Charismatic Chaos

That is only if you believe that the commandments originated with the Israelits and in the OT - during the Exodus. And not after the fact, as many historians believe.Have you heard of the Egyptian "Book of the Dead:"?

quote:

---

The Book of the Dead was written circa 1800 BCE. 2 The Schofield Reference Bible estimates that the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt and the provision of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai occurred in 1491 BCE., some three centuries later. Thus, many religious liberals, historians, and secularists have concluded that the Hebrew Scripture's Ten Commandments were based on this earlier document, rather than vice-versa.

---

There is a similarity:

quote:

---

---

It's possible that a form of these types of commandments were normal in all cultures. If that's so, then I'm with Stile when he writes:"The only reason for demanding obedience to an authority figure "just 'cause you should" is for abusive-manipulative purposes. If it's for any sort of morally good reasons, then making it a "commandment" isn't necessary and actually undermines any deserved respect."- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Fuckkkkk...we were just asked to exit the plane after waiting for an hour to board and 45 minutes on the tarmac! UghhhhhhSorry, i had to vent. But you did ask. Could you elaborate more on that?What do you mean by "don't offer providence," in what way?I thought it did, it just ends up being abusive and manipulative. Well this shift requires an apriori belief in the afterlife. When judging the commandment with a critical eye, that of an atheist's, to the specific religion, it's clear, at least to me, that the benefitiaries are both the individual and the community in this life -(But I don't mean the individual in an afterlife, I reject that concept).In fact, I would say it's a collection of the individual's opinions that make up the majority opinion of the community, so both affect the laws and how they are interpreted. Since their interpretated version is what gets accepted by the followers as fact.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

That depends. I believe their "originally intended purpose" was for personal satisfation.Who ever introduces a set of commandments is doing so for personal satisfaction. Whether that personal satisfaction is a good thing for people, or a bad thing for people, is another thing.Anytime there is a ruling body, judging how laws or commandments are followed, there is always going to be abuse, IMO.- Oni

Hi Bailey, I did. And now I'm back home having boarded and flown again.Truck still in the shop? Well, having prior knowledge of the outcome, I question why the laws exist in the first place and were given to the tribes by God?It seems like it would have been easier to let people figure out what's right and wrong on their own, since the laws only benefit "cheifs" and oppresses the "injuns." It seems like, IM-very-HO, God gave the laws with "a certain foresight regarding the preparation of care, direction and guardianship of a communities vested interest within that specific culture", if in fact one believes God presented Moses with the laws.Which is why I question why there is a need for the laws. IF God knows the outcome, that the laws would be abused and manipulated, and in turn used to oppress, there would be no need for the laws in the first place. The only beneficiaries are the powerful and wealthy. That is why I believe the laws are man made, for the purpose of control and opppression. Interesting. You seem to hold more of a Buddist-type belief in the afterlife, where there really is no afterlife because there is no actual death. Where the temporal self is just one aspect of our existance. I agree with what you wrote. You'd be surprised. I'm an atheist, as in I reject theistic positions on the belief in God. However, we seem to agree on what life, death and what existance means. I'm sure with some differences. And I would agree with you 100% when we speak of man made laws, however when speaking about God given laws, this seems a bit apologetic. God has the foresight. He should know the outcome of giving these laws before hand. If there is a God I think He would have better judgement than that.Man made these laws and ascribed them to God. Man used these laws to control and oppress and that makes God look like a tyrannical fool. Man, in my opinion, has ruined the concept of God by using God as a scapegoat for their own personal gain...IM-very-HO. It seems like we have gone a little off topic, but I too enjoy the exchange.Thanks. Yours are as well.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I agree that "in the name" of science, nothing has been done. But because of scientific advancements, humans have had the capability to destroy massive amounts of people. Which we have done. Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind...I would say that most religious atrocities are similar in that because of the belief in God, scriptures were written, and humans have used it's power to destroy massive amounts of people. But in both cases I would say that the atrocities were done in the name of ideologies. As opposed to suits and titles like "president" or "CEO"...? The problem, as I personally see it, is that people still hold these insitutions to be relevant to their lives. Just as people hold government as an institution that is relevant to their lives.So just as we could not "knock the head off" of government because a few are deceptive, abusive, manipulative, etc, religions will not fall either for those same reasons.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This is what my post is saying, perhaps not quote mining one specific part of it, but rather understanding the post as a whole, would have revealed that.The motive is not the ideology, the motive is independent of it. The belief in a God is not what causes such henious acts, it's the people who manipulate it and use it to their advantage - just as the belief in certain political ideologies does the same.You said this: This not only applies to certain religions but it applies to politics, and I would add, anything that humans take part in. The point being that religion should not be signaled out as the cause of human destruction when political ideologies have caused greater atrocities. In both cases it's not the belief so much as the people within each institution.Good government can help, equally, good religious groups can and do help many people. Yes. My point was that con men don't just wear robes and funny hats, they usually wear suits and have titles like CEO.Your point about religious con men is correct, but the bigger influence in peoples lives, at least in Western cultures, is government and each parties fundamental beliefs about social issues. Why fight religion or even be concerned with it, religion has nothing to do with it. It's the people in the religious groups, just as it's the people in the political groups.People suck and they ruin everything that was pure and beneficial. You did not mistype, I misread. My bad.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Hey Straggler, good to see you back in the forum. All is well on this side of the pond.Hope all is well with you and your family. I can agree with that, having accepted that the currently held ideologies of said religions have already been described within their individual scriptures/tenets. However, this is part of human influence within the religion itself.If we take these scriptures and ascribe them some godly characteristic or devinity then those of faith will not question the motive behind the laws/dogmas/etc. But this again is human influence within the religion itself.That is why I stated that it's the people, whether we're talking about the authors of the scriptures or the current high ranking clergymen, who present the fundamental hatred in the scriptures for their individual benefit. They basically take the fact that humans are prone to belief and use that to their advantage by writing scriptures that as you say "seem to be founded very much on a "them and us" basis that all but inevitably results in the "true believers" (of watever flavour) railing against the "infidels"."To me this seems the same as what governments do. People have a natural sense of law and order in their social interaction within their individual communities. They also seem to have a loyalty to their "own". Knowing this about people is essential when preparing for a political movement and designing a political ideology. It is what people like Lenin, Hitler and Castro have done. Equally, it's the same as what the writers of the Koran, OT and NT have done.They manipulate human beings. they pray on their weaknesses and take advantage of them for their own gain. If there wasn't I'd say who are you and what did you do to Straggler? But I think the same approach can be done for religions. In fact, here at EvC many have claimed to have been "changed" from their held beliefs with arguments from a logical and rational perspective. Off the top of my head I believe Rahvin and Cavediver fit this description. So it's not uncommon to argue someone away from their religious ideologies. The argument may be different than how one would argue against a political ideology, but the results are the same in that the person eventually can see the errors in their ideology. I think currently it's the same for religious beliefs. In fact, Dawkins on his website has testimonies from converters who were changed with simple, rational arguments. They may still believe in God, but don't hold to any religious affiliation and if they do, it's more for tradition than anything else. Also there is the change from a literal interpretation of scriptutres to a more metaphoric interpretation. This too can change the fundamental ideology of the religion in question. This I can agree with. If it's two opposing religious ideologies jockeying for position as to who has it right, yes, neither side will usually give up their held beliefs. But I don't think it's the same between religious beliefs vs atheism. I believe the person holding to an atheistic PoV can, in theory, argue from a rational and logical position and, as we have seen here on EvC and on Dawkins website, cause people to drop their previously held beliefs, if only to take a more agnostic belief or moderate stance. I think we agree for the most part. And yes, this seem to be the crux of the issue. People tend to affiliate themselves into political and religious ideologies and close themselves off to rational arguments.In the past, say 500 years ago, religion for the most part could not be argued with logic, science, rational thinking, etc. where as political ideologies always could. I think this has to do with scriptures being ascribe some godly devinity that can't be questioned. Political ideologies have no such devine idol (unless you consider Obama as the first )But I think currently times have changed. People can be argued out of their religious ideologies in the same way that you can argue someone out of their political ideologies. And I will use the current rise in atheism and the many secular countries that have begun to sprout throughout the world as my evidence.Given that it has been possible to rationally argue someone away from their fundamental beliefs of hatred or divisiveness, I think in the future we won't see an end to religion, because honestly I don't feel there has to be, I think we'll see a more moderate position and eventually we'll see secular religions (if that makes any sense).My over-all point is that we can argue the person out of their motive because motive, in religious scriptures, were ascribed by people.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

That's sounds great, hope you had a lot of fun. I've never been to that side of the Atlantic, hopefully soon. And yea, I know about the struggles with little ones. I've done Disney during the summer in Florida with the kids - not fun. Yea, I see the old arguments have been brought back to life. Fair enough. Faith is the hardest thing to overcome. I've never had it so I wouldn't know, but it does seem that "letting go" is quite a hard accomplishment.That is a clear difference between letting go of a religious ideology vs a political one. In that sense I agree with you. I agree. But I also see government as the secular controlling institution and therefore does not need to have faith as a means of coercion - governments are established with armies.Religions spread this way, but are a different avenue of control - (control of the human mind) - and thus has to use other tactics. - Like inventing a god that watches everything you do.That is where I see the seperation, in their individual agendas. - As can't I.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

That's pretty sad.Have you ever heard of: Marjoe Gortner

quote:

---

In the late 1960s, Marjoe suffered a crisis of conscience in particular about the threats of damnation he felt compelled to weave into his sermons and resolved to make one final tour, this time on film. Under the pretense of making a documentary detailing a viable ministry, Marjoe assembled a documentary film crew to follow him around revival meetings in California, Texas, and Michigan during 1971. Unbeknownst to everyone else involved including, at one point, his father Marjoe gave "backstage" interviews to the filmmakers in between sermons and revivals, explaining intimate details of how he and other ministers operated. After sermons, the filmmakers were invited back to Marjoe's hotel room to tape him counting the money he collected during the day. The resulting film, Marjoe, won the 1972 Academy Award for best documentary.

---

Here's an excerpt from the film, which you can find in its entirety on youtube:- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I never heard of Popoff, just read up on it, once again, it's very sad. I was able to find a current Inside Edition clip on it.You're right, this dude is still at it. Fucked up!People still believe this crap Miracle Spring Water ...WOW!- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Hi iano,I'd like to invite you to take part in mine and DA's debate with EMA in the Heaven and Hell- thread. I'd like to get your opinion on the, to put it in your words, "mechanism whereby our ability to choose can be brought to life."I find it to be a gross misunderstanding of how we experience reality, to think that we actually have freedom of choice from a non-deterministic sense.I'd like to see how you address the conflict presented by me, and DA, in that thread about how it is nothing more than a biological function, which lays out a sort of map that your neuro processes follow regardless of your opinion. - A murderer does not "choose" to kill someone, chemical reactions in his brain lead him to this action (for many different reasons) none of which are by choice of the individual.If god created this mechanism, then he is FULLY responsible for it not working properly.This may be off-topic here, but if you like I could post it in that thread. - Unless you have a quick answer for it, then you could answer and we wouldn't continue off-topic. Here's a weird question, but one that I've always been curious as to how christians get around it: Are the same sins always considered sins, or do sins change according to how the culture changes?Here's why I ask: Is stoning a homosexual considered a sin now? If so, why did it change, who changed it, and can it change again?- Oni

IF he did, then where exactly did he install this in our bodies?And, at what age does it take effect, or are we born knowing this and never need to be taught? What complete arrogance!It takes some balls as a man to address other grown men as if they were children, and needed your hand to guild them through life.How can he hate something that doesn't exist other than as a concept in religious peoples minds?Do you not believe in unicorns because you hate them? No we are not, that is only your opinion. Way to side step his point with condescending BS. More arrogance. You have no idea if this is true, and the evidence points to it being false, so why do you say this with any kind of authority? Just because you submitted to the authority of the written words of men, doesn't mean you are right nor does it mean we have to also.You worship an invisible man and treat us like children for not falling for it, like you have.All you have is faith that you are right, which makes you equally capable of being wrong ... so why speak about any of this with authority? Funny thing is, invisible made up characters in mythology never talk back.- Oni