The God Delusion / Root of All Evil - Richard Dawkins

[look3467]

SVMc

True to form, you have a very non-threading way in soliciting a discussion that can be very combative.

I hear you well and can see your point.

It’s almost as answers are not forth-coming from humanity because technically, without a spiritual intervention, humanity holds no answers. (My opinion)

You mentioned those groups who have unity, but hold to themselves apart from the world verses, those who would want the whole world to join their ranks of belief; I consider that to be both a natural human trait.

The difference being to me, as I see it, is a need to have a spiritual infusion into the existing spirit/soul of each individual.

The problem, in my thinking again lies in the fact that even that very thought brings condemnation from both sides: Christians and non-Christians alike.

It is called a re-birth.

What I really see now, with all the available information at our finger tips (The net) knowledge of the spiritual has increased to an awesome level that even the main line Christian organizations, are having to rethink their views on certain issues.

I know I have.

What I believe is in a government that gives the individual the right to express his or hers method of worship totally free from any earthly binding force.

The funny thing about that is that, it was instituted 2,000 years ago.

We can all unite under that governmental direction, allowing each their own space to practice worshiping as they please, without injury to their fellow human beings.

I believe that a proper understanding of it can be the answer to all our problems.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[John Welch]

Mahomet and the early bishops did not have power, but seized it. Jesus was offered power as king but refused it. His principle was that while having overwhelming angelic back-up, he refused to use it, and so died. Way to go!
John

 

[look3467]

Mahomet and the early bishops did not have power, but seized it. Jesus was offered power as king but refused it. His principle was that while having overwhelming angelic back-up, he refused to use it, and so died. Way to go!
John

John

Jesus had to submit to God's requirements of righteousness and nothing less.
Why suppose that no human being not having the full God head bodily could accomplish what Jesus did?
To have failed at His mission would have failed for all humanity.

There was no way out for Him, He had to go through with it because it was God in body form accomplishing it.

You see, making a long story short, God created the flesh which in the process became separated from Himself in that His creation became as like Him, with the ability to know both good and evil.

This knowledge brought separation or better; death to the soul.

Jesus, which is God in bodily form, comes and fulfills His own requirements, and makes Jesus the vehicle by which all of us can now regain that relationship we lost as the result of being born in the flesh.

If you can understand what I said, then you have been enlightened on what constitutes the love of God for us.

Gods love is greater than what mankind gives Him credit for. Mankind thinks that they know when and how God should condemn folks who do not meet their belief behavior. As if they are standing in for God and telling God, this is the way it should be, rather than what way God says it should be.

That is religion.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[John Welch]

AJ,
I was contrasting organised power-religion with Jesus' correct principle. He did not seize power, and told his disciples not to, and foretold that this may lead to being killed by the systems of power. He is the Way which I support.
John

 

[SVMc]

Just to be clear this is not intended to be a debate on if Christianity is an institutionalized indoctrinated religion.

It is.

Now, I'm not saying that the scriptures of Christianity, should or ought to have been interpreted in a way to make it dogmatic and institutionalized, but the proof is certainly there that weather you take it down to scripture, blame the organization of the modern or medieval churches that Christianity is a classic case of a religion that was a grassroots moment, which gained populist support, acquired a critical mass, and has throughout much of history, rightly or wrongly been used to mobilize it's followers towards political purposes of it's leaders in various intra-nations and inter-nation conflicts.

This does not preclude an individual practitioner of Christianity or a small community of Christians from being able to practice their belief system in an un-dogmatic, un-infringing, non-evangelical, grass roots communal way.

What it does preclude is using Christianity as an example of an unindoctrinated, uninstitutionalized religion that has not been used for exerting a moral claim upon a population and it's government, because that has happened for centuries where Christianity is concerned. Again this is not the fault of individual practitioners but the result of a belief system becoming institutionalized with populist political claims that were exercised by some of the leaders of the religion.

A theistic discussion on if the scriptures of Christianity would have endorsed the huge institution that it has become is likely best reserved for another thread, because it is quite off topic here.

I would like to move back to the last thought experiment that I posed to Dexter and Niflmir on the extent to which a belief system which contains moral principals can be internalized by the individual believer or a group of believers, or if having a belief system with moral components (which seems to be integral to a belief system) compels the believer to necessarily act out their moral structure, or moral claim on the wider world.

I did some more research on the Amish and Hudderites in particular to see if I could answer the question of if their withdrawl from society is a choice, or a lack of critical mass and came across some interesting findings.

Both of those religions, and ones similar to them are what is referred to as peistic (sp?) religions, meaning that as part of the belief system there is a moral guidance not to get involved in politics at large, as human secular politics are generally considered to be unholy. From this vantage point we could argue that this is an example of a religious movement that does not exert moral claim.

However, these religions do ask for the ability to govern their own land, so where they are they bring their own government, which in many ways is a more abrupt and strong political stance than trying to influence secular government, because it is an outright rejection of secular government.

The question then becomes why have they remained so small, and the answer lies in history. When these groups began to gain momentum local government either actively persecuted or placed restrictions on their mobility to discourage their popularism, because it was recognized that their rejection of governments was a threat to the existance of secular governments, and their faith if they gained power would not allow for multi-faith, inter-faith or minority views.

Today in Alberta there are restrictions on how many Hudderites can live in one community and restrictions on how close (distance) Hudderite communities can be to each other. This is in large part to ensure that the Huddertie communities cannot grow to the point where they form a voting block in any significant area.

 

[look3467]

AJ,
I was contrasting organised power-religion with Jesus' correct principle. He did not seize power, and told his disciples not to, and foretold that this may lead to being killed by the systems of power. He is the Way which I support.
John

I'm a little slow John, but I am with you on that.

I meant to say the same thing but I get off getting into the deep stuff.

Sorry, that's just the way I am.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Hm... I've been thinking along the same lines as Niflmir and SVMc for a couple of days without coming to any conclusions. Niflmir's point is well taken: "in rejecting the necessity of institutionalization of religion you reject that a religion necessarily has core beliefs that the religion asserts authoritatively that its followers must adhere to," then he goes on to describe how institutionalization might get started. Then SVMc returns with a similar sort of discussion on a more personal level, also providing good examples, from the 'critical mass/populism' perspective.

Maybe it would help if we tried to clarify what we mean by institutionalization in this context. It's clear, for instance, that Wicca and neo-paganism are not institutionalized to the degree that the major monotheisms are, but we might be talking only about a matter of degree, not kind. The Gardnerian variety of Wicca, as Niflmir describes it, certainly shows the beginning of institutionalization, though I don't know that Wicca yet has an authoritatively established body of belief, doctrine and practice. All the other assorted varieties of neo-paganism I've investigated also show the beginnings of that, in that some things are taken for granted, like the faery realm and the animistic spirits of the woods and waters. If you reject such things obviously you're not going to join, and the existing membership would probably reject you as unsuitable if you tried, but these matters of doctrine, if we can call them that, are generally pretty vague and fuzzily defined.

I've been using the term 'institutionalized religion' to mean one with an authoritatively established body of belief, doctrine, and practice, recognized individuals entitled to authoritatively define and interpret them, and some sort of established hierarchy that extends beyond individual congregations or covens or whatever you want to call them. I'm inclined to think that the tipping point between harmless little groups of people doing whatever they feel is appropriate for themselves, which is at least approximately the current status of all the neo-pagan groups I know anything about and many other groups like the Amish and the Quakers, and turning into a political action group of some sort, lies in two places: the group getting large enough that it begins to have secular interests (it owns property, for instance), and its begining to think that it's entitled to push (I was going to write 'inflict' at first) its views on others. That latter point I think is often related to powerful and charismatic individuals rising within the group; people like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox come to mind.

Still much to think about though.

 

[look3467]

SVMc

I believe that government and religion are a marriage.

Both are needed as a combination for an intended result.

Without dabbling deep into theology, suffice it to say that one can not be without the other if any fruit is to be produced.

The one yielding the greater influence over the other is the one who will gather the greater converts.

Christianity is one such institution that has been growing as like a child, with trials and errors but ever improving and asserting itself into the secular government.

Because of communications, the world is becoming smaller but yet becoming larger.

Meaning that the lesser religions as individuals ones, are getting swallowed up by a larger one world government.

What we have now is a three fold battle for power and the secular government being the vehicle for it.

These three the Muslim world, the Jewish world and the Christian world are all competing for supremacy.
What or who will be the one to unite all three as one? That is the question of the larger picture.

My thoughts.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[L Gilbert]

Oh, probly some atheist without the need to oppress others into believing in some pile of dog poo (er dogma I mean) as those 3 religions have done.

 

[look3467]

Oh, probly some atheist without the need to oppress others into believing in some pile of dog poo (er dogma I mean) as those 3 religions have done.

Thats the fear most Christians hold, the "anti-Christ". Course, you knew that already, right?

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[L Gilbert]

Yeah. That'd be terrible if some atheistic dood who believed in living and letting live got everyone to get along. It'd never happen, though, one of the three would kill him first.

 

[look3467]

Yeah. That'd be terrible if some atheistic dood who believed in living and letting live got everyone to get along. It'd never happen, though, one of the three would kill him first.

Your right there. The one individual who promoted unity got Himself killed!

And His who I model my efforts after.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[L Gilbert]

Ghandi promoted it, Kissinger promoted it, etc. and they were real people who actually existed and there's proof of their existence, unlike the fantasy you're no doubt thinking of.
Besides you just implied that Jesus was an atheist.

 

[look3467]

Ghandi promoted it, Kissinger promoted it, etc. and they were real people who actually existed and there's proof of their existence, unlike the fantasy you're no doubt thinking of.
Besides you just implied that Jesus was an atheist.

A little secret Gilbert that many will not understand and that is, that in order for Jesus to have taken on the sins of the world , He had to become "the sin" of the world, which made Him anti-God!

Now that is a mystery to many.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[L Gilbert]

A little secret Gilbert that many will not understand and that is, that in order for Jesus to have taken on the sins of the world , He had to become "the sin" of the world, which made Him anti-God!

Now that is a mystery to many.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

Even if the dood was real, that still wouldn't have made him sensible enough to be an atheist. That ain't a secret.

 

[look3467]

Even if the dood was real, that still wouldn't have made him sensible enough to be an atheist. That ain't a secret.

No, not an atheist, but anti-God. Or, what I mean is that He hat to become everything that is not God in order to accomplish His mission.

Take this verse for instance: Joh 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

Of all the souls that have ever lived and will live none of them will be lost, but none.

That last none meaning Jesus is the only one that was lost of all humanity.

Now I know that you never heard of it that way, much last the rest of Christianity either, therefore makes me a joke of a voice.

The best judge of me is you all.

Love is the only weapon of choice for me, and I must and will consume any ill intent and render it with kindness.

That's what "none" did for me, of which if I could do 100% of His 1% of good, I would have accomplished much.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[L Gilbert]

No, not an atheist, but anti-God. Or, what I mean is that He hat to become everything that is not God in order to accomplish His mission.

That's probably the root of his problems. But either way, if the dood even existed, he couldn't have had the rational ability to be an atheist. Soooooo, my point is that unless you are perfect there's no way that a theist could unite people in peace.

 

[look3467]

That's probably the root of his problems. But either way, if the dood even existed, he couldn't have had the rational ability to be an atheist. Soooooo, my point is that unless you are perfect there's no way that a theist could unite people in peace.

A theist can be perfect as a theist can be, and a anti-God was perfect at one time as God.

My point is that only God alone could burden the weight of His own making.Mankind surely couldn't.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[John Welch]

From SvMac:"Today in Alberta there are restrictions on how many Hudderites can live in one community and restrictions on how close (distance) Hudderite communities can be to each other. This is in large part to ensure that the Huddertie communities cannot grow to the point where they form a voting block in any significant area."
My point was that Jesus rejected the offer of power. By definition, Christianity would do the same, and so the term "churches" or the Islamic "Christendom" is correct, not "Christianity", for groups who exert political or democratic power. Neither theists nor atheists could possibly unify the chaos.
John

 

[look3467]

My point was that Jesus rejected the offer of power. By definition, Christianity would do the same, and so the term "churches" or the Islamic "Christendom" is correct, not "Christianity", for groups who exert political or democratic power. Neither theists nor atheists could possibly unify the chaos.
John

You see, if Jesus would have accepted the position of any power His whole mission would have failed. So it was imperative that He did not accept.

Jesus did not condemn Rome a secular power, but did condemn the attitude that His own people had as far as the law was concerned.
Because the law then became a political tool of which Jesus came to upset. (Hence the overturning of the tables of commerce)

So it is OK to participate in secular government, but that ones conscience be not forced upon some one else's conscience.
Become a political tool by which people suffer if of a different opinion.

A theist with heart is worth two Christians without heart as leader in my book.

Peace>>>AJ:love9: