When I see things like this, I'm certain we need another civil war. It's beyond time to eliminate these folks.

Sniperwannabee said:

17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice,
18 or the Lord will see and disapprove
and turn his wrath away from them.

Click to expand...

Does that apply to reprobates?

Detroit_1 said:

I may be wrong here but it seems as though you feel that in spite of the good things that religion teaches, and in spite of how (some / many / most / all) of those concepts have shaped American society - religion is a failed concept as demonstrated by present day America / the world around you. Secondly - people are innately born with and understand what good principles and belief are, and the ones that don't their just shitty people. Is that all fair?

Can you work the problem backward? Start out at ground zero, there is no religion - where are these innate understandings of good principles and beliefs coming from? From the collective group? Based on? What is a Community Standard? As religious teachings have been manipulated by text, oration, and the almighty $ over time & people turned away, or toward something false - how did that impact the community standard? Which direction is mankind moving toward now - a greater or lesser understanding of religious teachings? In your estimation - has that been a positive or a negative for mankind?

Click to expand...

My dog was born without religion, hes a German Shepherd. Smart, loyal, caring, protective, doesnt steal my food, all around good dog. Religion didnt shape American society, evolution did. I know a lot of people that are not religious. They are good people. You dont need religion to form a civilized society. Having to use religion as an excuse for why to be good and thinking its the reason why there is good is pretty F'd up. To be honest, some of the more vile people i've met and known in my life were the ones more religious. There is no one more judgmental than a religious person.

People now turn away from it because its 2025 and science, research, and technology has proven its all hogwash. The alien channels on youtube make more sense than any religious teachings and there is more proof of bigfoot than there is jesus ever existed. People have realized the Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy, they are all just made up things to make kids behave... God, Jesus, no different. The only evidense people provide is a book thats been rewritten, re-transcribed so many timed to what the people at that time thought it meant and then deleted what over 22 books of it, and then now say it has merit. lol...

Why do people think this way? Act the way they do now? 90 some people just got killed in a flood. Was that gods plan? Loved ones 100% innocent die every day from diseases, cancer, accidents... is that gods plan? Technology connected the world, we can all see everything now. 100 years ago people couldnt see whats really going on outside their own home or small community. Now we see all the lies, corruption, manipulation, you can remain a virgin and pray 200 times a day and still end up murdered and you can be a murder and live a long healthy life. We can see the church's scams, million dollar buildings, businesses, Olsteens, the Vacitcan Epstein folks..... its all a ruse. Generations been duped forever but no way to check, now we can. Going to church to become a better person is like going out to the garage to become a car.

Green461 said:

My dog was born without religion, hes a German Shepherd. Smart, loyal, caring, protective, doesnt steal my food, all around good dog. Religion didnt shape American society, evolution did. I know a lot of people that are not religious. They are good people. You dont need religion to form a civilized society. Having to use religion as an excuse for why to be good and thinking its the reason why there is good is pretty F'd up. To be honest, some of the more vile people i've met and known in my life were the ones more religious. There is no one more judgmental than a religious person.

People now turn away from it because its 2025 and science, research, and technology has proven its all hogwash. The alien channels on youtube make more sense than any religious teachings and there is more proof of bigfoot than there is jesus ever existed. People have realized the Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy, they are all just made up things to make kids behave... God, Jesus, no different. The only evidense people provide is a book thats been rewritten, re-transcribed so many timed to what the people at that time thought it meant and then deleted what over 22 books of it, and then now say it has merit. lol...

Why do people think this way? Act the way they do now? 90 some people just got killed in a flood. Was that gods plan? Loved ones 100% innocent die every day from diseases, cancer, accidents... is that gods plan? Technology connected the world, we can all see everything now. 100 years ago people couldnt see whats really going on outside their own home or small community. Now we see all the lies, corruption, manipulation, you can remain a virgin and pray 200 times a day and still end up murdered and you can be a murder and live a long healthy life. We can see the church's scams, million dollar buildings, businesses, Olsteens, the Vacitcan Epstein folks..... its all a ruse. Generations been duped forever but no way to check, now we can. Going to church to become a better person is like going out to the garage to become a car.

Click to expand...

You are conflating religion with faith.
I'd not compare a dog to a human although they commonly behave better than many.
Like all perceived positions of power they draw the less than upstanding individuals for nefarious reasons.

What values and from where?
What is the basis of western societal culture derived from?
Founding fathers quoted their source frequently.


R

Fig said:

The most interesting books of the apocrypha are not those omitted at Nicaea. As a Christian who has been studying the canonical Bible and the Apocrypha for thirty plus years I find those books to be very unconvincing and obviously don't belong in the Cannon at all. Things like excluding first and second Maccabees are more meh. My proclivity would be to keep them in, but I can see why someone might think they were less important in the cannon. Anti-Christians like to make a big deal out of some of it (like the ridiculous writings of the Gnostics) as if there were some controversy, but these were as rejected and heretical in 325 as they are today. There was never any controversy in rejecting them as completely uninspired and the fodder for fringe cults. That some of it supports the pre-existing opinions of Atheists and anti-Christians is their only utility. When putting the cannon together, clearly these books did not belong, and you don't need to be some Bishop in 325 to easily determine that when reading them.

As far as translations, I'd say that we discuss, compare, and contrast the different ways the Bible is translated at least every other week. Unless you are fluent in Greek and Aramaic it is simply a fact that they have words with specific meanings that don't exist in singular words in English. The most widely known example of this is that in English we only have the word "love", but in Greek there are eight different words for love that have each have specific and unique meanings. They don't translate except into English phrases, which makes it harder to actually understand it. Going back constantly to the Greek or Aramaic is very common and typical in Bible study across the nation and across time. To believe this is some new or esoteric practice is as absurd, as to believe that there is malice or intent to deceive in the translators. To be sure, the deeper you go the more effort it takes, but we are literally commanded to delve ever deeper to understand. The Bible is shallow enough so you won't drown, and deep enough so you will never find the bottom.

What I find far, far, far more interesting are the books that were excluded a thousand years or more before Nicaea. They are the ones that the Rabis kept out of the Torah because of things like they mention or are fully about angels, which is blasphemy to Jews. When I read those books they seem to fit and dovetail perfectly with no major or minor departures from the rest of the Bible. Yet, they are not in our Bibles because they were excluded from Torah as heretical. Yet, the New Testament talks quite a bit about Angels and considers them almost unremarkable and a given, so it seems to me that revisiting some of the books that the Jews rejected is at the very least not a bad idea. They're all available online for free. I found "The Book of Noah", and "The Book of Enoch" both interesting and very thought provoking, especially how they dovetail with so much of the rest of the Old Testament. If you don't believe in angels, I can see why you would discard them. If you do, then they seem to fit right in.

Talking about "religion" as the cause for man's ills, is as silly (ignorant really) as blaming "government" for all man's ills, as if they were all the same thing, and there was no difference between any political ideas/ideologies or different forms of government. In the end it's the ideas that matter, so when one religion tells people to murder unbelievers, or that stealing is a godly act, and another to pray for your enemies; saying that the two are no different is false on its face, and makes you sound really dumb. Also, ascribing all man's proclivities and failings to religion, rather than our central problem (knowing right from wrong and still choosing wrong), also completely misses the mark and makes you sound ignorant like you are simply regurgitating the platitudes of someone with no depth of thought. All religions are an attempt to solve for man's failings through deeds and works by believing in a higher power...except for one. There's only one that says it's the very belief itself that offers a way out, and that actions don't earn you anything if they are not directly a result of that belief... THAT is pretty interesting when you compare and contrast the world's religions as a pure agnostic.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Hecouldgoalltheway said:

The same degree of facts that you presented..... none. That was the point. You keep calling your opinion "facts". You're wrong. I could probably correctly guess many aspects of your life based on this short conversation. Let's just stop this back and forth here, like I tried to do from the outset. I have better things to do than compare opinions posing as facts with someone I would disagree with about almost everything..... just like I said from the outset. Have a good day.

Click to expand...

Your problem here is you don't understand, well, anything about the demographics in Germany in 1933. 95% of the population were evangelical Christians, that's not my opinion, that's a fact, and it's easily verifiable. You seem like the type who's happy to stay in their ignorance rather than considering new information.

tna9001 said:

Your problem here is you don't understand, well, anything about the demographics in Germany in 1933. 95% of the population were evangelical Christians, that's not my opinion, that's a fact, and it's easily verifiable. You seem like the type who's happy to stay in their ignorance rather than considering new information.

Click to expand...

Since you ignore my earlier comment, I would like to point out that calling 95% Evangelic Christian is akin to mixing up Shia and Sunni Muslims or Orthodox and Reform Judism.

Germany is/was largely Catholic/Protestant (remember that 30 years War thing referenced earlier). While there is some overlap between protestant and evangelical, evangelical is a more modern term. NO ONE would describe Catholics as "Evangelical"

Or it bear pit terms:


Also as self-appointed "math guru" please explain your numbers considering this (it has sources btw):
54% of the population considered itself Protestant, 41% considered itself Catholic, 3.5% self-identified as Gottgläubig[4] (lit. 'believing in God'),[5] and 1.5% as "atheist".[4] Protestants were over-represented in the Nazi Party's membership and electorate, and Catholics were under-represented.

Even if ALL the Catholics and Protestants were considered Evangelical (which they weren't) that still gives us 95%. Now do you wannt go for round three you buttfucking troll or do you need a third lesson? Also that assumes EVERYONE was a Nazi member you class defining shit-for-brains.


--I have nothing against Evangelical Christians, just pointing out that its such a fucking obvious mistake it destroys any opinion you might try and attempt.

Fuck tard

It my not be your opinion, but it certainly isn't a fact and sounds 100% BS Made up on the spot statistics. LIke 99% of your IQ.

Detroit_1 said:

I may be wrong here but it seems as though you feel that in spite of the good things that religion teaches, and in spite of how (some / many / most / all) of those concepts have shaped American society - religion is a failed concept as demonstrated by present day America / the world around you. Secondly - people are innately born with and understand what good principles and belief are, and the ones that don't - they're just shitty people. Is that all fair?

Can you work the problem backward? Start out at ground zero, there is no religion - where are these innate understandings of good principles and beliefs coming from? From the collective group? Based on? What is a Community Standard? As religious teachings have been manipulated by text, oration, and the almighty $ over time & people turned away, or toward something false - how did that impact the community standard? Which direction is mankind moving toward now - a greater or lesser understanding of religious teachings? In your estimation - has that been a positive or a negative for mankind?

Click to expand...

All "original sin" is is a knowledge of good and evil. We know this because we are human and can identify what human is. We are islands, but have similar feelings and understand pain and pleasure not only in ourselves but in others. You know how you would like to be treated by others, but not everyone treats others as they want to be treated. We create laws based on morality, but not all of that morality is received. The bulk of it is innate and the same across cultures and religions. Even Plato and Socrates understood that the just man is just even when no one is looking.

Remaining on the surface and never going deeper is like a failure to launch adolescent who never leaves his parents house. Looking to the above truths will never get you further than superficial meaning at best. It is both intellectual and spiritual arrested development. A baby has no empathy and is innocent. A person who does not realize the spiritual warfare going on around them is like a baby who wants what it wants, but is unable to tell the difference between good and bad except for how it directly effects them. For those of us who do see this it's not some esoteric analogy or metaphor, but viscerally real. Good and evil aren't abstract concepts invented by man, but they are real forces that act like physical laws on us. Often, like particles or waves outside the range of our direct perception, we can only experience the results of these forces. At some point, when you become aware of them, just the fact that you cannot directly perceive them with your five senses becomes as unremarkable as not being able to see x-rays, or actually see thermal radiation when you can actually feel it. Now we can "see" heat with a thermal optic, but it existed since the dawn of the universe before that, and we could always feel it. Once you accept that there is a great deal going on that isn't within our direct perception, and we have no way of measuring or quantifying it, it raises all sorts of thorny questions, does it not? People seek answers, and there is no shortage of theories and ready made guides to navigating it. It is up to us to decide what makes sense and what doesn't to solve for this human condition. There is certainly metaphor, symbolism, and parable in the Bible. There has to be to get two kilograms of fat and electricity to even begin to understand some of the concepts it puts forth, and in lots of places it flatly states that we cannot understand within the confines of this reality. Saying that this is the only reality just because we're sharing it is as stupid as saying that because I can't perceive x-rays they don't exist.

The whole Old Testament is basically the same story over and over of the Jews being pious and kneeling before God, falling away from that, getting severely punished, coming back to great faith, and being blessed again. It's one of those concepts I call Hammer Concepts because the Bible beats you with it till even an idiot would get it. I think by the end of the book you get the picture that it isn't enough. That covenant to keep the law is insufficient to beat evil. There has to/had to be something much more earth shattering and severe to solve for the human condition. If you accept the premise that God loves us, like a father loves his children, then it had to be sacrifice and grace. What other choice was/is there? The Bible does not ask us to turn our brains off. Quite the opposite. It demands we turn them on, and consider the biggest questions that we can conceive of.

I've been reading the same book for decades and still get ah-ha moments. It's not because I'm a stupid man. It's because I am constantly asked to think outside my own reality, and consider concepts and a reality that is beyond the bounds of this one. It's like electric theory. It's a way to explain what's happening in a way you can understand it, but you have to actually experience it before you really understand and believe.

I believe that this age, or any age is no different. Our culture and our form of government are based on limitations and individual rights. That is our relationship to being a "Christian" nation. Just as our relationship with the Almighty is individual and personal, so to are our rights inherent to each of us as individuals. That's a belief and a statement of belief. When we cleave to this we are blessed, and when we fall away we get the stick till we come back. It goes to the very meaning of life. Our way of life is suited to only a moral and sober people. Our belief in liberty is rooted in that, and without it our form of government is insufficient, which is why imposing our beliefs on others almost always fails. If we want to last another 250 years or another 2000 years we have to keep the basis on which it is all built. That's what I think.

Without religion there is no absolute arbiter of what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. If there is no arbiter or authority outside of the collective ideas of mankind, then all you are left with is "might makes right." Basically if the majority say so, that's what happens. If 51% of the human race decide the other 49% need to go... It's all well and good.

The argument is always that you don't need "God" to be a good person. That works for about 2 generations, if you're lucky, before you start down the slippery slope of moral relativism. And moral relativism breaks down into nihlist logic pretty quick.

Mike

tna9001 said:

You should take a look for yourself.

95% of Germans during the Nazi rule were Evangelical Christians.

In South Africa, the Dutch Reformed Church was how the apartheid regime was organized.

Click to expand...

I lived in South Africa during the late 80s and early 90s, and you are more full of shit than a factory chicken.

OkieMike said:

Without religion there is no absolute arbiter of what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. If there is no arbiter or authority outside of the collective ideas of mankind, then all you are left with is "might makes right." Basically if the majority say so, that's what happens. If 51% of the human race decide the other 49% need to go... It's all well and good.

The argument is always that you don't need "God" to be a good person. That works for about 2 generations, if you're lucky, before you start down the slippery slope of moral relativism. And moral relativism breaks down into nihlist logic pretty quick.

Mike

Click to expand...

I dont disagree, but in a sense dont agree either. Religion is similar to govt. Religion 100 years ago was different, now we have this commercialized religion which is mostly a ruse. People use it as cover, a mask. I think there is a misconception when I and others say that religion is not needed, the view we have may differ greatly from what other people view religion as. If someone in a small town diner in the south asks you about jesus, it hits different than if the same question was asked to you by some stranger approaching you on a remote hiking trail in Colorado or while walking the streets of Chicago. Much like the govt, its intent was good but too many bad people got in. Now you just need to burn the whole thing down and start over.

tna9001 said:

You can’t take it further because what I said is true.

Click to expand...

Winner !

RPN said:

I lived in South Africa during the late 80s and early 90s, and you are more full of shit than a factory chicken.

Click to expand...

Liar !

Generalizing about “religion” is like generalizing about political science. You don’t do it because it’s false on its face.


There are entire documentary films on how the Lutheran and Catholic Churches were brought under Naziism, and most of it was initially to counter the depravity of the Weimar Republic. By the time they seized all power it was too late. To say that the German Lutheran Church, which was and is literally funded by the German government then and even now, like almost all churches in Europe, is "evangelical" is just completely invented out of whole cloth. Both the Lutheran and Catholic churches in Germany virtually were organs of the state, like they are today. If they weren’t there would probably be four Christian churches in Europe. It was absolutely seamless for the state to instruct the pastors and priests what to say from the pulpit. Where there was resistance to Naziism from the types of Aryan people who were favored (and there wasn't much), it came from within the churches and in spite of what the government was commanding them to do.

The whole bullshit line of thought is factually bankrupt. If you want to attack Christians man up and attack. Don’t be such a fucking pussy.

Green461 said:

I dont disagree, but in a sense dont agree either. Religion is similar to govt. Religion 100 years ago was different, now we have this commercialized religion which is mostly a ruse. People use it as cover, a mask. I think there is a misconception when I and others say that religion is not needed, the view we have may differ greatly from what other people view religion as. If someone in a small town diner in the south asks you about jesus, it hits different than if the same question was asked to you by some stranger approaching you on a remote hiking trail in Colorado or while walking the streets of Chicago. Much like the govt, its intent was good but too many bad people got in. Now you just need to burn the whole thing down and start over.

Click to expand...

Somewhat agree where mega churches and the like are concerned... Those don't correlate with my upbringing. Small independent protestant congregations with no national headquarters or any of that. About as first century as one could get without meeting in the catacombs... Think church service from Little House on the Prairie type deal... No grandiose cathedrals, no band, no organized choir... Just study and worship.

The pope and Joel Osteen are both as alien to my notion of Christianity as Islam or whatever pagan religion that tribes in the Amazon practice.

Mike

Haney said:

Liar !

Click to expand...

You don't have a lot of luck with thinking, do you.

Below are a couple of pages from my passport from the period, and an old pistol permit issued by the Racist Republic (TM)

In future - even though it flies in the face of a lifetimes practice, think before you go and make an absolute cunt of yourself.

A PM could have lead you to the truth, but hey - what is the truth in Haneyland, anyway?

Fig said:

The most interesting books of the apocrypha are not those omitted at Nicaea. As a Christian who has been studying the canonical Bible and the Apocrypha for thirty plus years I find those books to be very unconvincing and obviously don't belong in the Cannon at all. Things like excluding first and second Maccabees are more meh. My proclivity would be to keep them in, but I can see why someone might think they were less important in the cannon. Anti-Christians like to make a big deal out of some of it (like the ridiculous writings of the Gnostics) as if there were some controversy, but these were as rejected and heretical in 325 as they are today. There was never any controversy in rejecting them as completely uninspired and the fodder for fringe cults. That some of it supports the pre-existing opinions of Atheists and anti-Christians is their only utility. When putting the cannon together, clearly these books did not belong, and you don't need to be some Bishop in 325 to easily determine that when reading them.

As far as translations, I'd say that we discuss, compare, and contrast the different ways the Bible is translated at least every other week. Unless you are fluent in Greek and Aramaic it is simply a fact that they have words with specific meanings that don't exist in singular words in English. The most widely known example of this is that in English we only have the word "love", but in Greek there are eight different words for love that have each have specific and unique meanings. They don't translate except into English phrases, which makes it harder to actually understand it. Going back constantly to the Greek or Aramaic is very common and typical in Bible study across the nation and across time. To believe this is some new or esoteric practice is as absurd, as to believe that there is malice or intent to deceive in the translators. To be sure, the deeper you go the more effort it takes, but we are literally commanded to delve ever deeper to understand. The Bible is shallow enough so you won't drown, and deep enough so you will never find the bottom.

What I find far, far, far more interesting are the books that were excluded a thousand years or more before Nicaea. They are the ones that the Rabis kept out of the Torah because of things like they mention or are fully about angels, which is blasphemy to Jews. When I read those books they seem to fit and dovetail perfectly with no major or minor departures from the rest of the Bible. Yet, they are not in our Bibles because they were excluded from Torah as heretical. Yet, the New Testament talks quite a bit about Angels and considers them almost unremarkable and a given, so it seems to me that revisiting some of the books that the Jews rejected is at the very least not a bad idea. They're all available online for free. I found "The Book of Noah", and "The Book of Enoch" both interesting and very thought provoking, especially how they dovetail with so much of the rest of the Old Testament. If you don't believe in angels, I can see why you would discard them. If you do, then they seem to fit right in.

Talking about "religion" as the cause for man's ills, is as silly (ignorant really) as blaming "government" for all man's ills, as if they were all the same thing, and there was no difference between any political ideas/ideologies or different forms of government. In the end it's the ideas that matter, so when one religion tells people to murder unbelievers, or that stealing is a godly act, and another to pray for your enemies; saying that the two are no different is false on its face, and makes you sound really dumb. Also, ascribing all man's proclivities and failings to religion, rather than our central problem (knowing right from wrong and still choosing wrong), also completely misses the mark and makes you sound ignorant like you are simply regurgitating the platitudes of someone with no depth of thought. All religions are an attempt to solve for man's failings through deeds and works by believing in a higher power...except for one. There's only one that says it's the very belief itself that offers a way out, and that actions don't earn you anything if they are not directly a result of that belief... THAT is pretty interesting when you compare and contrast the world's religions as a pure agnostic.

Click to expand...

There was a lot I wanted to say, but this covers most of it with the same cogency and actual facts I wanted to repeat. Thank you.

Oh, and Psalm 35. You know who you are.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Click to expand...

- George Washington, 1792

Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Click to expand...

- John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia 1798

Both Washington and Adams understood the critical, fundamental link between morality and religion. They knew those who would attempt to break those bonds would be either deliberately or ignorantly undermining the republic.

tna9001 said:

Christians were the engine that drove Nazism and Christians were the engine that drove the Apartheid regime in South Africa for 48 years.

People who believe things without evidence are easy to manipulate and control.

Click to expand...

Hitler was not a Christian. Pure evil and the perversion of Christianity contributed to Nazism. Apartheid, for the most part was a necessity... a wall to keep the animals out. Maybe there was a better way, but South Africa has pretty much slid into a third world pit, without Apartheid. The Afrikaners were the best thing to happen to that God forsaken continent. Had everyone in South Africa adhered to Christian values, it would be a wonderful place to visit and live. The perversion of Christianity and man's twisting of religion, for his own gain is a real problem.

tna9001 said:

Christians were the engine that drove Nazism and Christians were the engine that drove the Apartheid regime in South Africa for 48 years.

People who believe things without evidence are easy to manipulate and control.

Click to expand...

Make no mistake, Marxism was the engine which created Nazism. Germanic national socialism didn't "just happen for no reason at all."

Reference sub-sahara African matters:

I'm sure @MK20 could enlighten you as to some rather colorful personal observations of indigenous Sub-Saharan atrocities. I have different personal experiences and observations in the same geographical areas, but we both came to the same conclusions without knowledge of each other's experiences.

Build a wall around it and pump water in.
After a couple of years drain and try again.
The current version is fucked.