Forum Post: What do we each imagine God is?
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 21, 2012, 7:46 p.m. EST by ThunderclapNewman
(1083)
from Nanty Glo, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I was on another thread that sort of digressed onto the topic of God for just a bit and this thought came to mind: many of us were probably raised with some religion included in some form in our upbringing. What then have (or for some, HAD) we imagined God to be, to look like, sound like? What role is religion playing in this presidential election cycle?
Physics answers the origin of the universe.
Evolution answers the origin of the species.
Religion answers nothing.
I think religion provides a reason to strive to live a humanitarian life and provides a definition of what living such a life entails.
The New Testament tells us that God loves and cares for each of us no matter who we are and no matter the life we live.
I think that because of the nature of man to ponder one's own life as well as one's death, such beliefs infuse life with a greater purpose then merely attempting to satisfy the hierachy of needs; food. shelter, procreation, etc.
@ThunderclapNewman...All religion is evil, it serves no purpose but to divide mankind and cause hate and intolerance.
I wish that were true :/ Religion is an early, and extremely flawed attempt to meld morality, personality and responsibility.
The perfect example of a Western culture without Religion is Russia.
Humanity needs something akin to Religion to frame our existence. And while many Japanese would self-proclaim Agnosticism or Atheism they have something that allows them to function individually and collectively.
So, what ever "it" is, I know what it looks like but I can't name "it". Cheers
This is one evolutionary take on religion:
Lewis Wolpert argues that causal beliefs that emerged from tool use played a major role in the evolution of belief.
The manufacture of complex tools requires creating a mental image of an object that does not exist naturally before actually making the artifact. Furthermore, one must understand how the tool would be used, which requires an understanding of causality.
Accordingly, the level of sophistication of stone tools is a useful indicator of causal beliefs Wolpert contends use of tools composed of more than one component, such as hand axes, represents an ability to understand cause and effect.
However, recent studies of other primates indicate that causality may not be a uniquely human trait.
For example, chimpanzees have escaped from pens that were closed with multiple latches, that were previously thought could only have been figured out by humans who understood causality. (Chimpanzees are also known to mourn the dead, and notice things that have only aesthetic value, like sunsets, both of which may be considered to be components of religion or spirituality.)
The difference between the comprehension of causality by humans and chimpanzees is one of degree.
The degree of comprehension in an animal depends upon the size of the prefrontal cortex: the greater the size of the prefrontal cortex the deeper the comprehension.
Actually, Russia is the perfect example of a country that watched all of the shenanigans of Catholicism and did not want any part of the intrigues. :/
Russia is hell on earth. They are the manifestation of an amoral society, government and economy.
To be clear, Russia is not evil they merely don't try to be good. Thus I propose that while Religion has caused endless war, strife and suffering, to be without Religion is to simply not care about endless war, strife and suffering.
How ever did you come to that conclusion?
[Removed]
Religion answers the need for one man to have power over another man, my son.
@ Jehovah...WTF!
Evolution was defined by Darwin. Since you used his example how about another one that he held as true. "Survival of the fittest." Those that ADAPT will survive, he said, just as he said we came from apes. If you hold these true then I suggest you dont worry about the poor because Darwin and YOU said they will not survive. You, we assume, should suggest we just move on to those that adapt. Correct ole mighty professor of life?
@FreeDiscussion1..You have a lack of knowledge in Biological evolution, if you wish to debate me please study up on the subject.
I already did debate and won. That is why you HAD TO reply.
@FreeDiscussion1...Your reply on evolution was false, I suggest you reevaluate your stand.
@FreeDiscussion1....
Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.
Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.
Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place.
This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.
Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution.
Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.
Yep.
[Deleted]
That bastard didn't only punish Adam and Eve, he punished the whole of humanity for their act! Next time my kid does something wrong, I'm going over to his school to correct all the children. That's how God does it.
Can you say narcissist? Damn God sent his angel Gabriel to talk to Mohammed so he would tell us we need to pray 5 times a day, or we are sinning. He's like one of those rich businessmen, he doesn't do anything by himself, he sends Gabriel to talk to Mohammed, he sends his son to talk to us.
I view God as a terrorist. He has all this power and uses it to create hurricanes and earth quakes and so much more that have killed millions throughout the history of man.
The idea of a God, the Jesus kind, reminds me of the mafia. God says "if you don't believe in me, you will go to hell." Where the mafia says "If you don't pay us for protection, you won't be protected and we'll break your legs."
State Senator Ernie Chambers sued God in Nebraska. When asked if he believes in God, Ernie replied "I believe in Algebra."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdKGDhYkwBA
I imagine God to be a superstition. You know what a superstition is don't you? It's the other guy's religion.
I imagine God being pretty angry at the candidates for using Him in the election process.
As we all know, the first half of the Bible (Old Testament) spends a great deal of time talking about how God punishes and tests us. The second half (New Testament) tells us that if we obey Gods laws He'll love us, if we ask for His forgiveness and are repentant, we'll be forgiven. No matter the sin or number of sins or length of time we've spent sinning.
That forgiveness part, I have issues with. But that's for another time.
This sounds like an early and cheap form of behaviorism.
If God is so intelligent, why does he use such lame psychological methods?
What I took from the Bible as an overview was that it was saying Here's who God is and we can't know why he does the things he does or asks of us what asks. Then we get to the part where Jesus tells people that God loves us all and that they can remain with their families out in the countryside tending their animals but should gather in God's name to honor and praise Him; to ask for His help and His comfort. It wasn't necessary to go to a temple.
As you know, the Bible is a collection of writings taken and translated from the ancient scrolls. We know that word meanings and phrasings can vary over time, and so interpretation and translation play an important role in what we know as the Bible today.
Also, and importantly, we know of gnostic works that were excluded from the bible and the likely reasoning behind those exclusions.
http://y-jesus.com/gnostic_gospels.php
That is very good. I like that!!!
Just a slob like one of us.
You know it :-)
God is everything beautiful to you.
God is society, some are generous and some are cruel.
Oh my, so much to read here, so much to correct...where to begin
Well, I'll start with my concept of God. My concept is an all loving, all knowing God whom is very much interested in each and every one of you, whether you believe in him or not
Now, this begs the question, if he's all loving, why is there so much suffering... the simple answer is free will is a bitch... simplistic, yes, I know... but if he stripped away our rights to free will, then that would negate the all loving part, and you would have Him be a despot.
But then you may say, well why would he send people to hell if he was all knowing and all loving?
Well, if what you want is an eternity away from God, what do you expect? Again, free will is a bitch. Hell is the complete absence of God, populated with those whom wish there were no God to interfere with them. That's the definition of hell, if God is all loving, what do you think a place would be like if there were no influences of that love?
A place totally devoid of love or goodness IS what hell is. If you doubt this, then look at any place in history that was devoid of love or goodness... these were hell on Earth
Next on the agenda here is the notion that religion has triggered more wars than any other reason. This is totally bunk, and proof positive to the failure of the public schools.
Number one reason for war has and is and always will be over resources. It's that simple. WWI, WWII, crimean war, anglo/prussian war, american/mexican war, spanish american war, and the first gulf war, ALL over resources.
Number two reason for war is political ideology. examples of these would be the korean war,vietnam, granada, cambodia, the american civil war
Number three reason for war is .. guess what... a combination of number one and two. This would include the french revolution, the american revolution, the napolianic wars, russian revolution, chinese revolution, and the 100 years wars
Now I only pause here because I must remind you folks, before you self congradulate yourselves on how 'smart' you are for NOT believing in God, be sure not to disprove that theory by spouting asinine things like most wars are over religion.
Now my next topic to tackle raised in this discussion is the notion that science disproves the Bible. It's almost as asinine as the religion starts wars theories. All science has done is prove how accurate the Bible is, which is amazing considering the oldest parts were written in the late bronze age.
How has science done this you ask?
Here's what the bible actually says about the origins of the universe. It states that in the beginning the earth was void, without form, Science says, Yep, that's right
Then the bible says that the first thing created was light, science says, yep that's right
Then the bible says that the sun and moon were created before our atmosphere, science says, yep
Then the bible says that the water on earth was seperated into our atmosphere and one big ocean, holy smokes, so does science
next came sea life, dry land, vegetation, then animals, science says yep yep yep, and yep
Next came humanoids on the 6th day, but later in eden man was created, so literaly, the bible gives two hominid creations, and science says there WERE two coexisting groups of hominids.
Bible says around 5500-7000 years ago the world was covered in water(noah's flood) and science says the world was covered in water in the form of Ice from Ice age, they disagree here, but both agree that after this most fresh water lakes were formed.
And both agree that civilization started in the middle east in the area of sumer around 5500 years ago.
Now here's the rub, these things were recorded by a late bronze age people, you tell me how they could know these things.
So yes there is plenty of proof of the bible and of God, just as there is of science, both have proof, and both require faith. Science too has certain tennants that must be believed upon.
And that is because science AND religion are a search for truth, a search for answers. So before you off handedly knock religion and think it's adherents are ignorant, be sure that you aren't being arrogant AND ignorant, because, like George w. Bush proved, that's a dangerous combination.
I have plenty more to say, but that's a large enough can 'o' worms for now
You might want to reread Genesis. Light is the second thing that was created, after the Earth. How is that possible? I don't know. It's not.
Plants were created before the Sun. WTF?
Also, many of the other things you claim from the Bible are incorrect.
What you listed as being evidence for the Bible really isn't. You just cherry picked what seems to agree with science. There are many things in the Bible which don't agree with science. You ignore those. This is a flawed method on your part.
You're attempt to put the epistemology of science and the "epistemology" of religion on the same plane of worth is ridiculous. I used apostrophes around the word epistemology before religion because I don't think religion is an epistemology. It doesn't search for the truth. It dictates what a book says is the truth.
A true search for the truth includes the possibility to doubt. Religion does not allow this. Unless you can doubt that God exists, or that the Bible was not simply written by desert dwellers, then you will never be on the path towards the truth.
Science is beautiful because not only does it allow doubt, it welcomes it with open arms. You could even doubt the scientific method itself. If one were to propose a better scientific method and could prove why it's better, it would be adopted over the current one.
oops, I just reread your post, here is what you said
You might want to reread Genesis. Light is one of the last things that is created. In Genesis, God created the Sun before the light.
Holy crap(no pun intended)
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the Earth was with out form, and void.
And God said "let there be light" and it was so
when God said let there be light, that was the first act of creation, the sun was created later, maybe YOU should actually read what it says, before you make comments like that, becuase your statement was categorically false
Why bother "creating" something like the Earth if it's going to be formless and void. It was like that before being "created". It seems God is wasting his time.
That's the preface..... Oh my God.... you really are a dim one aren't ya....
You see, when you have a story,you usually start it with a short summery, so that your reader knows what it is about.
any essay that a person writes starts with a preface... this is like a 4th grade english concepts here.
If you don't even understand that part, no wonder everything else goes right over you.
You have no idea who I am and what I do or don't understand. Don't use ad hominem to build your case, it just makes you look desperate.
hehehe, nope again, I build my case first, the ad hominem was just fun : D
And I know that you don't understand a simple concept like a preface.
Here, this might help
pref·ace/ˈprefəs/ Noun:
An introduction to a book, typically stating its subject, scope, or aims. Verb:
Provide (a book) with a preface. Synonyms:
noun. preamble - introduction - foreword - prologue - proem verb. introduce
So that 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without form, and void(in other words didn't exist yet) ------ This would be a classic example of a preface....
Now, not to engage in ad hominem, do you also need help with understanding anything else? nouns? verbs? synonyms?
If this is all too much info, let me know..... : D
No I didn't, I started right at the beginning, the first act of creation was light both science and the bible agree on this, then I went on a logical progression from there as the things are listed both in the bible and science.
To say I was cherry picking, then offer no example of how I was doing so is a flaw on your part, please don't project your shortcomings onto me.
And yes, religion is a search for truth, just as science is, and both are equal in that regard. The bible helps the individual to search for the truth of God, and as truth is a core tenant, the best scientists of history were those that saw the bible as a source of that truth.
But, if you cannot see this, then it may be just your own prejudiced views that prevents you from seeing this. Because it take great prejudice not to see the bible as a source of religious truth, whether you believe it or not.
And it is from the wellspring of religious truth that social justice was sought throughout history, and it is in this area that science fails.
Yes, science is important, but so is religion, and both are part of an ongoing quest for what is true, what is right. Science answers for the material, religion for the moral.
Again, in Genesis, Earth comes before light, and plants come before the Sun. The progression does not hold under the scrutiny of a real epistemological method: science.
Religion is not a search for the truth.
Morals should be learned through philosophy.
Religions should be thrown in the garbage bin of bad human ideas.
And again, no earth wasn't formed first, the bible states, the earth was without form, and void I.E.it didn't exist yet
The person standing in front of you
Sex on the beach. With moonlight.
The Republicans court the religious right, religiously. Politicians, especially Republicans, perversely use God for their political advantage in order to gain support from Christian Evangelicals.
Who cast their vote based on this, at the exclusion of all other rational thought.
I rather liked the Force, myself. Much more generic. No turbans. No fat bellies. No long brown hair. Just a power which can be positive or negative to which we are all connected and from which we can empower ourselves. Most religions, it seems to me, consist more of social rules of behavior on which secular laws are based.
God is more mystical than man imagines, for example, he promises, that whatever level of trust you put in him, so will he sustain you in the things that you have need of. I have seen this in my own life, and have come out just fine, even seen some miracles, things that I wouldnt have expected had I not trusted in him. While others are on their way down, I am seeing good days. I have never had a 401k, or a portfolio or even my own home, until recently thanks to the generosity and support of another. The banks denied me the loan for my first home, at at time when the prices are low, and I could afford it, but i had a family member who is almost dead, buy the home for me and I rent to own it from them. Funny that the banks would give them a loan, when they dont even need a 2nd home, I do, Im working to pay for it, they can see it on the checks I send it each month. But they still dont get it. We need a system in place that gives opportunity to a person to buy a home, instead of making me wait till im almost 50 to buy one. Praise God for foreclosed home prices, or Id still be renting. Although Im not pleased to see $600 a month go to bank interest, and only $200 a month towards principle, something still seems unfair in that.
God is a maniacal artist who signed his name numerous times to every atom and every molecule. We cannot escape seeing God everywhere we turn. It is indeed possible to see God "in a grain of sand" if one asks questions and contemplates their meanings. There is the curse of dichotomy when we think God is separate from us but we will learn that God and we are one and have always been one. Dichotomy was good when we needed insulation from the distracting part of reality but it no longer suffices. Everywhere breakthroughs had been achieved, we found unity and the fallacy of dichotomy. We imagined and manufactured God so God would always be with us because God IS our invention and will be there whenever and wherever thoughts are transmitted and duly received because God is the organizational structure of our reality.
Here, drink this Kool-Aid. It will help with your delusions, my son.
All delusions are real in the sense that they are simply labels for certain physical organizational structures of our reality.
You just said a lot of nothing. Sure, you can use the relativism argument, but that only leads to a dead end. If you think anything can be real, then why are you here. Just dream that the world is perfect and that will be real.
I do not fall for the fallacy of dichotomy so it is incumbent upon me to set things right in my reality. I know where I stand. I swear allegiance and pledge my honor to achieve what I believe and I mean nothing more and nothing less.
The world is never perfect and may never be but it does not prevent me OR anyone from striving towards that. One only needs to right the wrongs that present themselves to one's happenstance. Some may never be righted but I will have the satisfaction of having TRIED.
What do we each imagine God is? Non-existent.
Was there ever a time when you had imagined God? If so, what had you imagined God to be?
Non-existent. I don't need an uninvolved third party to tell me how to treat others. I also know world history and how all these people were murdered in the name of God and how the religious "wrong" use religion to control and harm people.
All this pain and suffering because somebody couldn't explain nature and the happening of planet Earth.
Those that fail to learn history or learn from history are doomed to repeat history. My question is why do these idiots think I have to be drug along for their educational experience?
http://www.nycga.net/groups/constitution/docs/constitutional-amendment-to-define-the-status-of-created-entities
Ok, so even in your childhood the idea of God was never part of the equation, correct? Not even in a sort of vicarious way through relatives of friends, correct? You never asked yourself "What is God?"
As to what you write concerning wars fought in the name of religion, I have to agree. I believe the Crusades were fought to keep Christianity from become an extinct religion.
As I wrote earlier in this thread, I believe in God but don't believe in religion. Religions each believe that only those who practice that particular brand of religion are correct in their beliefs and are therefore chosen by God to enter heaven. Others believing in other religions will not enter.
Sorry to disappoint but I don't need a third party to tell me how to behave. I can misbehave all on my own. My father was Christian, my mother as well. Their beliefs have nothing to do with me, the sins of the father and all that.
Since they both were killed in two car accidents when I was young their influence over me, as for religion, was negligible. My father's influence as for how you treat others was not. I figure that if I don't like something somebody is doing to me, then odds are, the next person won't enjoy it if I do it to them; so I don't.
Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, sadly the rest of us are forced along for their failings.
What is it you take away from that adage that I amended so as to be correct and more complete?
Here is a better adage that goes like this, "Learn from your mistakes". I prefer to learn from the mistakes of others so I do not make those same mistakes.
My sympathy for your loss.
I thank you for your consideration.
The loss taught me that people should be valued so it was a gain in one sense and a loss in another. Others have had it and do have it far worse. Life is what it is and that is just the way it is. I already knew that people should be valued this simply reinforced the belief.
You take away from your experiences what you will. I could have become an individual that saw to value in life just as easily as I stayed the same. My thought process on people, life and the world in general has changed little in the years I have lived and there are plenty of years between then and now. I have always watched what others do and saw the results of their actions for good or ill.
I paid close attention so I would not do the same thing if I didn't like the result.
I was fortunate in that I got to have both of my parents until I was in my late 40s. They continued teaching me about life right to the end of their lives. They died within months of one another. I lost my dad suddenly and my mom after a protracted illness. I quote them often. They were people of faith, esp. my dad.
As a teenager I came home from church one Sunday and pronounced to my parents that I didn't believe in God. I told them how rediculous it was; that it was akin to believing in Santa Claus and that it was intellectually insulting to me. My dad told me that it was a natural thing to doubt the existance of God, but in time I might come to realize I was incorrect.
The catylist for my believing in God was the loss of my parents and my father-in-law and things that occured during the 6 months that spanned their deaths.
I took a look at what human history is, how long Christianity, Judaism and other religions have been around and humans existed for thousands of years before any religion. Taking that into consideration. The fact is that humans have been around much longer than any religion and there are religions far older than Christianity.
Mormonism is a religion, Scientology is a religion... The fact is that humans are so infantile they require a father/mother figure to give them relief when in pain, reassurance when scared, comfort when suffering. We need to bring some sort of order to a disordered world. We need to understand that which we don't know.
I am writing a book that retells mythology using archaeological history with real recorded history and combine different myths from different cultures. Historical and archaeological history do not support religion.
Do you have a publisher?
No. I am far from done. I am an illustrator as well so I am illustrating the book and haven't decided if I want to do a graphic novel or not. Currently I am working a lot on OWS and doing a show. I am working on African Animals, extinct mammals from about 1,000,000 to about 12,000 years ago and the another purely fantasy show.
I will get it done. I am poking away at it and doing the illustrations I think I will have in the book so while I am doing art shows I am doing illustrations for the book and I am doing consignment pieces as well.
Wow! It seems you possess a great many talents. I wish you success with the book.
Earlier I wrote that I'd regained a belief in God. I think I should add that I don't feel that my belief stemed from some sense of a realization of my own mortality, my wish to believe that my parents live on in some version of heaven or any of the other things that religions have told people. I believe that when we die, we are dead, totally and completely. The reestablishment of my belief occured for other reasons. I'll leave it at that.
We all have our own beliefs. It is not my job/right to dictate to you what to believe. To do so would be disrespectful and would mean I disregard your experience. My wife's parents were also religious and two people that greatly influenced my life. They used the church as a vehicle to help people and I think they both were religious and believed in God.
I am not going to attempt to sway your views or opinion. Most people try to sway others into thinking the same way they do. The question was asked "What do we each imagine God is?" and I responded with my belief "Non-existent".
Nothing more and it is good to see there is room for other's beliefs in your world :-) for a lot of people there is no room for the beliefs of others. Hence we have war and suffering in the name of their God.
So long as one's beliefs do no harm to others, I say "have at it." I think we each travel through life in a somewhat unique way, affected by our individual perceptions and personal responses to events occuring in our own history of our relationships and surroundings.
Your answer of "non-existant" led me to wonder if you'd always believed as you do, or that perhaps your path may have been more similar to my own where you'd been indoctrinated into an organized religion and then began to see things differently.
I had/have no intention of trying to dissuade you from your view either. If there's one thing life has taught me, it's that I have a great capacity to be correct at times and incorrect at other times. The opinions of others DO matter to me, so long as those opinions make some sense to me. I try to not waste time on pointless arguements, and we see read those in the threads of this forum on a daily basis. I try my best to live by The Golden Rule. There are times that I fall short, but I think that on balance I'm successful at living that way.
Reality never changes no matter what I believe :-) It is what it is. If I am wrong then I will be judged for what I do. If I am right then it will make no difference.
I do what is right because it is the right thing to do and not because I am expecting or anticipating a reward for doing so.
Many would argue that the earliest signs of religion can be seen in burial practices. Even the Neanderthals stretching back 60,000 years had distinct burial practices where they did such things as placing flowers and antlers on the body in the grave.
Neanderthals are not homosapiens and would not have a soul, then again blacks, Native Americans and many others didn't have a soul until recently either. You don't get it both ways people. The first exodus from Africa was 70,000 years ago or 10,000 years before the Neanderthals "burial" practices you claim had religious overtones. Placing flowers or antlers on a grave of somebody you love and just lost does not require God.
I can see by what you say about souls that we will not agree about much. You go ahead and write your book however you want. Peace.
History is such a great teacher but only if you learn from it. If you don't learn from History you doom the rest of us to repeat your history lesson with you....
You aren't going to try and say to me with a straight face that the church(es) all believed until relatively recently that blacks, Native Americans, Aborigines and other sundry races did not have a soul?
Weren't these people referred to as savages and without a soul?
Or were you referring to something else?
We are one race, the human race, always have been, always will be. Equal in every which way and that would include souls.
We are talking about religion and the way the church works... I am not talking about the real world, we were talking about religion and the way Christianity believed and treat others. Heathens, savages, less than human all come to mind.
In the real world all people are of a single race, the human race, but religion, well that is another story.
God made us to be just like him.
So, if we're dumb, then God is dumb,
And maybe a little ugly on the side.
---------Frank Zappa--------
that is a thought, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r41MVDsyi2Q T
In God we thrust.
At some point I discarded my early religious teaching that God was some old bearded guy in the sky and found passages in the Bible, with the self describing God being "I am," before the creation of the heavens and the earth. The Bible also indicates God always was, is and ever shall be.
Infinity, The One Infinity encompassing all time, space, matter, energy, intelligence and capability - that is The One God for me, always and everywhere.
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/blake/to_see_world.html had William Blake's poem fragment: To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.
My Grain of Sand is the silicon CPU chip in my computer and I hold the computer mouse. Is God my computer mouse then? It can be because through it I can project and extend my consciousness through mindspace. What are we but consciousness? What is the mouse but an appendage, no more and no less than my own hand, through which I can reach for the Infinity? I can also run through Big History's Eternity in an hour. If more and more of my body parts are removed, when will I cease to be myself?
What is the one constant you wrote in your post concerning The One Infinity? ENERGY! Energy changes forms but is always and will remain energy. What if energy itself is "the manifestation" of God? When we die our bodies become that which was used in creating us - energy.
That's definition lacks clarity. That's why I'm an ignostic (not agnostic).
I can tell you this, must of the people in this Christian Era are either under the influence or rebelling against Constantine's Catholic Church.
I have great difficulty understanding why, given the amount of human suffering in the world, the Catholic Church retains all of it's vast wealth and doesn't use that wealth for higher purposes of trying to alleviate human suffering.
I was raised nominally religious (mom Catholic, dad, sort of protestant), but I never really believed it (my bullshit detector has always been pretty good ... magicians hated me when I was a kid) :)
I believe in "myself". I have yet to have anyone tell me that "they have come back from the dead". Until someone can prove that, I will continue to believe that "I am the captain of my fate and the master of my soul".
When candidates use "religion" as a way to direct their decisions it's unconstituional.
Here's an op-ed article about 5 founders of The United States who the author Bob Boston thinks couldn't be elected today because of their views concerning government and religion. You all may find it interesting.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12022/1204849-109.stm
"When candidates use "religion" as a way to direct their decisions it's unconstituional."
utterly meaningless statement. every person's decisions are informed at least in part by their personal morality and beliefs. at least one would hope.
Bon ton I agree remeber Occupy the tree
That's what the problem is. Look at Romney and his followers and the people who wouldn't vote for him because he is a "mormon".
Does that kind of thinking allow for a "rational voting decision"? I think not.
your first statement was about "candidates" using "religion" in some way that you think is "unconstitutional." Now you're talking about the personal biases of some voters. What exactly is your point?
My point is that a lot of people make their "voting decisions" based on their "religious beliefs". How can you make a "rational voting decision" based on your beliefs?
a simple explanation: like the song we sing at church says, we can apply this to the greedy people who are hogging up the earth and destroying our country :
"because I have been given much I too must give, because of thy great bounty Lord each day I live I shall divide my gifts from thee, with every brother that I see; who has the need of help from me.
that's your point? It's a tad simplistic, no?
John Brown's religious beliefs led him to conclude that slavery was wrong. MLK's religious beliefs led him to conclude that segregation was wrong. Daniel Berrigan's religious beliefs led him to conclude that war is wrong. Cardinal John O'Connor's religious beliefs led him to conclude that abortion is wrong.
I guess you think they were all un-American, huh?
So what you are saying is that a person doesn't have a "rational thought" to make "rational decisions" without having a "relious belief"?
I don't think so. Look at all the wars that have been fought "in the name of religion".
Where is that rational thinking?
You have a little trouble with basic logic, Steve. You said that religiously informed decision-making was somehow "unconstitutional." I responded with examples of a few notable Americans from history who engaged in religiously-informed decision-making and helped persuade millions of the rightness of their (thoroughly rational) views.
In other words, I blew you out of the water. And now you're giving me some half-baked Dawkinsian tripe about wars "in the name of religion"? Please, for your sake, go read a book.
Well then, would it be "constitutional" for a senator, judge, president to make his decisions based upon his "religious beliefs" in this country?
I have no idea what you mean by "decisions based upon 'religious beliefs'" and it's clear to me that you don't either.
Maybe you are the one who hasn't explored the subject enough to understand.
sure Steve. come back when you figure out your point.
Here, read this
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article818.html
So? It reads like someone puking up what he just read in a book by Richard Dawkins.
I imagine Newt and Obama think of themselves as God.
Nobody gets off this rock alive, except one guy. And when he gets back, He's gonna be pissed at alot of preachers and politicians.
@Skippy...Don't hold your breath waiting for him.
We need some "money-changer" table flippers ourselves. What happened to the Wall Street aspect of Occupy?
Winter .... remember, Jesus lived under different circumstances (they really don't have winter in the middle east, or least not a real winter) :)
Winter? I thought it was because of the mass evictions, the mass arrests, the mass tear gassing of people, the police brutality, and the fact that if you try and protest 24/7 on public space you will be arrested because of park rules. Oppression has been the reason for the shrinking size of OWS. It has very little to do with winter.
"If they enforced banking regulations as much as they enforce park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess."
The term "strike" and/or "picket" would serve the effort better. Neither of these require a permit or "permission" to exercise our Constitutional Rights.
Well, yes of course, but weather is a real factor we have to deal with as biological organisms. I think it's pretty clear that cold weather is harder to endure. Also, studies have shown (very decisively) that January is the most depressing month of the year, where people are the least motivated.
I think this reality should be encouraging (not discouraging). Hopefully my reasoning is intuitively obvious.
Oh yes for sure.
Perhaps we should burn more coal and oil to warm things up....
Have routine rallies to keep momentum going and public presence, continue organizing/outreach/growth, work out the red tape, etc. (all the things I think OWS are doing), should suffice.
Back in 1968 in France, the repression is what fueled the protests and the occupations to the point that 20% of the population was protesting against the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France#The_events_of_May
It seems to me your argument is a logical fallacy. All this oppression you speak of could as easily have been used to fuel the energy of the protests. Instead, you seem to be saying that Occupy protesters are people who easily give up when faced with adverse conditions. You might be right. If you are, then they never would have succeeded anyway. We need people who are perseverant if we want to change our nations. Perhaps it's time to look for more dedicated protesters?
He only threw the money changers out because they were desecrating the temple.
Assuming these legends are true (which is not something we can take for granted). Nonetheless, even if Jesus never actually existed, his message would be no less valuable (in my view). I understand this isn't the common view, but argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason :)
If you just read that one part, you might think so.
What does the rest of it say about it?
I dunno, but I think Blankfein must be pretty close, according to him.
:::::::::::::Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein on Banking: ‘Doing God’s Work’:::::::::::::
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/11/09/goldman-sachs-blankfein-on-banking-doing-gods-work/
-November 9, 2009-
I believe a kind of theology has played an important role in the economic policies of our country. Originally, and from time to time, we have practiced the "American System" of economics, which is the alternative to free trade or globalization.
Instead of seeking profit by paying the worker less, the American System seeks profit by paying the worker more, enough so he can educate himself and his children, so that they become "creative" workers, creating whole new products and processes to earn profit for the capitalist.
This system is in a sense based on the Christian ideas of a creator God, and since man is created in the image of God, on the creativity of human beings.
There is a theology to the alternative economic system, globalization, which is run by a financial oligarchy, a group of individuals who think of themselves as gods, and the rest of us as more like animals.
The theology of individuals who like to think of themselves as gods is in a sense "satanic" in that Satan sought to be worshiped and desired to raise himself above God.
Is this "satanic" economic theology the cause of today's financial crisis?
Let me say first that DO believe in God. I lived a good portion of my life not believing in God. I do not subscribe to the notion of a bearded elderly man in the sky with flowing white hair and wearing a robe. If there is but one God and is eternal there then is no need or purpose for God to have a gender assignment because procreation is not necessary. God is neither male nor female. I don't believe in organized religion, however. I believe that God exists in each of us and all around us.
When the whole "Creationism vs. Evolution" debate started a while back I recall thinking "..why are they mutually exclusive?" Is it possible that evolution is part of the design of life by God? The only purpose the anti-evolution side wanted served was the idea that the Bible is fact and is completely accurate. Will belief in God end if the Bible were incorrect or had been interpreted incorrectly (purposefully or not)? I really doubt it.
That said, if I'm interpreting your meaning correctly here then with the extreme distortion of an idea or a system of beliefs (capitalism as "theology") it then is destructive because of it's excessive nature which is a manifestation of "satan", yes?
EDIT: Upon re-reading this post I see that I wrote that "I do subscribe to the notion of a bearded elderly man in the sky" having failed to write "do not" instead. My sincere apologies.
I believe capitalism can be either "Christian" or "Satanic" for example you could say that people such as JKF, FDR, Abraham Lincoln practiced Christian capitalism, while George Bush and Barack Obama practice a more "Satanic" version of capitalism.
[Removed]
I don't imagine god as being a guy on a chair sitting on a cloud, but I think our "conscience" is more than just the standard program that runs our bodies. We as humans are obviously smarter than every other being on the planet. Could it be billions of years of evolution? I guess so? Since our lives are so short and the timespan the life of the Earth encompasses is well outside our comprehension, I can't say that we couldn't have evolved from a version of the monkey or whatever. It's just not "complete" in my mind. If there were several different versions of Homo "insert species here" living at the same time, then did they all evolve from the same species and just leave then have a chance encounter with each other 5 million years later? How else do you explain the number of homonid species that lived at the same time over the last 5-10 million years? Where's the missing link?
I honestly think the Earth is a project or an ant farm or something. First there were single celled organisms, then they decide to split.. billions of times until they decided to congeal into a multicelled organism.. then they grew into fish, then those fish walked out onto the land, those fish became dinosaurs... they got blown up and the mammals just happened to survive the worst possible living conditions imaginable and flourish. They grew smaller because the level of O2 in the air was drastically reduced, which led to monkeys and then humans? Really?
If you look at animals, they have different "levels" of intelligence. Fish and dogs aren't on the same level. Humans and dogs aren't on the same level. Each "level" of being has enough brains for what it's purpose is. Ants are workers that get rid of dead bugs and trash... they don't need a higher intelligence because they don't need to work a computer, or drive a car, or fetch. They follow a scent trail and they go get the food to bring to the colony.
Ahh the rantings of a burnout.
I think I wrote elsewhere in this forum that I really do think that evolution is God's design. I know that such a notion smacks up against what is written in the Bible. The Bible was written by people and then translated by other people, then retranslated and edited by still other people.
How can we know where each species of plant or animal is in their own evolutionary time line, or we humans for that matter? I don't think we can.
God is not even known to exist. At this point, he's like Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. Personally, I don't see the point in wasting time imagining what an unproven to exist entity might look or be like. When I have evidence of his existence, then I'll use that evidence to make observations and theories as to what God is and isn't.
Faith. In a world that is based in science and how things can be proven or disproven through scientific methods, the notion of faith is something that seems to run counter to science.
Do you subscibe to "the big bang theory" of the universe's creation? Where did that original speck of energy come from? Science, so far as I'm aware, doesn't know the answer. Humans believe that time will allow their intellect to further develop and eventually discover the answer to that question. What if the answer is God? One would have to allow for the possibility of God, given all that isn't known by humankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
One of the biggest humans flaws is the need to answer all questions at all costs. Some like to use God of the Gaps logical fallacies in an attempt to explain what hasn't yet been explained by science, or what cannot be explained by science. To me this is utterly useless. Explaining something with a logical fallacy is never really an explanation. It's just a way of fooling your brain into thinking you've found an answer. When I don't have sufficient evidence or information to answer a question properly, I'd rather leave it blank.
Faith is useless and illogical. Most people cherry pick in what they put their faith in. Many just follow their parents. They'll have faith in some God, but won't have faith in the Tooth fairy, or dragons. It's entirely subjective and thus a dead end. It's a way to fool the brain into thinking that an issue has been resolved when, in truth, it hasn't.
What if's is a boring game best left to children. It's fun to fantasize I guess, but in the end, adults live in the real.
Is there then a 'Science Of The Gaps' when it tries to account for dark matter and the like? Where the energy taken in by black holes goes? It's a work in progress. Same goes for God, I would expect.
It's very different. Science slowly progresses on the path towards the truth. Religion is static. There is no possible progression on the path towards truth with religion. You are still quoting a 2000 year old Bible in the hope to find truth, and always will be.
Religion may be static, but the act of faith is not. Like science it requires progress toward knowledge. Knowledge of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
You don't need faith for science. Faith is for idiots who need magical answers so they can sleep better at night.
Does astrophysics base it's work on a certain set of known factors? For example does science conclude distances to celestial bodies based on how the physical world works in our part of the universe? Red shift, I thinks it's called. How do we know that's true everywhere in the universe? Because we see the constants of physics here, from our perspective. We see three dimensions. Therories exsist of more dimensions and other universes. Science is working to prove or disprove those possibilities. Science, I believe is working toward proving that there are things that we as humans are incapable of comprehending because our physical limitations are unable to perceive those things. Scientific methods are limited because we as humans are limited. Limited by our own minds, our own senses.
Science bases itself on evidence acquired through careful observations. This gives us the power to make predictions. For example, we understand gravity and this permits us to predict that if we walk off the top of a building we will fall down and hit the ground.
Does this mean this will always be true? Does this mean it will be like that all over the universe? Not necessarily, but until we find a place where the law of gravity does not hold, we can assume that it will. If we ever go somewhere where the law of gravity does not work as we think it should, then we will make new observations, acquire new evidence, and come up with a theory that explains the not before seen events.
That's how science works. It progresses slowly from one discovery to the other. Sometimes its wrong. If it is, experiments are reviewed and whatever was wrong is either abandoned or corrected. By using this method, science permits us to better understand our world. We can thus make predictions and control it. We can build planes, and have even been able to make it to the moon.
Religion offers no power of predictability. Zero. It only offers fantasies so that people who are scared of death can feel good enough to continue living.
Again, it's OK if everything is not yet explained. Better leave a blank field for the answer than use a Gods of the Gaps argument to fill it with something which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
It's cool man. If you need religion to make you feel better, then go to church and pray. It's a good placebo and science has proven that placebo's can be effective.
I take your points made here.
I don't go to church. I don't care for religion at all.
Great chatting with you. Enjoy the rest of your day
When belief in a God is founded in belief in the Bible as truth, then all the negatives you mention are relevant to your point, I suppose. Remove the Bible from that equation, with all of it's agendae. Take away human attributes we as people have assigned to God in order that we are able to more readily identify with God.
It shouldn't matter two fucks what the religious leanings of the presidential candidates are. That being said, both sides cling to it because it helps the average Christian think that they actually care and are stable mentally. Its ridiculous. DId you know that there was a study published recently that says atheists and agnostics are the most distrusted people in the states? I'm not sure on all of the information but I'm sure the average human can make moderately accurate guesses as to why this is.
Since the 1980s, as you're very likely aware, Republican stratagists such as Karl Rove have cleaved out a base for the party by appealing to the religeous right, business conservatives, gun owners, et al. I agree that it shouldn't really matter if a person running for office is a believer in God, what should matter is where the candidate stands on the issues and the content of a person's character. For many the character issue begins and probably ends with the candidate's religious leanings. Many believe that persons in public office is capable of enacting laws that will legislate morality.
Yes you're right. If the ideas are credible then it shouldn't matter what a candidate believes in. It really is just an example of candidates doing whatever they can to get elected.
Dog chit Obummer is a muslim
How the hell is that relevant?
With OWS coming to a close I can see a spike in Xbox sales coming soon
Not exactly relevant but they do need to work before they can afford said gaming system.
what's wrong with being a Muslim?
Nothing if they keep that crap overseas
so you're saying its bad to be a Muslim in the USA?
[Removed]
I don't think God and religion should have anything to do with politics. It just ends up dividing people who may share different religious beliefs even though the rest of their beliefs are very similar.
Israel
Before some bitter atheist starts screaming I think we can say that the idea of God need not follow the Christian idea.
bitter atheists seem particularly bitter about Christianity don't they? But then bitter people are often the least rational people.
Its like democracy, its up to you what you believe bub.
It's the nature of faith and what faith entails. The phrase "leap of faith" is something that a pragmatist like myself had great difficulty internalizing and actualizing, esp. where belief in God was concerned.
Applying a cliché to your belief in God or not is unfortunate because it obviously is much deeper than that. My dad used to say I never met an atheist in a foxhole, he was on Corregidor when the Japanese bombed it.
I think god is a banker
The bigger question that I would have. Why do you people spend all of your waking hours, spend millions and millions of dollars in court cases, denouncing, FIGHTING,,, something you say does not exist? I have seen previews of a new TV show where the participants are in total darkness and they have infra-red cameras on them. One of the short teases shows some "tough" guy that thinks there is something like a boogie man or ghost near him. He goes into hysterics flapping his arms, jumping up and down. I laugh my butt off. He is fighting so hard against something that is not there. That reminds me of some of the people on here. We are laughing at how much time they spend fighting something they dont believe in. LOL funny.
He is our creator.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ngewatch-desperate-housewives-season-8-episode-12-/
I see god everyday, everywhere I look and in everything. I subscribe to the law of one. The idea that there is no separation and we are are one mind experiencing itself separately simultaneously. I've been fortunate enough to find this. I was also given proof.
Google 11:11 phenomenon.
I was fortunate enough to have some less than "qualified" beings wake me up th hard way.
So has your spiritual guide contacted you and if so do you communicate with one another?
god is universal, here is example =) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI5TItuh2Sk
I like Mos Def and esp. enjoy his acting. He absolutely stole the movie '16 Blocks' in his role as Eddie Bunker.
The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.
Everything was created through him; nothing—not one thing!— came into being without him. What came into existence was Life, and the Life was Light to live by. The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness; the darkness couldn't put it out.
There is more proof of God than there is against a God.
I saw him once from an airplane. He was hopping from cloud to cloud like a wild rabbit.
By the way, you can't prove a negative as per the rules of logic so there is no proof against the existence of God. Likewise, there is no proof that Santa Claus or fairies don't exist.
You have the burden of proof my friend, lay down your evidence.
I have the best proof. You wont follow it but here goes. God created earth and the heavens. Then he created animals and man. We are here and animals are here. That is the first proof. Now the second. The Bible says he did all of this. You can read it,, there is proof second. There is no mention of animal or man anywhere else but earth, so says the Bible. Now. remember, we have proof we are here, and the Bible says we are here and NO WHERE ELSE. So, we have spent, TRILLIONS of dollars around the world on space missions to the moon looking for LIFE of ANY TYPE. Sorry,,,,, NO LIFE THERE because God didnt put any there. We have sent other crafts into open space with sensors,,, SORRY, but NO LIFE FOUND because God didnt put any in outer space. We have sent missions to Mars with the most sensitive equipment looking for just ONE LITTLE TINY piece of life. SORRY, there isnt any,, WHY? Because God only put it on Earth. I know all the other things but you cant prove there is other life. One last thing. Ya,,, gotta,,, imagine,, that some 2,000 years ago someone mentioned in the Bible would have,,, oh,,, guessed there was life somewhere else,,, but,,, no mention. "Hey Fred'eth, dont you think'eth, there'eth, is life somewhere else out there?" "What'eth, are you grazy'eth,,, dont you think God would have mentioned that in the Bible?" NOPE. No life,, God created life on earth and earth only,,, and I HAVE PROOF. There'eth YOU GO'eth.
OK, it's clear you're a teenager and we have a different definition for the word proof.
So there is life on other planets and you have seen that life? Interesting. I have not. I have the Bible that proves to ME there is only life on earth. Where is your proof now? (teenager? Way cool dude. I'm 60,,, mannnnnnn. PS. Seen trillions and trillions of dollars spent on equipment sent to outerspace hunting for life,,,,,,, DARN,,, just cant find it after those tillions. A bible costs about $40)
[Removed]
Lets see, have you ever seen The Ten Commandments? Did you see it when you were four? That was the voice of God. He was super giant and sat in a big chair. I don't think I had a good height for him because you so did not want him to get up out of the chair. That's ok. It was only important that he could whip your God. Oh, and he was arbitrary as hell so you were never sure if you were good enough. In fact, you were automatically going to hell. Like walking on glass. Like Santa.
Yeah, I'm an atheist.
Religion is playing a role in this election. It shouldn't but unfortunately it has. From the moment contestant number one stepped out and said, "God told me" that was it. This is who they pander to. Not all Christians are way out there.The last three election cycles they have been very, very front and center. I suggest people spend some time looking up what those seven mountains are. This is a group that is hell bent on achieving this goal and that will definitely effect our international politics. They keep their followers focused on one foot in the grave at all times and tell them that whatever suffering that they endure in this life will bring a better afterlife. So, they attach sin and evil to the very things that will ease some suffering. This group also firmly believes that earthquakes and war will come to the US if there is not a rigid socially conservative agenda adhered to. Control of the population.
The inequity here on earth is okay because we're all equal in the afterlife.
I'm not buying it.
That is exactly it. More, cut funding for social services or you have been stricken with an illness and it isn't important that you know why you must carry this cross. If you cannot afford medical treatment than god has a plan.
Yes. It is a way of manipulating the masses. The more troubles they have, the more they turn to God. The more they turn to God, they are told they are "godly," and that the suffering is their cross to bare, as you point out. In addition, they threaten them with "You better be grateful for what you do have....." or you just might not make it to that place where you'll finally be equal.
"In death we are all equal" is not even lying either? I think both sides of the argument could agree to that.
Jesse, I don't always understand you, lol! Are you saying that religion is bull? Then, I get you.
we are equally in life after death or we are equally worm food, but either way we are equal. lol, just a thought...
Worm food - what a thought. lol.
Yes, they do threaten them with it and it makes this completely and totally insanely chaotic group. Even Mitt Romney likes David Barton who intentionally lies about American history.
It is intentional.
Be wary of a religious historian.
At least wary of a religious historian attempting to decipher American history. There are few of those that are religious historians that have the capacity to remain objective. They are few.
True, but I'm wary of lots of historians for different reasons. I always look for bias.
I agree.
Are you a historian? You seem to really know your stuff.
I have no degrees in history. I have had courses in history. History is my ultimate consuming passion. Archaeology is the best ever. I have certain time periods that I decide to take out for lack of a better word. I have constants that I return to repeatedly. I did do some volunteer work for a historical society that opened up, for me, a lot of resources that I might have overlooked.
have you read graeber - sounds like he might be up your alley
At some point, I would really like to pick up his Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
archaeology, anthropology, history and money - very good book for these times - if you read it i would say read the last two chapters first then start the book - it was a bit confusing for me - maybe not for such a scholar as you!
I wouldn't go so far as to say I was a scholar. I have an insatiable curiosity for reading material that bores the bejeezes out of most people enough for them to throw away their books when they are done. :D
That's cool. It is one of my passions, too, though I am weaker with U.S. history and more interested in world history. You don't need a formal education in anything to be an expert, in my opinion, especially history. You can just read, as you have done.
All that anyone needs to become educated is a good library. Thanks for saying that. There are a lot of people who see an education only as a way to self-advancement, when the truth is that education is an end in itself - it makes life richer and more meaningful.
I want to thank both of you for making this forum richer and more meaningful.
You too, GypsyKing. You're awesome.
I flip back and forth. I am in late antiquity of the Roman empire. I really want to back up and get into the Sassanid Empire. So, if you have any recommendations in that area throw them my way. :D
Late Antiquity is fascinating. It is the watershed period where Christianity truly changes the world.
I recommend Peter Brown's "Late Antiquity" and "The World of Late Antiquity" and Averil Cameron's "The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity" and "The Later Roman Empire." They are the two big scholars that come to mind. Peter Brown is just brilliant.
Also, did you ever hear of the Donatist Martyr stories? Really interesting.
I have Peter Brown. I love him. Ramsey McMullen rocks too. I don't have Averil Cameron.
I have read of the Donatists. The Donatist Martyr stories are pious fiction. In fact, there were no persecutions of Christians for being Christian.
This is one of the most addle-brained discussions of religion in politics I've ever witnessed. But then when you start out with Hollywood as your reference point for religious belief, you've already jumped the shark
[Removed]
http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/
Try again. If you are having a problem with the history of Christianity then I would be glad to help you. Take my kindness now. I support the first amendment but, I have a low tolerance for stupidity.
If you're trying to make some grand point about "the history of Christianity", it's elusive. (And does that make you a "religious historian"?) Just asking
Then I shall spell it out for you. If you are lacking some knowledge on the history of Christianity, I can fill that in for you. If I was a religious person, that would make me a religious historian.
:D
You are not an atheist because human being can believe in anything about which he/she knows anything .But God is infinitely superior to any material thing therefore we cannot know anything about that just as the number one cannot imagine the vastness of infinity.Therefore if any body claims to be theist then that means he is telling a lie.God is a topic of history not of religion and more so of linguistics,psychology and philosophy .
Oh, I am an atheist. 100%. I am not the least bit interested in how you rationalize it.
I agree. It's the Republicans that have really perfected the perverse use of God in politics to appeal to Christian Evangelicals. Gingrich won SC based on the Evangelical vote. And the Evangelicals are a highly mobilized powerful politcal base who cast their vote based on religion to the exclusion of other rational thought. And have done more to politicize individual privacy issues (abortion rights, family, values) than any other group.
I think I saw a projection that the religious right will spend close to $1Billion this election. I was surfing and can't find the source again! So don't quote me. But it would be interesting to know more.
And there's the desire by the Christian Right as well as some members of the Muslim Faith that want a war of religions.
http://www.isaintel.com/2011/01/14/a-nation-against-islam-americas-new-crusade/
Top 7 funders: Donors Capital Fund Richard Mellon Scaife foundations Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust Russell Berrie Foundation Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund Fairbrook Foundation
Here are five key think tanks led by scholars who are primarily responsible for orchestrating the majority of anti-Islam messages polluting our national discourse today: Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism All five are actively promoting the deeply mistaken portrayal of Islam religion of nearly 1.6 billion people worldwide, including 2.6 million Americans as an inherently violent ideology that seeks domination over the United States and all non-Muslims.
Spencer neatly sums up their inaccurate and perverse view of Islam as “the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic Social Order all over the world. http://daytonos.com/pdf/islamfear.pdf
Much of the document had lines of black dots that looked like a written representation of Morse Code or something. Am I ignorant of what those dots really represent? Is that some sort of redaction?
It was uh.............uh.......super secret code.
Yep, that's it. :P
Here try this http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/islamophobia.html That way if you pull it up it might work better for you. :D
It worked! Tx!
That is a personal issue, isn't it?
Religion has no place in politics.
I think talking about how religion and how it might effect potential office holders is a free speech issue and would be something any voter would want to know about candidates who consider it as something that affects their lives and part of their decision making process. Would I personally want a zealot as office holder? Probably not. Likely not. What a man such as Dick Cheney believes has "broken my bones" and has "picked my pocket" though.
When Jefferson wrote that he was referring to religion.
Any zealot will make his views on religion quite well known, regardless of whether you want to hear it or not.
I am much more interested in a candidate's positions on economic, social, and national security issues.
It's the unknowns that frighten me when the presidency is at stake. Santorum saying straight out that he would bomb Iran. He didn't even blink when he said that. That is disturbing to me!
What does that have to do with religion? You think Santorum has a thing for Shiites?
I was trying (though not very well) to say that though I may not think of Santorum as someone capable of being president, he does have the courage to speak his convictions.
Additionally Santorum thinks that birth control should be banned. If I'm understanding Mr. Santorum correctly he advocates unleasing business by getting rid of regulations and laws, but wants government to tell women that they have no rights regarding their reproductive abilities.Mr. Santorum is Catholic and the Catholic Church doesn't allow for birth control (other than the rhythm method?). I take it as Mr. Santorum advocating the dogma of the Catholic Church because he wears his religion on his sleeve while campaigning. I think The Catholic Church prohibits the use of birth control because they want Catholics to procreate more Catholics, thus insuring the continuation of the Church. Others may not see it this way.
As to his having a thing for Shiites, I couldn't say. I'm opposed to preemptive war. Santorum is not.
My understanding is that the Iranians have already begun moving their nuclear production equipment underground, which means it is already too late to begin bombing - unless the intent is to either:
eliminate the leadership
punish the population
and thus end their nuclear ambitions. We do have bunker busters - but I'm sure the Iranian engineers have taken that into account.
None of which negates the possibility of someone like Santorum getting into office and launching some new American adventure in the Middle East.
The best safeguard against that is