Keith and The Girl Forums

Keith and The Girl Forums (http://www.keithandthegirl.com/forums/)
-   Show Talk (http://www.keithandthegirl.com/forums/f5/)
-   -   1645: The Civil War II (http://www.keithandthegirl.com/forums/f5/1645-civil-war-ii-17238/)

Blitzgal 09-04-2012 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodimusprime (Post 732403)
Some times I'm scared if you get rid of religion we'll be faced with an even scarier truth... that people just believe this bigoted nonsense not BECAUSE of religion but in spite of religion. I'm not sure it's religion that makes people racist, homophobic of xenophobic. I feel like it comes from somewhere even deeper than that and religion is just an easy way of explaining it and not feeling like it's "your fault."


I agree with you. If religion disappeared tomorrow, human beings would just devise some other social tool to categorize and separate each other into "teams." Tribal mentality is the nasty underbelly of our survival instinct. We obsessively try to identify who is "one of us" and who is "one of them." I'm not justifying it -- it leads to a lot of bloodshed and terrible things. But religion is just one arbitrary tool that we use to do it. We'd come up with something else if religion didn't exist.

Dean from Australia 09-04-2012 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzgal (Post 732447)
I agree with you. If religion disappeared tomorrow, human beings would just devise some other social tool to categorize and separate each other into "teams." Tribal mentality is the nasty underbelly of our survival instinct. We obsessively try to identify who is "one of us" and who is "one of them." I'm not justifying it -- it leads to a lot of bloodshed and terrible things. But religion is just one arbitrary tool that we use to do it. We'd come up with something else if religion didn't exist.

Isn't politics that other social tool? Seems to me that politics both in your country and in ours is successfully fulfilling that goal - even if we, the people, aren't active participants in their agenda.

Sparrow 09-04-2012 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean from Australia (Post 732456)
we, the people, aren't active participants in their agenda.

ding! ding! ding! i'm not well versed in Australian politics, but here in the states the people have become disenfranchised from the process which is dangerous because we bear the burden of our situation. we were given the power to steer our ship; it was a radical thought. we got lazy and handed the wheel over to the robber barons. the citizenship is responsible for what happens to the country. if we want it back, we will have to demand it back in unison or they will continue to pick apart our still warm corpse while we watch.

changing your facebook profile photo is not demanding your liberty.

BrianAlt 09-04-2012 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow (Post 732461)
...here in the states the people have become disenfranchised from the process which is dangerous because we bear the burden of our situation. we were given the power to steer our ship; it was a radical thought. we got lazy and handed the wheel over to the robber barons.

I think it's worse than that. It's been demonstrated that people vote AGAINST their best interest. Too many people are too easily fooled and can't understand the ramifications of their own actions.

I can take it locally. People in my town have been voting against a bond referendum for years that would give money to improve the schools in my town. Why? Because their taxes would go up by 5 cents per month per 10k of house assessment. That's $2.50 per month for a house worth 1/2 a million dollars! $30 a year! Will their house go down by more than $30 if the schools in town become crap? Damn right they will. But people kept voting against it. That was until a group got together and spelled all of this out and last year it narrowly passed.

So people that are involved, too many of them have no idea what they're voting for or against. They do it for ideological reasons and some abstract concept they think they understand. I believe much of the apathy comes from this very problem. Others that see this sit on the sidelines. And that's where I agree with you.

I agree that thinking people, clear thinkers, need to take back our country. Not by dividing it, but by showing where we should go. I know what I say is difficult to achieve, but it took a long time to break it. We have a long time to put it back together.

That's why I voted NO on the poll. Sure, sometimes I think I'm fooling myself to think that it's possible. But I hold on to that possibility.

Dean from Australia 09-04-2012 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow (Post 732461)
ding! ding! ding! i'm not well versed in Australian politics, but here in the states the people have become disenfranchised from the process which is dangerous because we bear the burden of our situation. we were given the power to steer our ship; it was a radical thought. we got lazy and handed the wheel over to the robber barons. the citizenship is responsible for what happens to the country. if we want it back, we will have to demand it back in unison or they will continue to pick apart our still warm corpse while we watch.

changing your facebook profile photo is not demanding your liberty.

Which is why Keith's idea of a new Civil War resonates with me. Down Under - despite our compulsory voting system - the level of the informal vote (ie. where people just signed their name off the electoral roll and pissed off) at the last election (2010) was somewhere close to 10%. In a country of 25 million people, that's actually significant. When you consider that our major parties Labor (libertarian) and Liberal/Nationals (conservative) can barely garner more than half the vote at any stage, the apathy is endemic. I've argued that a Civil War would do our country good - but since no one gives a fuck, the political class can just go wild.

In the past, I've tried to put my money into causes rather than just declaring my support, but the money usually ends up being misused so I end up pulling my money, throwing my hands up and declaring 'What's the fucking point?'

DWarrior 09-04-2012 09:37 AM

http://i45.tinypic.com/vywlz.png

Let's do it.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs1/1084374_o.gif

stulagu 09-04-2012 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightengale64 (Post 732442)
I wish that the Christians would remember this part of the bible. He never said that they should change the day of celebration from Saturday to Sunday. He wanted them to obey the old laws. There are some small groups of actual christians that worship the old holy days and on Saturday.

I am kind of biased being Wicca and wanting my holidays back. Easter, Halloween, Christmas, and the like I want back. Christ said nothing about putting up a tree in your house and clothing it. That is very pagan!

The Romans came in and Christianized the pagan holidays and many of these holidays came from newly Christianized pagans meshing their faith and old traditions together.

And if Christians are to obey all the old laws, we shouldn't eat shellfish and should stone someone to death if they wear clothing of mixed fibers. We should have multiple wives and send the women away when they are on their period.

I think most rational Christians look at the OT as guidelines for the betterment of the people (shellfish and pigs are bottom feeders, so maybe they AREN'T the best to eat when you can die of infection easily) and as cultural traditions. The NT is more important to the faith of Christianity (the whole basis, really) and if you read it seperately from the OT you will not see nearly the rules and strictness...just the basic "love and accept one another"

John Galt 09-04-2012 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow (Post 732321)
be a regular person?

I like it.

That said, I know a lot of people who would be willing to try being outside the Big U.S. as an experiment. We're located in a convenient spot for it and Keith wouldn't even miss the state.

Dean from Australia 09-04-2012 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stulagu (Post 732499)
The Romans came in and Christianized the pagan holidays and many of these holidays came from newly Christianized pagans meshing their faith and old traditions together.

And if Christians are to obey all the old laws, we shouldn't eat shellfish and should stone someone to death if they wear clothing of mixed fibers. We should have multiple wives and send the women away when they are on their period.

I think most rational Christians look at the OT as guidelines for the betterment of the people (shellfish and pigs are bottom feeders, so maybe they AREN'T the best to eat when you can die of infection easily) and as cultural traditions. The NT is more important to the faith of Christianity (the whole basis, really) and if you read it seperately from the OT you will not see nearly the rules and strictness...just the basic "love and accept one another"

I'd actually like to see the books they left out of the Bible - the ones that were debated on at the First & subsequent Councils of Nicea. Seems to me the good book was cobbled together by the pricks who one.

stulagu 09-04-2012 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianAlt (Post 732462)
I think it's worse than that. It's been demonstrated that people vote AGAINST their best interest. Too many people are too easily fooled and can't understand the ramifications of their own actions.

I can take it locally. People in my town have been voting against a bond referendum for years that would give money to improve the schools in my town. Why? Because their taxes would go up by 5 cents per month per 10k of house assessment. That's $2.50 per month for a house worth 1/2 a million dollars! $30 a year! Will their house go down by more than $30 if the schools in town become crap? Damn right they will. But people kept voting against it. That was until a group got together and spelled all of this out and last year it narrowly passed.

I have just been sick when people post things like "school unions are simply the mafia" and other talking points like this with no basis in fact. I don't know WHY people don't get that if you put money into your schools and invest in your kids, they will create a better foundation for future generations.

Compromise is considered weakness, and it is so frustrating that political parties are allowed to abide by this. I really do think Obama is in the middle range as far as his politics goes and he has shown that he wants to compromise but with all the fillibusters and rediculous pandering he (and some really good people on both sides of the spectrum) is being held back.

I'm hoping that the coup the RNC pulled on the Ron Paul supporters will wake up some of the die hard republicans. I hope they start a new party and we get some three party legit politics going on.

I love the Michele Bachmann race that is gearing up in MN. All of her points have been proven completely false and she is getting more and more crazy. The opponant is a rich guy, but he at least seems to be level headed, so hopefully people will see the light and get that crazy bitch out of office.

We need more people in politics like Al Franken (and I'm totally serious). Someone that is really savvy, doesn't take himself too seriously and actually writes legislation!

A friend of mine on facebook said he'd love it if there was a political app where you could direct message your representatives and follow their votes (with politifact checking the actual facts). I like that idea, make it EASY to be involved in politics and maybe, just maybe, people will start to care again.

And Sparrow, everything you said is golden.

stulagu 09-04-2012 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean from Australia (Post 732509)
I'd actually like to see the books they left out of the Bible - the ones that were debated on at the First & subsequent Councils of Nicea. Seems to me the good book was cobbled together by the pricks who one.

I have a couple friends that went through seminary and asked about these books (that is a concern of mine as well). Apparently, a lot of study has gone into authenticating the books.

With the book written by Mary Magdeline, there were references to things that occured hundreds of years apart...so they unauthenticated it simply because one person couldn't have written it. They also paid attention to writing styles, timelines, and multiple references to the same story with basically the same facts.

I used to think it was just a random thing where a group of guys got to pick and choose what went it, but there was some thought that went into it.

BrianAlt 09-04-2012 09:57 AM

The problem is there is so much BS rhetoric that trying to follow it is impossible. Because now it's about the rhetoric and not the issues!

That would be great (the app) if it could be simplified.

stulagu 09-04-2012 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianAlt (Post 732515)
The problem is there is so much BS rhetoric that trying to follow it is impossible. Because now it's about the rhetoric and not the issues!

That would be great (the app) if it could be simplified.

Just in the world of education alone I can't believe the politics. So I can't IMAGINE how rediculous it is to be in actualy politics.

I wrote Amy Klobuchar an angry letter because she passed legislation that said pizza counts as a vegetable and she sent me a very nice email back saying that in order to pass legislation on much larger issues, she had to pass the pizza one because it was tacked on and it had to be a yea for the entire bill. She is also under fire because she moved her family to DC with her (she has a little girl with special needs) so her primary residence isn't in MN anymore.

This sort of thing really bothers me...the many obsticles set up to keep her from doing her job and passing the bills that really matter.

Blitzgal 09-04-2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean from Australia (Post 732456)
Isn't politics that other social tool? Seems to me that politics both in your country and in ours is successfully fulfilling that goal - even if we, the people, aren't active participants in their agenda.

Oh yeah, we use lots of traits to categorize each other into a hierarchy, like race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc.

And the other books of the Bible that you're talking about in another post are the Apocrypha. As you said, history is written by the victors. Another problem with taking the Bible literally is that this text has been translated and edited many times over. We're basically playing a game of telephone with the people who wrote it thousands of years ago. And we keep changing it in modern times, as well. Evangelicals didn't like what Exodus 21:22-25 had to say about fetal death, so they changed it to sound more "pro-life":

Mischief follows in partisan Bible translations

The fact that there are clear examples in modern times of the Bible being altered to align with current political stances is pretty strong evidence that it is the word of man, and not the word of an omnipotent deity.

Dean from Australia 09-04-2012 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzgal (Post 732547)
Oh yeah, we use lots of traits to categorize each other into a hierarchy, like race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc.

And the other books of the Bible that you're talking about in another post are the Apocrypha. As you said, history is written by the victors. Another problem with taking the Bible literally is that this text has been translated and edited many times over. We're basically playing a game of telephone with the people who wrote it thousands of years ago. And we keep changing it in modern times, as well. Evangelicals didn't like what Exodus 21:22-25 had to say about fetal death, so they changed it to sound more "pro-life":

Mischief follows in partisan Bible translations

The fact that there are clear examples in modern times of the Bible being altered to align with current political stances is pretty strong evidence that it is the word of man, and not the word of an omnipotent deity.

Superb blog post and indeed it addresses so much of the issues I have with the 'bastardization' of Christianity by successive revisionists who, ironically, have positioned themselves quite comfortably in the political classes so as to further revise and conquer with their ideaology.

Something Michael Khalili and Myq Kaplan discussed on Chenda's last WMN was the notion of our moral compass. The question was asked - where does aetheism draw its moral fabric from and I think they answered along the lines of aetheists in the main being able to recognize what is essentially good because they aren't encumbered by a specific dogma. I think that's how it went anyway. That's an appealing ideal.

stulagu 09-04-2012 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzgal (Post 732547)
Another problem with taking the Bible literally is that this text has been translated and edited many times over. We're basically playing a game of telephone with the people who wrote it thousands of years ago. And we keep changing it in modern times, as well.

I have always struggled with the view that the Bible is written by God through man...I just keep thinking about if man is flawed, then even writing down God's words would have flaws to them...but I think the church is nervous to give even an inch on this simply because the world comes tumbling down if you start to question too much.

I am such a fan of any sort of religious leader having to learn the original texts and the history behind the texts to teach it. So many evangelical denominations today have pastors that just feel called and start preaching. I'm Lutheran because our pastors have to learn Greek and Hebrew and really dive into the original writings to understand the context and original meanings. A good example is the "women should be quiet and submissive" quotes in the Bible which mean something totally different than most people think.

DWarrior 09-04-2012 02:12 PM

I'm from the school of the hard knocks, and we must not
Let outsiders violate our blocs, and our plots
Stick up the world and split it fifty-fifty
Let's take the dough and stay real jiggy

angiethestrange 09-04-2012 03:02 PM

wait.... are you guys saying the Bible isn't REAL!?!?!

I don't agree with the argument that we would find other ways for us to separate ourselves. I think we are social beings who have the ability to recognize that getting along is better for the greater good, have empathy and are highly intelligent. That is why we ended up being the most successful species, because we started working together.

Religion erases empathy and stunts intelligence.

stulagu 09-04-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angiethestrange (Post 732608)
I don't agree with the argument that we would find other ways for us to separate ourselves. I think we are social beings who have the ability to recognize that getting along is better for the greater good, have empathy and are highly intelligent. That is why we ended up being the most successful species, because we started working together.

I don't know about that...yes, a lot of evil has been done because of religion, but a lot of horrible things happened because we're human and that seems to be what we do best.

It is because we're social beings that we flock to beings like us to find a place to belong. Whether it is religion, or politics, or race, or financial status, we group together.

Blitzgal 09-04-2012 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angiethestrange (Post 732608)
I don't agree with the argument that we would find other ways for us to separate ourselves. I think we are social beings who have the ability to recognize that getting along is better for the greater good, have empathy and are highly intelligent. That is why we ended up being the most successful species, because we started working together.

Religion erases empathy and stunts intelligence.


But we do already use other ways to separate ourselves from each other. Nationality is a big one, for instance. And race. Even gender and sexual preference.

That's just the bad side of our survival instinct. The good side is cooperation and empathy, like you said. Humans are social animals and we do literally need one another to survive.

rodimusprime 09-04-2012 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stulagu (Post 732609)
I don't know about that...yes, a lot of evil has been done because of religion, but a lot of horrible things happened because we're human and that seems to be what we do best.

It is because we're social beings that we flock to beings like us to find a place to belong. Whether it is religion, or politics, or race, or financial status, we group together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzgal (Post 732616)
But we do already use other ways to separate ourselves from each other. Nationality is a big one, for instance. And race. Even gender and sexual preference.

That's just the bad side of our survival instinct. The good side is cooperation and empathy, like you said. Humans are social animals and we do literally need one another to survive.

I agree with both of ya'll.

Nightengale64 09-04-2012 07:10 PM

Most of the old books of the bible are stories from the cultures before the creation of the bible. They wanted to include those stories that they could not dispute. The great flood is just one of those stories. It appears in many cultures hundreds of years before before the bible and in several different cultures. Eve and the serpent was created to dispel a myth that a local culture who worshiped a serpent god was correct.

I wish the chrisitans to look really hard at the books so that they can see just how out of date they really are. Keeping the old laws of stoning and whatnot that speak of cruelty towards all others might open their eyes to the major flaws in their thinking. Logical arguments with them garner me no ground.

I would love for a catholic to admit where the church money came from in the first place. The pope was in charge of running several brothels and often the popes died of STDs.

stulagu 09-04-2012 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightengale64 (Post 732633)
Most of the old books of the bible are stories from the cultures before the creation of the bible. They wanted to include those stories that they could not dispute. The great flood is just one of those stories. It appears in many cultures hundreds of years before before the bible and in several different cultures. Eve and the serpent was created to dispel a myth that a local culture who worshiped a serpent god was correct.

I wish the chrisitans to look really hard at the books so that they can see just how out of date they really are. Keeping the old laws of stoning and whatnot that speak of cruelty towards all others might open their eyes to the major flaws in their thinking. Logical arguments with them garner me no ground.

I would love for a catholic to admit where the church money came from in the first place. The pope was in charge of running several brothels and often the popes died of STDs.

That is the OT not NT...I think most Christians realize the Moses did not personally write the first 5 books of the Bible. I don't think the stories were written as a politcal agenda, though...

the Catholics are quickly losing ground, especially since some of their own are turning away from their strict beliefs...a group of nuns was just disbanded and a man was put in charge of them because they were too liberal, we'll start to see their obvious contradictions come to light more and more.

And the church got their money from taking land and espionage, they didn't get rich off of brothels.

Nightengale64 09-04-2012 07:19 PM

Their steady income was houses of ill repute. If you read some of the anthropology reports on the old books you will learn of the majority view that the old stories were created in response to the stories of the time that they were written. I have spent my the majority of my scholarly studies on this.

stulagu 09-04-2012 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightengale64 (Post 732635)
Their steady income was houses of ill repute. If you read some of the anthropology reports on the old books you will learn of the majority view that the old stories were created in response to the stories of the time that they were written. I have spent my the majority of my scholarly studies on this.

I'm going to need to see some support and facts on this...I've studied it as well, and nowhere have I been taught that the Catholic church made it's money from brothels. Yes, they turned convents into basically brothels, but you're saying that they made their money this way, which suggests this was the main source of income...

rodimusprime 09-04-2012 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stulagu (Post 732634)
That is the OT not NT...I think most Christians realize the Moses did not personally write the first 5 books of the Bible.

Stuff like this both gives me hope for and turns me off towards religion. Like how can so many people realize that huge parts of their belief system is complete bullshit but still organize against gay rights, abortion and protect child molesters? It's just so odd.

Nightengale64 09-04-2012 07:37 PM

I am trying to remember which of my text books said this. It was when the person was appointed pope by the king and the position went to one of his brothers or kinsmen so that they could keep the views and opinions of the vadican in their pockets. I shall try and find the book title for you if you want.

stulagu 09-04-2012 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodimusprime (Post 732637)
Stuff like this both gives me hope for and turns me off towards religion. Like how can so many people realize that huge parts of their belief system is complete bullshit but still organize against gay rights, abortion and protect child molesters? It's just so odd.

There are plenty of Christians that support social issues and that realize seperation of Church and state is important. I'm a Lutheran, and we broke away from the Catholics hundreds of years ago...it sucks to lump us all together, though I understand why it is done. (but the Catholics are the molesters, not all Christians)

I am attending a church that belongs to a denomination that is anti gay and doesn't allow women to be pastors. I totally disagree with these views. However, it is VERY hard for me to find a church that meets the main reason why I go to church (a knowledgable pastor that knows the Bible and how to teach it, good music, a healthy environment, and that I can take something from each week spiritually). I have made enemies in my church speaking out against the social views, but I have also had people privately thank me for being vocal about my social views.

There are Christians that line gay pride parades with signs saying "I'm sorry" apologizing for the church's attitude. Eventually, enough will get the courage to do the same. It will take a LONG time to turn the established denominations around, but I hope it happens.

I think a good amount of logical Christians, when argued with respectfully, realize that when boiled down, the very basics of Christianity is about loving everyone, no matter who they are. Whether that gets translated to "I don't agree with you, but wont' judge you" or "hate the sin, not the sinner" or "by golly, just because you're gay it doesn't mean you're not a good person" or "I don't care who you are, lets all hold hands and pray" I don't know...but these next couple decades will definitely be tumultuous ones for Christian traditions.

I just photographed a wedding of two women that are very devoted Christians, their wedding was way more spiritual and emotional than most straight weddings I've shot, and it meant even more seeing these families embrace their daughters for who they are. I was moved to tears many times.

stulagu 09-04-2012 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightengale64 (Post 732638)
I am trying to remember which of my text books said this. It was when the person was appointed pope by the king and the position went to one of his brothers or kinsmen so that they could keep the views and opinions of the vadican in their pockets. I shall try and find the book title for you if you want.

Ok, wait, so ONE text book said this? and it was in ONE instance?

Blitzgal 09-04-2012 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightengale64 (Post 732638)
I am trying to remember which of my text books said this. It was when the person was appointed pope by the king and the position went to one of his brothers or kinsmen so that they could keep the views and opinions of the vadican in their pockets. I shall try and find the book title for you if you want.


I don't want to be....mean....but you studied this topic in school and can't spell "the Vatican?"

Are you talking about the Borgias?

Nightengale64 09-04-2012 07:54 PM

Not just one book but I can't seem to find any of them on my shelves. I hate moving. Have you read Archaeology magazine? They had a few articles in there on the subject as well.

Brothels were their steady source of income as well as indulgences. You could pay to have your loved one removed from hell or purgatory one body part at a time. I think that is almost as bad as selling women.

rodimusprime 09-04-2012 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stulagu (Post 732639)
There are plenty of Christians that support social issues and that realize seperation of Church and state is important. I'm a Lutheran, and we broke away from the Catholics hundreds of years ago...it sucks to lump us all together, though I understand why it is done. (but the Catholics are the molesters, not all Christians)

I am attending a church that belongs to a denomination that is anti gay and doesn't allow women to be pastors. I totally disagree with these views. However, it is VERY hard for me to find a church that meets the main reason why I go to church (a knowledgable pastor that knows the Bible and how to teach it, good music, a healthy environment, and that I can take something from each week spiritually). I have made enemies in my church speaking out against the social views, but I have also had people privately thank me for being vocal about my social views.

There are Christians that line gay pride parades with signs saying "I'm sorry" apologizing for the church's attitude. Eventually, enough will get the courage to do the same. It will take a LONG time to turn the established denominations around, but I hope it happens.

I think a good amount of logical Christians, when argued with respectfully, realize that when boiled down, the very basics of Christianity is about loving everyone, no matter who they are. Whether that gets translated to "I don't agree with you, but wont' judge you" or "hate the sin, not the sinner" or "by golly, just because you're gay it doesn't mean you're not a good person" or "I don't care who you are, lets all hold hands and pray" I don't know...but these next couple decades will definitely be tumultuous ones for Christian traditions.

I just photographed a wedding of two women that are very devoted Christians, their wedding was way more spiritual and emotional than most straight weddings I've shot, and it meant even more seeing these families embrace their daughters for who they are. I was moved to tears many times.

I think that's what bothers me the most. People will boycott a chicken joint but then go to a church with the same views or worse. It's like they are the mass of the flock but they are scared to actually actively get a change. Why the women of all these churches that don't allow women as pastors wouldn't just join up and leave? I don't know.

Like you said your church "Lutherans" left and formed what they thought was a better situation. (I'm not even getting into the child molestation thing but I've seen it in more than the Catholic church. See: Eddie Long)

It's just sad cause as long as people are just happy to have a place to go on Sunday's they're going to continue to let all social change fall to the wayside.

Nightengale64 09-04-2012 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzgal (Post 732641)
I don't want to be....mean....but you studied this topic in school and can't spell "the Vatican?"

Are you talking about the Borgias?

Sorry college lets you graduate without first learning how to spell. The Borgias family was just one the corrupt periods of Rome.

stulagu 09-04-2012 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodimusprime (Post 732643)
I think that's what bothers me the most. People will boycott a chicken joint but then go to a church with the same views or worse. It's like they are the mass of the flock but they are scared to actually actively get a change. Why the women of all these churches that don't allow women as pastors wouldn't just join up and leave? I don't know.

Like you said your church "Lutherans" left and formed what they thought was a better situation. (I'm not even getting into the child molestation thing but I've seen it in more than the Catholic church. See: Eddie Long)

It's just sad cause as long as people are just happy to have a place to go on Sunday's they're going to continue to let all social change fall to the wayside.

I don't leave because I can understand their view on it even though I don't agree with it. As long as it isn't "women are weak so they can't be pastors" and I am not treated as a lesser person (which I was at one church I left) then for me the overall benefit is better than nothing. Kind of like being a democrat, I don't like everything about them, but I believe in most of it, so I stay but still make my mind known.

I'm not saying Lutherans don't abuse kids at all, I think they are more passive aggressive and belittle children. I think a lot of the Catholic sexual abuse is because 1) the celebacy (nuns sexually abuse too) and 2) the job can attract people prone to molesting kids, oh and 3) the church was so afraid to expose it, that they ended up encouraging it via looking the other way.

I agree that it is sad, but not everyone can be activists. At every other church I went to or worked for I caused problems...same with pretty much my entire educational history since middle school. I've been beaten down so much and made so little headway, that at this church I decided to not be so vehement and do things with a gentler (quieter) hand.

Yelling your views at someone who doesn't believe what you're saying does nothing. Showing compassion and quiet respect yet holding your ground with your views and even maybe compromising gains a whole lot more ground. Of course, this is just my experience...

stulagu 09-04-2012 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightengale64 (Post 732644)
Sorry college lets you graduate without first learning how to spell. The Borgias family was just one the corrupt periods of Rome.

I have been google searching for an hour and seriously can't find anything to back up what you are saying...and I'd be worried if a college graduated you where you can't spell one of the most important words in your main studies.

BrianAlt 09-04-2012 09:24 PM

Eat fish on Fridays...

Why?

Because the fishmongers appealed to the Pope that their fish wasn't being bought enough. He decided that he would declare Friday, "fish eating day!" Religion or politics?

This story repeats itself over and over again.

Even the kosher laws...people eat pigs...they die. People eat shellfish...they die. DON'T EAT THOSE THINGS!!!! Make up a reason why because the science of the day can't say WHY. A good idea? At the time, absolutely. Today? Outdated.

Now that we can see at a microscopic level, bugs are being found on fruit. Eating bugs on fruit invalidates the fruit being kosher. We could never see it before and ate it without a thought of kosher/non-kosher. Is the fruit kosher? IMO ridiculous to even discuss.

scottperezfox 09-04-2012 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianAlt (Post 732648)
Eat fish on Fridays...

I always thought it was because [Saint] Peter, the first Pope, was originally a fisherman. A bit of a head-nod to the guy who inherited the duty of Head God-talker from Jesus.

Nightengale64 09-04-2012 11:00 PM

These might be some interesting reading:

http://web.archive.org/web/200804132.../FMG/Popes.pdf

What Sister Never Knew and Father Never Told You: The Pornocracy--shady ladies and promiscuous popes

THE MEDIEVAL PAPACY

Chapter 6: Pontiffs, Palaces, and Pornocracy | Religious Studies Center

rodimusprime 09-04-2012 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stulagu (Post 732645)
I don't leave because I can understand their view on it even though I don't agree with it. As long as it isn't "women are weak so they can't be pastors" and I am not treated as a lesser person (which I was at one church I left) then for me the overall benefit is better than nothing. Kind of like being a democrat, I don't like everything about them, but I believe in most of it, so I stay but still make my mind known.

I'm not saying Lutherans don't abuse kids at all, I think they are more passive aggressive and belittle children. I think a lot of the Catholic sexual abuse is because 1) the celebacy (nuns sexually abuse too) and 2) the job can attract people prone to molesting kids, oh and 3) the church was so afraid to expose it, that they ended up encouraging it via looking the other way.

I agree that it is sad, but not everyone can be activists. At every other church I went to or worked for I caused problems...same with pretty much my entire educational history since middle school. I've been beaten down so much and made so little headway, that at this church I decided to not be so vehement and do things with a gentler (quieter) hand.

Yelling your views at someone who doesn't believe what you're saying does nothing. Showing compassion and quiet respect yet holding your ground with your views and even maybe compromising gains a whole lot more ground. Of course, this is just my experience...

Oh nah I know why you do it. It's just sad is all. And I think most religious people are more like you but still allow those who are bigots, zealots and assholes to represent you because they are the most vocal. I wish ya'll would revolt and reclaim your faith from them instead of just going along to get along.

stulagu 09-05-2012 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodimusprime (Post 732654)
Oh nah I know why you do it. It's just sad is all. And I think most religious people are more like you but still allow those who are bigots, zealots and assholes to represent you because they are the most vocal. I wish ya'll would revolt and reclaim your faith from them instead of just going along to get along.

No, it is more about letting politics and religion coexist. I know it will be an uphill battle...but I can seperate my church from state. The general population I know aren't bigots or assholes.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger