Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Winston]

Meh, somewhere along the line I got kind of tired of going over all the reasons why I am opposed to judeo-Christian religion. (Opposed to the thing itself, not necessarily the people following it, as long as they are willing to live and let live) My main reason is that religion [like an opressive government] makes it it's business to try to "save" humankind from itself. If I don't like it when the state tells me how to live (but calls it freedom), why would I go home and bow down to a deity that does the same(but, again, calls it "free will")? On that same note, I also don't like how most religions (like government) claim that without it's laws, we would all rape and slaughter eachother. When a follower of a religion does a bad thing, it's all their fault. When the do a good thing, it's because their god helped them do it. I just don't like how religion seems to want to undermine mankind by claiming that we are all born sinners, who will continue to be sinners no matter how far we go, etc. I don't like how it seems to want nothing more than to create conflict, with all the same silly dualist dogma as usual: "us" vs. "them", "good" vs. "evil". And I'm not going into the messy contradictions in the bible...

That said, most atheists get on my nerves, too. While they are mostly harmless, people who won't accept anything without the Richard Dawkins seal of approval really grind my gears. I'm talking about the kind of people who festoon their cars with anti-religious stickers but think that Christians just don't have the right to wear their Jesus t-shirts out in public. But I guess that's just liberalism...

And besides, believing absolutely nothing that can't be proven by a guy in a lab coat would be a pretty lame existence  

[Radio Flyer]

That said, most atheists get on my nerves, too. While they are mostly harmless, people who won't accept anything without the Richard Dawkins seal of approval really grind my gears. I'm talking about the kind of people who festoon their cars with anti-religious stickers but think that Christians just don't have the right to wear their Jesus t-shirts out in public. But I guess that's just liberalism...

This may also be the crux of the issue - the "extremes" of the political and religious debates can always be used as a cartoonish "boogie-man" by the other side. Average intelligence indicates that 1/2 is under that average, one of the things that make manipulation easy.

[macman2k]

I am a former "evangelical", have worn the T-shirts, traveled over seas to "spread the word".   Then I started learning about freedom and the morality of do unto others.   It became clear to me that you cannot support government w/out breaking the 2nd greatest commandment.  Then I learned about how governments manipulate people, change "history", and "embrace and extend".   All of a sudden, it became painfully clear that no book, such as the bible, could possibly survive in tact *unless* it had already be "sanitized" by government.  It doesn't take much to "sanitize" the bible, only one or two verses like Romans 13.  In an era before printing presses, when the reproduction of books was in control of an elite few, you can bet your life that those elite would not hesitate to change it to their end.

The result of this realization is that I can no longer take the "bible" as the "word of God".   Ask a christian to defend their faith without saying "the bible says, Jesus says, etc" and they will likely confess that without the bible, they know nothing of God.    Or they will say that "the holy spirit tells me to trust the bible".   

Well, how do you have a "personal relationship" with someone if you need a book to tell you about them?  How personal is your relationship if you need a pastor to "teach you" every sunday?  If you relationship is so personal, then why are you so deceived by so much in our society?  Clearly, God would have guided you away from scams and revealed countless sins where you actively violate the 2nd greatest commandment?   

Christianity is opposed to a freedomista point of view because to be against government, against taxes, and to claim the organization is "evil" is to claim that the bible is fallible, that God didn't "establish governments", that governments do not get "authority" from God.  Every christian always gets hung up on "someone needs to enforce the laws".  That very mindset implies that they do not trust God to "enforce the laws" without resorting to "government".  Christians (and other religions) are unwilling to let go of government, because government is the fiction by which people hope to one day "play God" and enforce their "immorality" on others.     

My conclusion is that God is pro-freedom (or else there would have been quick and swift judgment already) and that "religion" is anti-God and fundamentally incompatible with freedom.  If God isn't ready to strike people dead for their sins, then far be it from me to start defining sins and punishing people for them. 

I no longer go to church, though my wife still does.  She claims my "freedom views" are hypocritical when it comes to "family structure" where I exercise "authority".  I always remind her that she consented, and recently added that she has the "freedom" to leave if she feels I am not loving her or providing for her in the way I said I would.   Her belief in the bible appears to be the only thing holding her together these days as she is overwhelmed being a stay-at-home mom.  If she were to adopt my world view, she says she would likely "lose it" not be able to live our current life together.  I have yet to figure out how to deal with that.  Religion appears to be a useful crutch for people... tragically, crutches weaken people if relied upon for too long.  Today we have an entire society that does not realize that religion is a crutch for the mentally lazy or that government is a crutch for the economically lazy.     

[Radio Flyer]

What pushed be away from Christianity was the rampant move to biblioidolatry and some of the more restrictive and repugnant sects like Calvinism and the deep seated "prosperity doctrine" so common in the South.

I always see the Christian fundamentalists supporting freedom when the Government is "against them" like under Clinton but willing to "put their testicles under trust" and become apologists for the anti-freedom types like GW Bush...

Just to reflect a great point by macman2k...

Christians (and other religions) are unwilling to let go of government, because government is the fiction by which people hope to one day "play God" and enforce their "immorality" on others.

[gaurdduck]

I think that the followers of a religion, and the religion itself ought to be judged separately.
Followers make mistakes. The vast majority of people are very very stupid. Just my  .

[socalserf]

ZAP
That's the operative principle.
All people, regardless of their professed religion, spirituality, or politics are judged by whether or not they will leave me in peace.

[Canadian Mamma]

I am sorry but I whole heartedly disagree with Claire's Idea that believing in God and having a religion makes you more pliable and comfortable bowing to a government.

It has never worked for me that way that is for sure.  My belief in GOD as I know GOD has made me very free to disregard TPTB, they are but gnats to be ignored or worked around, why the heck would I gave a rat's behind what mere mortals have to say about my behavior? They got nothing compared to GOD. But that is just me.

[freewoman]

But that is just me.

Congrats, Canadian Mama.  However, that's the problem--there are few like you (and some of the others on this board) in Christendom.  Christianity is a proselytizing religion; it grows by gaining converts, not by birth or culture.  (The old "if you live in a garage, are you a car?  So if you merely attend church, are you a Christian?" argument applies here.)  Therefore, many evangelical Christians face a major problem with ZAP because they can't just leave people alone; it's literally against their religion.  Likewise, many Christians are trained to depend upon their pastors and other authorities.  It's built into the structure.  And I know whereof I speak here--I was raised in a moderate-to-liberal denomination, and then spent over 20 years in evangelical and charismatic churches (including 3 years as a missionary).  I am now in the "spiritual but not religious" camp, and happy to be there.

[socalserf]

The problem is not religion.
Most people can't leave other people alone. Period.
I don't consider proselytizing religion a violation of ZAP anymore than a gay making a pass at me.
If they can take a polite NO everything is fine.

Some of the finest freedomista who walk this earth are Christians, MamaLiberty and notable others here come to mind.
And some of the worst tyrants who ever lived were godless.

It all comes back to ZAP.
We do a disservice to ourselves to divide over religion.

[Klapton Isgod]

I just want to say that "preaching the Gospel" - i.e. saying words about Jesus, etc. - does NOT violate ZAP.  Persuasion != Coercion.  "Proseletizing" that does not include convert or die type stuff, while perhaps annoying to some foks, is NOT coercion.

[Radio Flyer]

The problem is not religion.
Most people can't leave other people alone. Period.
I don't consider proselytizing religion a violation of ZAP anymore than a gay making a pass at me.
If they can take a polite NO everything is fine.

Some of the finest freedomista who walk this earth are Christians, MamaLiberty and notable others here come to mind.
And some of the worst tyrants who ever lived were godless.

It all comes back to ZAP.
We do a disservice to ourselves to divide over religion.

Well to some extent, yes, but we have a problem - most religions demand that you violate ZAP and to follow the written rules you must violate ZAP to be a "true" follower.

Most religions stress Submission and Obedience to "authority" particularly the Abrahamic religions, in this country Christianity is a large part of the population and most don't know squat about their own holy book, they depend on the "religious authority" to "interpret" the rules for them. I tend to think that those who say that the "word of god" is infallible and 100% accurate down to the last comma and period are the most dangerous.

I can list more than 100 demands made by the "holy book" of the Christians that demand aggression against others (slavery and witches only two well known examples) ... Do we not recognize that a dangerous?

[MamaLiberty]

Do we not recognize that a dangerous?

Can be, of course. Like most anything else can be dangerous.

But who decides? Do you expect preemptive "laws" to somehow prevent this danger?

If individuals are led around by the nose in their various religions, why is that any concern of yours unless they attempt to force you to go along? Then you defend yourself. Otherwise, you leave others alone to be as foolish, enslaved and robbed as they wish to be. So far, it is still voluntary...

All I ask is that they leave me alone. One good "no thanks" to the various evangelists is usually sufficient.

[Claire]

But who decides? Do you expect preemptive "laws" to somehow prevent this danger?

I don't think RadioFlyer said or even implied that, MamaLiberty. I believe he was addressing the thread topic of why (or if) religions oppose freedom.

He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.

[Radio Flyer]

But who decides? Do you expect preemptive "laws" to somehow prevent this danger?

I don't think RadioFlyer said or even implied that, MamaLiberty. I believe he was addressing the thread topic of why (or if) religions oppose freedom.

He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.

This is true, I have to admit I watch what you and ML post, I like to be challenged and I also have learned quite a bit on the boards here.

I was just pointing out that when you have "holy books" that say "you must follow this to be a good follower" and the contents have requirements that would force adherents to step over ZAP or even other codes of personal freedom we have a ticking time bomb...

That has turned into literal bombs in the last 20 years from domestic bombings to "suicide bombings" all over the world. I also do not think that any of the Abrahamic religions are exempt from this - remove the controls here in the US and within months we would have burning witches (as is now happening in Africa).

[MamaLiberty]

I don't think RadioFlyer said or even implied that, MamaLiberty. I believe he was addressing the thread topic of why (or if) religions oppose freedom.

Sorry, that's what I read in it.

He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

Yes, but only for themselves, which is nobody else's business. As I said, if they try to force it on others, THEN it becomes a problem for the rest of us and we defend ourselves. I can feel sorry for such people, but I'm certainly not going to worry about them, or their choices.

If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.

Well, I've never met a Christian with those tendencies myself. How many of that kind do you really think are lurking, just waiting for a chance? And, if any do decide to carry it out, the prudent among us will be ready to defend ourselves. Does what motivates the aggressor have anything to do with our defense?

Otherwise, I don't know what anyone should or CAN do about it?

Was this just a rhetorical question? I guess I should have stayed out of it.