Annoying Christian sayings

[kickingzebra]

Yep, You nailed it.

And you condemn everyone who doesn't share your vision to an eternity of hellfire. Pretty arrogant system you guys have got going.


Out here in the fields
I fight for my meals
I get my back into my living
I don't need to fight
To prove I'm right
I don't need to be forgiven

Why doesn't the figure in the song need to be forgiven?

[Mikkel]

Yeah yeah, civilized society is a great idea, why doesn't someone start one?

You live in one - but like everything else it isn't perfect. In fact organised religion helped to get us as far as we are today in that regard. As did slavery, feudalism and the absolute monarchy.

However, while slavery, feudalism and absolute mornarchy have been, almost, abolished - religion lives on. Organised religion is moral slavery and a very efficient tool for controling the mob. As such it has no place in this day and age where we hail freedom as the main virtue. Or would you deny this?

If evolution is so bloody good, explain to me PLEASE the death mechanism? Surely constant improvement would erode this?
Explain why Good old Dolly the Sheep (the clone) version had pre aged at maturity, by roughly the same period of time that the clonee had spent on the planet prior conception?

This ticking time bomb of death surely cannot benefit evolutions senseless march toward perfection?

You are kidding right!?!

I mean seriously WTF - if you are serious then the above statement clearly demonstrates why the seperation of religion, politics and science is imperative.

If anything, a short lifespan is beneficial as far as evolution is concerned - you'll have more life-cycles and thus more opportunities to weed out the weaker genes inside the same timespan. Consider insects, the most succesful family (terminology?) in the animal kingdom, which have a lifespan of less than a year.

Consider evolution the science of nature - most of the time it's steady improvements generation after generation, and then sometimes you have leaps and bounds (e.g. leaving the oceans, learning to fly, walk upright, etc).
There's nothing magical (in the meaning fantastic, unreal or divine) about it. However, just because our theory of evolution doesn't explain everything adequately that doesn't mean that evolution itself is incapable of such things - it only means that our theory is not yet complete (and I can't think of any all-encompasing scientific theory that is complete btw). Thermodynamics however is probably the most solid of all the theories - and I am not familiar with any failings on it's part.

[Headbanger]

Why doesn't the figure in the song need to be forgiven?

To get that information you would need to speak to the song author.

If your just want to know the way I see the lyric, The character is just stating they are putting in the hard work to live in a harsh world and are not interested in anybody else judgements of who they are.

They don't seek your forgiveness, don't try and say they should. Its about standing on your own two feet, Mentally as well as anything.

But that maybe miles away from what was originally intended.

[Finn]

My buddy George sums this subject up very well. Worth the 10 min break.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

P.S. Helen Clark is a goner. Woohoo.

[kickingzebra]

However, while slavery, feudalism and absolute mornarchy have been, almost, abolished - religion lives on. Organised religion is moral slavery and a very efficient tool for controling the mob. As such it has no place in this day and age where we hail freedom as the main virtue. Or would you deny this?

A tool for controlling the mob for those unscrupulous enough, but unscrupulous people didn't always need a reason such as religion to do this.
Slavery was abolished, by whom? those who were serious about thier position before God, John Newtons, Abraham Lincolns etc, what was good enough is good enough no longer, so a change must be wrought!

Moral slavery? That is interesting in itself, one of the primary reasons any of the great civilisations of ages past has fallen, is moral decay, someone took the time and effort to create great order in everyday life, the great order meant less time taken with the mundaneness of everyday life and work, and more time to sit, ponder, and generally move towards debauchery.
Moral standards are the ONLY foundation to a great civilisation that cannot be successfully removed. If absolute freedom is the goal, disorder and chaos is the end result.

Think of the wannabe gangbangers of this country, does there not seem to be something better for them to be doing than molesting the streets with their presence? Absolutely, but do they do anything better?

Occassionally a few will rise above the moral repugnancy they have espoused to date, and make an effort to better themselves.

How do they do this?

Generally they lift the value of thier fellow human being, from utter worthlessness in the eyes of the beholder, to something of value, they see crime, and lack of work ethic/motivation as an enemy, and so with great effort, they bring themselves above the old level, and reintegrate with society, as generally productive members.

By giving up thier old Freedoms, do disregard the law, to terrorise, and cause harm, they achieve a greater level of humanity.

Absolute freedom, while achieveable, is certainly not sustainable, so by casting off the last of the chains which bind civilisation to "religion" (I would prefer the use of the word God) We do not lift the level, we lower it.

Morals do not matter anymore, if there isn't an absolute authority, and so we can do what we like (which we can now anyway) but without consequence.

How will this be good for humanity?

Thermodynamics however is probably the most solid of all the theories - and I am not familiar with any failings on it's part.

Order to disorder, the loss of organization, the shift of energy into uniform levels...

[Headbanger]

How will this be good for humanity?

Humanity is due for a massive die-back, Its how nature corrects itself.

Unavoidable within the next 150 years....well, Unless God intervenes, But I can't see that happening.

[kickingzebra]

To get that information you would need to speak to the song author.

If your just want to know the way I see the lyric, The character is just stating they are putting in the hard work to live in a harsh world and are not interested in anybody else judgements of who they are.

They don't seek your forgiveness, don't try and say they should. Its about standing on your own two feet, Mentally as well as anything.

But that maybe miles away from what was originally intended.

I appreciate your reply there.

I wouldn't ask for, nor accept their forgiveness, Why would there be any need for forgiveness without wrong doing against me personally?

What is wrong without right? If nothing is wrong, then nothing can be right, making forgiveness a null and void point. It could be watered down so that we are all just trying to do the most beneficial thing, regarding right and wrong, but that is senseless as evolutionarily, there is no reason to do just that. No1 wins by looking out for him/herself better than anyone else.

My suggestion though is that we, like aforementioned Stalin, have a major beef with God, a God who, if non existant, would certainly verify our own insanity, as the sane mans approach would be to ignore that which is not there. It would not deserve any attention, and yet here we all are on this thread? Why? To convince ourselves that God is no longer the Judge of Man and his actions, to convince ourselves as in Nietzsche's parables, that God is dead?

Then why the actions in railing against this non existant entity, unless somewhere in the depths of us, we have a knowledge that we may just be called to account, and the price to pay to "make the grade" is giving up some mispercieved moral freedoms?

[FROSTY:Me]

Gosh darn it. Seems to me that the televangelists have taken the words in the bible and have enterpreted them to suit the particular message they are trying to put across.
What sucks about that is that generally the message itself aint bad.--Be good to ya wife,love your kids all really good stuff but credibility of the message goes out the window when the bible is misquoted.
My opinion mind you

[Headbanger]

I appreciate your reply there.

I wouldn't ask for, nor accept their forgiveness, Why would there be any need for forgiveness without wrong doing against me personally?

Then he probably wasn't talking to you.....lol. Maybe he was talking to god. There is no indication in the song as to the characters religious beliefs.

[Mikkel]

A tool for controlling the mob for those unscrupulous enough, but unscrupulous people didn't always need a reason such as religion to do this.
Slavery was abolished, by whom? those who were serious about thier position before God, John Newtons, Abraham Lincolns etc, what was good enough is good enough no longer, so a change must be wrought!

Moral slavery? That is interesting in itself, one of the primary reasons any of the great civilisations of ages past has fallen, is moral decay, someone took the time and effort to create great order in everyday life, the great order meant less time taken with the mundaneness of everyday life and work, and more time to sit, ponder, and generally move towards debauchery.
Moral standards are the ONLY foundation to a great civilisation that cannot be successfully removed. If absolute freedom is the goal, disorder and chaos is the end result.

Think of the wannabe gangbangers of this country, does there not seem to be something better for them to be doing than molesting the streets with their presence? Absolutely, but do they do anything better?

Occassionally a few will rise above the moral repugnancy they have espoused to date, and make an effort to better themselves.

How do they do this?

Generally they lift the value of thier fellow human being, from utter worthlessness in the eyes of the beholder, to something of value, they see crime, and lack of work ethic/motivation as an enemy, and so with great effort, they bring themselves above the old level, and reintegrate with society, as generally productive members.

By giving up thier old Freedoms, do disregard the law, to terrorise, and cause harm, they achieve a greater level of humanity.

Absolute freedom, while achieveable, is certainly not sustainable, so by casting off the last of the chains which bind civilisation to "religion" (I would prefer the use of the word God) We do not lift the level, we lower it.

Morals do not matter anymore, if there isn't an absolute authority, and so we can do what we like (which we can now anyway) but without consequence.

How will this be good for humanity?

I've never said that there haven't been good and great religious men throughout history. Religion if nothing else does impart a tendency towards humility while inciting a sense of purpose. Both of which are all good - if you want a functional society it is good that the individual put the individual needs second to the needs of the collective. However, could we achieve this situation without the threat of divine retribution, the great lie of god and the moral slavery of organised religion? I don't know, but I would hope so.

I disagree with you, absolute freedom does not imply an absence of morals. However, if the existing morals have been imparted by an institution which is opposed to this such freedom - then there will necessarily be a rebellion against that institution and all of it's values. If some of those values are good then such a rebellion will to a degree constitute a degradation of moral values. Which is exactly why religion as a controlling mechanism is particularly dangerous.

As for your "wannabe gangbangers" - the issue here is not religion. Fact is that society grows soft as it grows rich - as it grows soft you get more and more socialistic wishy-washy bullshit and political correctness. Both are poisons to a society.

Order to disorder, the loss of organization, the shift of energy into uniform levels...

Indeed, the ever increasing entropy is not something which is easy to come to terms with. How's that for creating a perfect world?

[Mikkel]

I wouldn't ask for, nor accept their forgiveness, Why would there be any need for forgiveness without wrong doing against me personally?

"I don't need to be forgiven" how does that imply forgiveness of YOU?

Then he probably wasn't talking to you.....lol. Maybe he was talking to god. There is no indication in the song as to the characters religious beliefs.

Or... he doesn't believe in right and wrong. God is an abstraction that holds no value or significance in his life. Thus, no matter what he might ever do, he won't need to be forgiven. (Maybe he'd need to forgive himself, but that is another matter.)

True morality belongs in the department of internal affairs as far as I am concerned. Forgiving yourself - truly, not just pretending - for what wrong doings you may feel you have commited is much more difficult than being forgiven by a priest on behalf of some divine abstraction.

Needing to have someone else say "Everything is alright - you are forgiven" suggests a lack of morals to me, an unwillingness to relate to yourself and your actions. An easy way out - a reluctance to embrace your own existance and figuring out what works for you, personally.

[kickingzebra]

I've never said that there haven't been good and great religious men throughout history. Religion if nothing else does impart a tendency towards humility while inciting a sense of purpose. Both of which are all good - if you want a functional society it is good that the individual put the individual needs second to the needs of the collective. However, could we achieve this situation without the threat of divine retribution, the great lie of god and the moral slavery of organised religion? I don't know, but I would hope so.

I disagree with you, absolute freedom does not imply an absence of morals. However, if the existing morals have been imparted by an institution which is opposed to this such freedom - then there will necessarily be a rebellion against that institution and all of it's values. If some of those values are good then such a rebellion will to a degree constitute a degradation of moral values. Which is exactly why religion as a controlling mechanism is particularly dangerous.

As for your "wannabe gangbangers" - the issue here is not religion. Fact is that society grows soft as it grows rich - as it grows soft you get more and more socialistic wishy-washy bullshit and political correctness. Both are poisons to a society.



Indeed, the ever increasing entropy is not something which is easy to come to terms with. How's that for creating a perfect world?

The issue is still morals, and why would these be imparted by any mechanism other than a creator?

A guy who was named Adolph took his (broken) moral compass, and changed the world. Fact is they were strong, technically superior, and unencumbered by having to do the right thing. The reason he didn't ultimately succeed? People with Good Moral compasses (eventually) decided they could sit back no more, and action had to be taken.

However, if anyone follows Nietzsches' postulations, Adolph took the only course of action open to him. Was it logically defensible? Yes, because of his initial incorrect assumption, that Nietzsche was right, God was Dead, and survival of the fittest/strongest was the mandate.

Arguably, the other parties to said war were simply protecting their own interests, however, why then spend so much time, effort and money, to rebuild the devastated economies, lives and countries, and also why take the time to bring those responsible to justice?

It is an old analogy, but a good one, All those operating under Hitlers regime were operating well within the law of the land, but Moral law must transcend civil law, and in the case's presented, Why should it?

[Mikkel]

The issue is still morals, and why would these be imparted by any mechanism other than a creator?

A guy who was named Adolph took his (broken) moral compass, and changed the world. Fact is they were strong, technically superior, and unencumbered by having to do the right thing. The reason he didn't ultimately succeed? People with Good Moral compasses (eventually) decided they could sit back no more, and action had to be taken.

However, if anyone follows Nietzsches' postulations, Adolph took the only course of action open to him. Was it logically defensible? Yes, because of his initial incorrect assumption, that Nietzsche was right, God was Dead, and survival of the fittest/strongest was the mandate.

Arguably, the other parties to said war were simply protecting their own interests, however, why then spend so much time, effort and money, to rebuild the devastated economies, lives and countries, and also why take the time to bring those responsible to justice?

It is an old analogy, but a good one, All those operating under Hitlers regime were operating well within the law of the land, but Moral law must transcend civil law, and in the case's presented, Why should it?

I am mostly disturbed by the fact that from the way you write it, it would seem that the Nazis had been right if they had indeed won the war.

The reason other countries entered the war had nothing to do with morals - it wasn't because of the fact that people in their millions were being systematically exterminated - it had everything to do with survival and protection of national sovreignity.

America - Pearl Harbour was attacked.
Soviet - operation Barbarossa encroached upon their national territory.

Who else (of significance) wasn't involved the second the germans started their invasion of France?

And the reason Hitler didn't succeed was because he became drunk with his own power and took on more than he could manage (the eastern front). Had he taken mainland Europe, consolidated his power, then England and finally the Soviet things would most likely have been very much different today.

Neitzsche was right - he didn't suggest that no morals was the way to go. He just stated that the reign of god, as it had been, was over. It would be impossible to achieve the same level of authority, for an organised religion in the western world, as what had been previously held by the catholic church.

The persecution and extermination of the Jews, Romas and Slavs was founded in a "religious" belief regarding right and wrong. There was no facts that supported this course of action - just a firm belief, supported by massive propaganda, that it was RIGHT! This propaganda incidentially helped unite the people to a common cause - but the extermination had not been necessary.
Also most people in germany would have had no cerrtain knowledge of what actually was going on - and they didn't have any reason, or even way, to question and investigate such matters.

While moral law transcends civil law - moral law is very much subjective to what culture you have been raised in. It is not a god-given absolute as you are suggesting.

You ask what, if not god-given morality, caused the Nuremberg trials to be conducted. Evolved morality perhaps... All it takes is for the few good men to do nothing - the Nuremberg Trials punished those good* men who actively commited crimes against humanity and also those who did nothing. E.g. Albert Speer got 20 years in prison.

*good in this case meaning capable or having potential - and there were plenty of those in nazi germany.

Also "it is not the strongest specimen that survives, but the one most responsive to change."

[kickingzebra]

poland was happening for only a couple of years before france...

While moral law transcends civil law - moral law is very much subjective to what culture you have been raised in.

Were that to be true, then moral imperatives, or even suggestions would be ultimately useless, the outworkings may be slightly different in different cultures, but the principles remain the same across all humanity. When people have been wronged, they call for justice.

[Headbanger]

Stand back, for my next amazing feat I'm about to raise too very excellent boys known as my sons to be moral and good people without any fairy tales about invisible gods that will strike them down or threats of eternal suffering.