Sd#228

[the iron horse]

Sunday Dispatch #228

The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.

~Carl Sagan


We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anybody,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before during
and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe adultery is fun.
We believe that Sodomy's OK
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that after death comes The Nothing
because when you ask the dead what happens
they say Nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler,Stalin and Genghis Khan.

We believe that all religions are basically the same
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation sin heaven hell and salvation.

We believe that truth will only be found
in the next box we open.
When we open that box,
we believe that truth will only be found
in the next box we open.
We believe in a mind so open that everrything falls out.

We believe that each person must find the truth
that is right.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no truth.

We believe...
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha
Mohammed and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
his morals were bad.


~from "Creed" and "Creed II"
Steve Turner/J.W.Shire

 

[melon]

You know what? You're wrong. If we're going to live in a bipolar "right" and "wrong" / "good" and "evil" world, you're wrong.

I resent the fact that, in your implicit list of "bad" things, you lump science, sex, atheism, ecumenism, and, yes, Hitler.

If there's absolute Truth, you're wrong. And guess what? I hate ecumenism, because blatant judgmentalism and stereotypes fall outside my idea of Heaven. And if everything is reduced to "good" and "evil" / "right" and "wrong," well then you can guess where I think these ideas belong from there.

"He was a good moral teacher although we think his morals were bad." You're right. You know, when Jesus chose not to stone a woman to death for adultery, when it was prescribed in the Bible to do so, that was Jesus' morality. Today, the same people who supposedly are "pro-life" also cheer hundreds of prisoner executions each year. Does that sound like something Jesus would support?

Or Jesus' renunciation of "an eye for an eye" for "turn the other cheek?" Instead, when 9/11 occurred, we chose to go for the jugular and send American troops to kill just as many civilians, if not more, just so we could get that "eye." It may not have been on purpose, but no one ever claimed that. "Collateral damage" is the loss of someone's life, and just as the civilians of Afghanistan or Iraq or Palestine are "collateral damage" in the eyes of the U.S., dead Americans and Israelis are "collateral damage" to them.

Or what about "love"? You know, that thing outside of "an eye for an eye" or judgmentalism.

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." -- Romans 13:8-10

I'm sick of it. I'm utterly sick of modern Christianity. I'm sick of the blatant lies generated from it. I'm sick of the self-righteous behavior. I'm sick of the false modesty. And, most of all, I'm sick of how utterly sick writings as these somehow, somewhere get passed off as "Christian." And to think: a leftist writing as "judgmental" as that above would be derided as "blasphemous."

Maybe I'm not as "Christ-like" as I should be, because I should have just ignored this crap. I should have "turned the other cheek," rather than going for the intellectual jugular. But I am not perfect, and I have never claimed to be. But guess what? Fundamentalist/evangelical/right-wing/Republican "Christianity" (or whatever someone wants to call it) seems to have forgotten something called "modesty." Because, last I read, killing prisoners is not "pro-life." The "war on terrorism," as has been waged, is not "turning the other cheek." As such, this "Christianity" collapses on its own hypocrisy--it's own moral bankruptcy--just as the Pharisees' "religion" collapsed on itself 2000 years ago. After all, it thought it was ready for the First Coming of Jesus and missed the mark completely. Does modern "Christianity" have the same "certainty"?

"Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,' when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye." -- Luke 6:41-42

Here's my "Sunday Dispatch" for everyone's enjoyment.

God bless...

Melon

 

[Doozer61]

There is no devil. God is all there is in the Universe. There is only One Power and that is God. God is Intelligence, Energy, Love, Abundance, and the Creative source back of all things. Each human being is a creation of God, made in Its image and likeness, with the choice of how to use universal principles. Evil is a result of man’s misuse of these principles, and not sourced by a separate power.
God is not human, and has no gender or limiting human emotion such as anger, wrath, vengefulness, or jealousy. God does not ever deny us or punish us but has provided the Law of Cause and Effect that says that whatever we believe, we create. We experience the consequences of this freedom of choice, never punishment by God.

The “Word” of God is the great Causative Power of the Universe. God is eternally initiating the Divine Creative Process. Since the human spirit is One with Universal Spirit, our thought is creative and we re-enact in microcosm the Divine Creative Process in our lives.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Melon, Jesus' admonition to "turn the other cheek" was not an anti-war statement. It dealt with personal relationships-one on one-not government.

 

[melon]

Melon, Jesus' admonition to "turn the other cheek" was not an anti-war statement. It dealt with personal relationships-one on one-not government.

And where does it say that? I'd like the book/chapter/verse(s), please.

Because, you see, "Christianity" seems to do a lot of meddling into people's personal lives and tries to legislate its morality onto everyone. Isn't that what Congress has been doing lately?

So NOW "Christianity" is going to pull the "separation of church and state" card when it sees fit? I don't buy it. I don't buy it one bit.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm not really delving into the church and state issue here, not at all. All I said was that the "turn the other cheek" teaching applies to personal, one on one relationships.

Read the passage in context, paying attention to teh verses around it, and you will see that.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

Much to the displeasure of those around him who wanted their Messiah to be a "conquering hero" and deliver the Jews from the Romans, Christ did not discuss politics, except the time they asked him about taxes and he said "render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's".

The context of this passage is the Sermon on the Mount; Christ is extolling proper conduct for individuals who follow God. It is on an individual level.

 

[80sU2isBest]

There is no devil. God is all there is in the Universe. There is only One Power and that is God. God is Intelligence, Energy, Love, Abundance, and the Creative source back of all things. Each human being is a creation of God, made in Its image and likeness, with the choice of how to use universal principles. Evil is a result of man’s misuse of these principles, and not sourced by a separate power.
God is not human, and has no gender or limiting human emotion such as anger, wrath, vengefulness, or jealousy. God does not ever deny us or punish us but has provided the Law of Cause and Effect that says that whatever we believe, we create. We experience the consequences of this freedom of choice, never punishment by God.

The “Word” of God is the great Causative Power of the Universe. God is eternally initiating the Divine Creative Process. Since the human spirit is One with Universal Spirit, our thought is creative and we re-enact in microcosm the Divine Creative Process in our lives.

I do not agree at all. I believe in a God who becomes personally involved in his creation. And I believe in a devil who becomes personally involved. The devil's mission is to "steal, kill and destroy". One of God's missions, already accomplished through Christ, is to "destroy the works of the devil".

 

[A_Wanderer]

How could an ideal and omnipotent God create Satan without knowing the folly of that action. Wouldn't God be responsible for all thats ill in the world seeing how some consider that all wrong is caused by Satan.

 

[melon]

How could an ideal and omnipotent God create Satan without knowing the folly of that action. Wouldn't God be responsible for all thats ill in the world seeing how some consider that all wrong is caused by Satan.

See my past discussions re: Zoroastrianism's influence on Christianity. "Satan" originates from the evil god, Ahriman (a.k.a., "Shaitan"), but was arbitrarily demoted to an angel in monotheistic Judeo-Christianity. However, "Satan" maintains all of Ahriman's god powers, which is why, out of all the angels depicted in the Bible, Satan seemingly has far more power and influence over humanity than the rest. In Zoroastrianism, the two gods (the other being the good god, "Ahura Mazda") are created independent of each other. Hence, "evil" is not a creation of the "good god." While demoting Satan to an angel made it compatible with monotheism, it opened the perpetual question as to why God would consciously create "evil."

Melon

 

[Doozer61]

I do not agree at all. I believe in a God who becomes personally involved in his creation. And I believe in a devil who becomes personally involved. The devil's mission is to "steal, kill and destroy". One of God's missions, already accomplished through Christ, is to "destroy the works of the devil".

You don't have to agree.

I do not believe there is a God outside of me. I believe that we are ALL God and God lives and flows through us. Everything that we see, feel, touch is God.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Melon, one one hand, you insist that Christianity is a bunch of crap and continue to go on about what you perceive as the "errancy" of the scriptures...

But on the other hand, you use the words of Christ, as recorded in those same scriptures, in an effort to support your argument.

What gives? Don't you see the inconsistency in that?

 

[melon]

Melon, one one hand, you insist that Christianity is a bunch of crap and continue to go on about what you perceive as the "errancy" of the scriptures...

But on the other hand, you use the words of Christ, as recorded in those same scriptures, in an effort to support your argument.

What gives? Don't you see the inconsistency in that?

For those of a fundamentalist persuasion, what I said originally should have no inconsistency. I see "inconsistency" in that "fundamentalism" is merely conservative/GOP ideology wrapped in self-righteousness and false modesty. With all this "literalism," all of a sudden, we're taking in context. That's the inconsistency I see.

I believe everyone is "guilty" of picking and choosing, because the Bible is so large and inconsistent. Historical context, at least, helps me understand why the Bible is the way it is.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

For those of a fundamentalist persuasion, what I said originally should have no inconsistency. I see "inconsistency" in that "fundamentalism" is merely conservative/GOP ideology wrapped in self-righteousness and false modesty. With all this "literalism," all of a sudden, we're taking in context. That's the inconsistency I see.

I believe everyone is "guilty" of picking and choosing, because the Bible is so large and inconsistent. Historical context, at least, helps me understand why the Bible is the way it is.

Melon

I don't think you understand what I was saying, but that's okay.

One thing I can say is that you are taking what you see in some people who profess to be fundamentalist Christians and applying those characteristics as if they were the definition of the term "christian fundamentalism", which they are not. By definition, a fundamental Christian is basically just someone who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

On a side note, it appears we are just where we were 3 years ago. But on a positive note, sure seems that this is the new, "kinder and gentler" version of us.

 

[melon]

Yeah...I'd like to think the "kinder and gentler" melon can argue without making it personal. For the record, I don't care what people believe, no matter how conservative or liberal it is. I just don't want someone else's "morality" elevated and legislated, which is what the Bush Administration wants to do on a regular basis. That's where I get bitter.

As for the original post, it set me off, because I saw it as ridiculously self-righteous. And just as you might take offense to my characterization of "fundamentalist Christians," I take offense to the mischaracterizations originally posted. It started out with science and ended up with some hedonistic, godless atheism.

And that's where I wrote my passage. I don't think conservative Christians are any more interested in wanting to adhere to Jesus' teachings than anyone else. The difference, of course, is that their opinions are somehow elevated to the level of infallibility, even though I see plenty of problems with that statement.

That's my point.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

As for the original post, it set me off, because I saw it as ridiculously self-righteous. And just as you might take offense to my characterization of "fundamentalist Christians," I take offense to the mischaracterizations originally posted. It started out with science and ended up with some hedonistic, godless atheism.

I have no opinion on the first post of this thread, because quite honestly, I don't understand it.

 

[BVS]

By far the most self righteous Sunday Dispatch to date.

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess something must be read into the basis for the Sunday Dispatch article.

Some may simply agree with all the statements.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I have no opinion on the first post of this thread, because quite honestly, I don't understand it.

That makes me feel good, because I don't either

But honestly I only read the first few lines then my mind started wandering to opening day and other stuff. No offense, I don't want to be mean or anything