commit violence actually believe that they have a relationship with God or gods. If they didn't believe in God or gods, they'd be atheists.

[Cerealman]

Religion isn't an "excuse" for violence. The religionists who commit violence actually believe that they have a relationship with God or gods. If they didn't believe in God or gods, they'd be atheists.

And does that mean they're following that religion correctly based on a book or whatever they may use? Depending on the religion the answer can be yes or no.
And if the answer is no that does religionists are doing something wrong.

[lilpixieofterror]

Religion isn't an "excuse" for violence. The religionists who commit violence actually believe that they have a relationship with God or gods. If they didn't believe in God or gods, they'd be atheists.

And do you suppose that gaining things, as a result of their violence, wasn't a good motivator for doing these violent acts and just claiming God told them to do it made for a convenient excuse?

[lilpixieofterror]

Seriously. Re-read Revelation. Also, maybe something about the Jewish revolts and consequent crackdown by Rome. Hint: all "Christians" were Jewish in 70CE.

Even your own Gospels can offer a clue. Why do you suppose Peter pulled a sword on the Roman soldiers attempting to arrest Jesus? Because...

Cheers!

NORM

Do you have a hard time with basic reading comprehension and history? For starters:

1. By 70AD, Christianity was finding its own identity and had started to move beyond its Jewish roots. After all, Paul did claim to be the apostle of the Gentiles and what time was he writing his letters and what time was he active in the ministry? Wasn't that pre 70 AD and pre Jewish revolt? So much for that argument because by that time, there was already a pretty good non Jewish Christian majority active and making its way outside of its Jewish roots.
2. Most scholars seem to think that Revelation was written in a non literal forum and many of the church fathers seem to agree with this too. Calling me a bunch of names and refusing to address that no serious scholar nor a Christian takes Revelation word for word seriously doesn't make my argument disappear or make what you say more true. Now go ahead, prove your argument is right.
3. I thought Jesus put the guards ear back on and said, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword", but I guess ignoring that part will make your arguments more true, eh? Again, seems to me that Jesus made it clear he wasn't there to take over the world or to establish a Jewish kingdom. What Peter thought at that time, doesn't mean he thought that later in life nor does that translate to a command to take over the world Norm.

Don't worry though Norm, scream you are right long enough, ignore that few Christians take Revelation word for word literal, and puff... you have your 'argument'. Wallow in your ignorance all you want, but the arguments will not go away because you do not like them. Now get to answering what I actually said instead of just repeating yourself and ignoring all the mistakes you've made. Start here, show me a large Christian group that takes the book of Revelation as word for word literal and a command to take over the world. I'll be waiting for you to do this instead of repeating yourself, over and over again, and ignoring all counter arguments against your position.