Genesis and Matthew

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:20:34 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

wrote:



It's true that religious belief is not as all-pervasive as it once was.



But its prevalence does not seem to be heading downwards very quickly. In the United States, at least, you would be talking about something like the year 50,000 A.D. - or should I say C.E.?



The shift away from religion is nearly complete in most other

developed countries. And in the U.S., the evidence suggests that the

change is not linear (social change rarely is). I'd say we're talking

about decades, not millennia. Indeed, I think the survival of the U.S.

as a developed nation requires that. It is religion and faith that is

putting the country (and world) at the greatest risk. I sincerely

doubt that the U.S. will survive in anything like its current form

without a rapid decrease in religiosity over the next years.

Fortunately, it seems to be happening.

You sound as rabid about faith/religion as the old commies . You should have gone to mass today where they spoke about salt flavoring food just as faith flavors existence,too much and the food becomes insipid and too little and life has no taste at all.

All people understand things greater than themselves at their own level and that is why understanding the mathematical facets within the Judaeo-Christian books is not really necessary nor is it required however those who see the expanse of inspiration will not reject what it is in their nature to accept.

You have followed people Peterson that you shouldn't have hence yours is the indoctrination and a living death. The greatest men are not those who declare God is great,those who are greatest are those who live in the most hostile environment yet still retain a balance between the love of God and their duties to man in works great and small.

" "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven."

You have an unstable astronomical narrative hence the works of men without inspiration that comes from God. You inhabit the drudgery of a clockwork solar system that you inherit from those who lacked appreciation of the ideas of older and more inspired people.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Friday, February 7, 2014 2:16:36 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Not if they couldn't explain how to achieve this without all manner of
undesirable consequences.

In my perfect society, teaching children religion would be illegal. We
don't live in a perfect society.

Yes, since people today who are parents take their religion very seriously,
clearly you would need to have an undesirable dictatorship to prevent
parents from teaching religion to their children.

Just because I disapprove of much that is done in the name of religion,
though, I welcome a society where the government doesn't try to create the
philosophical center that all individuals are expected to have to determine
their fundamental notions of right and wrong.

Since this is not a solved problem, where universal agreement on questions
of morals is as reasonable to expect as universal agreement on matters of
physics or mathematics, for people to bring diverse viewpoints to the body
politic helps to allow an approach to the truth.

Some religious groups, of course, are cult-like and teach children
particularly pernicious notions. You may be right that we have a tolerance
for other religious groups that would objectively also be considered not
that much different. But liberty is properly the priority.

John Savard
=============================================
Why do you associate morality with religion? Why can't you teach children
right from wrong without bringing in the maternal instinct to protect little
baby Jesus and all the bull**** about following a star to give him tree sap
and gold so he could walk on water and feed five thousand fish sandwiches to
a crowd that forgot to bring their own brown bag lunch or other "miraculous"
magic tricks to fool the gullible? Religion is a crutch for the mentally
lame.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 21:00:38 -0000, "Lord Androcles"
wrote:

Why do you associate morality with religion?

Indeed. I associate religion with a lack of morality. Christianity in
particular is based on an absolute moral code that is frequently
abhorrent, further corrupted by the idea of forgiveness by proxy, and
even more by the threat of eternal punishment. Horrible.

On 2/9/2014 4:31 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 21:00:38 -0000, "Lord Androcles"
wrote:

Why do you associate morality with religion?

Indeed. I associate religion with a lack of morality. Christianity in
particular is based on an absolute moral code that is frequently
abhorrent, further corrupted by the idea of forgiveness by proxy, and
even more by the threat of eternal punishment. Horrible.

I agree with Chris and is why I abandoned religion nearly
60 years ago.

The following should clarify matters noting the second URL would have
been a better reference if it included all three Abrahamic religions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

http://zabalazabooks.net/2011/01/09/...-christianity/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1131799

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...n-the-country/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ersonal-desire

On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:02:10 AM UTC, Thad Floryan wrote:
On 2/9/2014 4:31 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 21:00:38 -0000, "Lord Androcles"

wrote:



Why do you associate morality with religion?



Indeed. I associate religion with a lack of morality. Christianity in

particular is based on an absolute moral code that is frequently

abhorrent, further corrupted by the idea of forgiveness by proxy, and

even more by the threat of eternal punishment. Horrible.



I agree with Chris and is why I abandoned religion nearly

60 years ago.



Christianity is based on the fact that love is greater than hate and sorry if you misunderstood faith as a moral code in order to achieve something after the body dies. It is like astronomy Floryan, you either grow beyond the surface narrative and see human life in context of the great Life that encompasses it or retreat into an indoctrinated shell ,in your case a rotating celestial sphere creation allied to a magnification exercise which answers to nothing but mental novelties and voodoo.

Religion abandons you insofar as a closed mind is already dead to those things that inspire and resonate with intense joy and satisfaction,after all, the growing sense of a greater life comes as people get older in a most gentle way even as their bodies decline in physical ability as opposed to you and others who have just resigned yourself to your own opinions.

Your cult has made a religion out of wants and hates and made a mockery of the celestial arena under the name of astronomy.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 21:00:38 -0000, "Lord Androcles"
wrote:

Why do you associate morality with religion?

Indeed.
======================================
My question was directed at those that do. Savard's bluster or his silence
speaks to his indoctrination into a Bronze Age agricultural society whose
temples to gods now forgotten were no less magnificent or devotional as any
medieval cathedral.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On 2/6/2014 11:17 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:18:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Peterson, did you write this?:

"The right
to religion has been limited throughout history, to the point where
its existence is doubtful (and ought to be limited today in free
societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion,
or take them to church)."

Yes, although in practice I don't know how to make such a thing
happen. I think what will ultimately occur is that teaching children
about religion (as truth) will simply be seen as socially
unacceptable.


Unless society is at a minimum willing to provide for, care for, and
protect the mentally infirm until they are healed, faith will survive.
And I'm not talking about those who have a genetic defect of mental
illness, but I'm talking about those who are abused by their parents,
their siblings, their peers, and by those in authority over them who
eventually break their spirit and drive them into alcoholism, drug
addiction, prostitution, and/or prison.

The main purpose of the Jesus story is to promote the comforting and
healing of such as these. He "came" to "heal the sick, raise the dead,
and cast out demons". His mission one of salvation from the self
destructive behaviors that result from oppression. His command to us to
visit the infirm and the imprisoned, and to care for the widow and the
orphan. To bring them a message of hope. The message that "God" is NOT
to blame for their infirmities. That if they hold strong to the good
they know is in them, to see that good in others, and reach out for
help, that they will prevail, and society will be better as a whole for it.

The enemy of his purpose is all too often found in "the church", which
being a human construct is subject to the same corruptions that lead to
the very infirmities Jesus came to end. And spreading those corruptions
in "his" name, they turn society's deaf ear to his purpose and it's
efficacy. Society sees those who claim a supremacy, are like them, corrupt.

Jesus was anti-religion and pro-Faith. He promoted belief in self. "If
God be for us (as an individual), who can be against us?" "Give unto
Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's". The life you are
coerced to live outwardly is of no importance if the life you live
within is one of integrity.

"Our current sufferings pale in comparison to the glory that will be
revealed in us". This is faith. And yes, it may be absent evidence.

-Steve

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:02:54 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:07:18 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Denying children health care is obviously both directly and immediately harmful. The hypothetical harmfulness of an idea is a trickier notion.

Agreed. But it's certainly not impossible to evaluate.

You wish to outlaw ideas, not evaluate them.

Your rights end where they interfere with the rights of others,

By that you must mean "natural rights," correct?

No.

Then your sentence, above, "Your rights end where they interfere with the rights of others" is a tautology.

and children have a right not to be indoctrinated into religion,

From where does that right originate?

From society, as do all rights.

Societies do not grant rights, they merely recognize, respect and protect them.

which is one of the most abusive and ruinous things you can do to them..

If you can manage to get away with restricting the teaching of religion, then eventually there might be no religion, at which point you will need to find a new "bogeyman" to eradicate. Free speech perhaps? Well, in fact you would have already lost that anyway.

Straw man.

Not at all. If you can make illegal the teaching of ideas, wrong or not, then you have squashed the freedom of speech.

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:11:05 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:05:26 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

wrote:

Yes, since people today who are parents take their religion very seriously, clearly you would need to have an undesirable dictatorship to prevent parents from teaching religion to their children.

Which is precisely why I don't propose making such teaching illegal in
today's world.

That is NOT what you proposed. I'll now remind you that you wrote:

"The right
to religion has been limited throughout history, to the point where
its existence is doubtful (and ought to be limited today in free
societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion,
or take them to church)."

But in a world where religion is widely recognized as
damaging? That's a different matter. We base our laws (mostly) on
societal norms.

NO, we base the most important laws on NATURAL RIGHTS, which you cannot grasp.

Given current trends, religion will not be common in
the future. It will be properly recognized as a delusion, something
that is harmful and should not be taught to kids. A law against its
teaching in that world is very different.

Then in that case "the majority rules," eh?

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:27:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You wish to outlaw ideas, not evaluate them.

I've made no such suggestion. Not remotely.

Then your sentence, above, "Your rights end where they interfere with the rights of others" is a tautology.

Not at all. Rights are real. They simply aren't creations of nature,
but of man.

Societies do not grant rights, they merely recognize, respect and protect them.

That's where we disagree. I see no source of rights other than from
society. Rights are human inventions.

Not at all. If you can make illegal the teaching of ideas, wrong or not, then you have squashed the freedom of speech.

No freedom is absolute. Since any right can interfere with another,
all are limited.