+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: The good stuff. (/thread-11792.html)
The good stuff. - Bun-Bun - 03-20-2003
Quote:Mao did not kill Americans, or at least not at the same rate of Tojo and Hitler.
Except, of course, during the Korean War. Quite a few Chinese divisions crossed the Yalu, and quite a few Americans died opposing them.
The good stuff. - Quark - 03-20-2003
I don't ever want to hear about how a Christian is suffering, dealing with people upset over their ideals. Try growing up an atheist. When your friends go "Oh, you've gotta be kidding" when they find out. When everyone stares at you because you don't want to say 'under God' - two words which, by the way, were somehow artificially inserted to seperate us from communists. Because that makes perfect sense.
How about class discussions? When one girl goes "How can you believe that?" "But what happens after you die?" "Then what's the point of life?!" There's no point to life as an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife! I should just kill myself! </sarcasm> Or just the plain and simple fact that most of the class will argue with you, every time.
Also fun are when you hear people talk about the "godless nations".
You want me to suffer you for 30 seconds? Suffer me for 1, it'll be a first.
The good stuff. - Occhidiangela - 03-20-2003
I shall defer to your portable napalm on the next occasion.
*Grins*
If the caffeine will let me! :D
The good stuff. - WarBlade - 03-20-2003
That bad eh? I can only imagine what that must be like . . . Come to think of it I did once witness a Canadian exchange student start a sentence about nuclear reactors being a clean source of power. Since he tried this in a classroom full of kiwis, I have no idea how the sentence finished, but I could definitely tell he was raising his voice to near shouting volume. :lol: (Such a statement proved to be against the local 'religion' ;) )
The good stuff. - Occhidiangela - 03-20-2003
Korean War. Chinese intervention. Battles. Dead Americans. Yes.
Mao was in charge of Big China in those days, which of course we called Red China. To say that he killed Americans is probably a shading of the truth, as Harry Truman personally did not really kill a bunch of Chinese and North Koreans in that war. But Mao advocated killing Americans (read some history on that point) who were, after all, his enemy at the time. It sort of makes sense, particularly from the point of view of Chairman Mao. (Aside: The U.S. Supported Chiag Kai Chek, who was himself a bit of a prick: General Stillwell used to refer to him as 'Peanut,' and the legend is that his other epithets about that semi-corrupt fellow were not printed by the kinder gentler media in those days.)
Barbara Tuchman's "With Stillwell in Burma" is a pretty good book on that era.
The other point I might make is that Mao brought stability to China sort of the same way his colleague in Red, dear Uncle Joe Stalin, brought stability to the USSR: with enforced change paid for in blood.
The good stuff. - Occhidiangela - 03-20-2003
. . . Know no national boundary. :o
The good stuff. - Quark - 03-20-2003
I still believe prejudice against atheism is one of the few forms of prejudice still widely accepted.
The good stuff. - WarBlade - 03-20-2003
In many parts of the world I expect that's probably true, although I haven't personally seen anything like that in my lifetime. I'm actually a little surprised by your account, but then logic kicks in and reminds me there are still places in the modern world that cling to such ideas.
The good stuff. - Elric of Grans - 03-20-2003
Hail Pete,
As we are not blessed with the situation of us both being able to read an original (Hebrew) scroll to confirm the details, we are forced to rely on the translations of betters. Now, my sources in past studies on this topic have been split, but I believe only a few actually went to a Hebrew scroll for theirs. I believe one of them was Scot (Discouery of Witchcraft), who presented the translation "You shall not suffer anie poisoners," which is more of a reference to what we would more commonly refer to as `Black Witches'. Sorcerers were also not tolerated (quite rightly), but there is no specific reference to White Witches; I do not recall anything about Kabbalists being put to death for being an abomination in the eyes of God either, but as my knowledge on them is limited I could very well be wrong.
If you have ever read The Hammer, you would be aware of the definitions presented there. A recent translation of the Maleus Malificaum says (Black) Witchcraft "blashphemes the Creator and edevours to the upmost to profane Him and to harm His creatures, for all other simple heresies have made no open compact with the devil, no compact, that is, either tacit or exactly expressed, although their errors and misbelief are directly to be attributed to the Father of errors and lies. Moreover, witchcraft differs from all other harmful and mysterious arts in this point, that of all superstition it is essentially the vilest, the most evil and the worst, wherefore it derives its name from doing evil, and from blashpheming the true faith." In the Inquisition, this definition separated the Black and White Witches, as per Callidus' reprimand of the Church, that "Magia ought not to be called maleficium, nore Magi malefici."
Sure, a document published likely thousands of years after the original text we are speaking of, but these were based on the original. What were the Inquisitors doing? Burning Witches. Why? Joh 15:6: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forthas a branch and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. However, it was the belief at the time that it was witches they should not let live. Scot stated "the common people have been so assotted and bewitched, with whatever poets have feigned of witchcraft, either in earnest, in jest, or else in derision; and with whatsoever tales they have heard from old doting women, or from their mother's maids, and with whatsoever the grandfoole their ghostlie father, or anie other morrow masse preest had informed them; and finally with whatsoever they have swallowed up through tract of time, or through their owne timerous nature or ignorant conceipt, concerning these matters of hagges and witches: as they have so settled their opinion and credit thereupon, that they thinke it heresie to doubt in anie part of the matter; speciallie bicause they find this word witchcraft expressed in the scriptures..."
Of cause, the common people of Latin Christendom would not have been reading much of anything, let alone Hebrew texts, so they would only be going on what they had been fed by others. The witchhunts have often been attributed merely to the depaganisation of Christendom, and truly enough the common people would have had their information - and fear - originating from the local cleric. After all, who else knew more on such matters than the learned cleric, yet again who else had the most to gain of converting all people - and removing those who would not convert - than the clergy? As such, a small twist as not clarifying the difference to the common people would prove quite advantageous for them, and ensure many innocents were killed alongside the `poisoners'. Oliver (Analysis of Magic and Witchcraft) puts the deaths in the thousands, though if you read Boulton (A Compleat History of Magik, Sorcery and Witchraft) you'll find records of Inqusitors who alone could tally up tens of thousands, quite indiscriminantly killed. Then we can throw in the cases of good old Ergot poisoning that caused innocents to be slain in the name of `witchcraft'.
Truly, the Bible said one thing, and the people did another. The Bible did not want people letting Black Witches (Poisoners) to live - not because they were necessarally in any contract with `the devil', and the Church believed, but because they were an affront to all that Judeo-Christianity stood for. White Witches, and unlucky Christians, were the innocent victims caught up in the Medieval/Renaissance anti-witch madness.
Sorry if that's a little long: you happened to hit a topic I am interested in ;)
The good stuff. - Albion Child - 03-20-2003
The King James version of the bible is, unfortunately, a very very inaccurate translation of the Holy Bible. This is mainly due to the fact that considerably more attention was placed on artistic demands than pure accuracy. In addition, the current version as used by the Gree orthodox, Roman Catholic, and several protestant divisions has come about through many changes enacted by various rulers who changed chapter wording and meaning simply because it offended them or was not to their liking. Two entire books (I can't remember which :( ) were totally removed.
There are many different english translations of the bible. I feel compelled to speak in favor of the New International Version (NIV) because of it's fanatic dedication to accuracy. Though the translators themselves will quickly admit that the NIV is far from perfect, and even askGod's forgiveness for this fact, it is probably the most accurate to the true meaning and intent of any other translation.
I also find it strange to quote the Holy Bible from a site called bibls secrets. There are no secrets in the Bible. In fact, the book itself says that God intended the books brought together in the bible as, among other purposes, guides to all men.
The good stuff. - Albion Child - 03-20-2003
I have no qualm with atheists. Though I will pray for you, and perhaps someday try to touch you through a missionary situation, you have every right to believe whatever you choose. Noone has the righ to force you to say "under god." God himself gave you the right to worship whatever god you chose. (Even though you claim to be an atheist, I guarantee you are not. All men have a god. They may not recognize their god as a diety, but nonetheless they will worship money, sex, themselves, power, etc. etc.)
Just as you have the right to worship as you chose, so do christians. I don't care what offends you, life is not about pleasing other men. The US was formed based on christian values. It is these christian values that give you the right to chose you own fate after death. If you take god from the US, then you are simply attacking the very heart of what gives you your freedom.
Also, I want to let you know something, though I certainly don't expect to change your mind. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else believes in God. It doesn't matter if anyone worships God. It doesn't matter if every document, money, speech, song, etc. has God removed from it. God still exists.
The good stuff. - The Luminaire - 03-20-2003
Its as simple as this: God created man out of a need for relationship. But Man had to have a free will, and a want for that relationship. Afterall, praise from a slave who has no choice is hardly from the heart.
God made it so we can choose the path we take. And though there is only one path we will take through life, its still our choice to make.
You dont like God, thats fine. Thats your choice. I work with a devout athiest, and I have no problem with his veiws, its his choice, and an inalienable right, beyond all mortal laws. I love debating with him, but I cant force my Christian veiwpoint on him, just as he cant force it upon me.
God didnt give us the right to make people believe what we do, despite what the people of the world seem to think. Because its still based on choice. I have to choose to believe what I believe, and so do you. That doesnt mean Im not allowed to present my case, and my veiws to other people, but it doesnt mean they have to believe me, or follow in my footsteps.
Do I think that praying at the beginning of a sporting even is good or bad? Yeah, no harm done. If I dont want to pray, I dont have to. But you cant stop me either.
*Edit* Heh, portable napalm...Need to get me some of that :)
The good stuff. - Quark - 03-20-2003
Quote:Though I will pray for you, and perhaps someday try to touch you through a missionary situation
Do the world a favor, and don't. Missionaries have done enough to this world. This is exactky what I'm talking about.
Quote:Even though you claim to be an atheist, I guarantee you are not. All men have a god. They may not recognize their god as a diety, but nonetheless they will worship money, sex, themselves, power, etc. etc.
Buddy, for the last time, back off. Look up god in the dictionary. Here's a Start. I enjoy alot of things, I love and hate many things. But I will only ever worship one thing in my life: a woman. If that means I'm a theist, you're just plain old ignorant.
Quote:Just as you have the right to worship as you chose, so do christians. I don't care what offends you, life is not about pleasing other men.Same to you, buddy. You asked for 30, I asked for One. You can't give me 1? I'll harp you every chance I get. I respect many people in this world, but I give nothing to those who won't respect me.
Quote:Also, I want to let you know something, though I certainly don't expect to change your mind. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else believes in God. It doesn't matter if anyone worships God. It doesn't matter if every document, money, speech, song, etc. has God removed from it. God still exists.
Saying propoganda and rhetoric not only won't change my mind, it'll piss me off. You want a discussion of God? Make it philosophical, not kindergardenish.
The good stuff. - --Pete - 03-20-2003
Hi,
The "ancient religion" and many of the surrounding facts, stories, and legends is one of many fields I know nothing about. Perhaps when I get some time, I'll remedy some of that lack.
EDIT: Hope you see this. If you have any good reference material, especially books, to suggest, I'd appreciate a post or PM. Thanks.
--Pete
The good stuff. - Occhidiangela - 03-20-2003
I am not a Christian, yet when a Christian tells me that he will "pray for me" I generally just say "Thanks."
Case 1. He really has a sincere desire in his heart to do me some good. OK, go for it, a kind gesture given with sincere intent, particularly one that operates out there in the spiritual ether, does me no harm. Having been offered a sincere prayer now and again by friends who are Christian, I accept them in the good nature that they are given: it is positive energy all around.
Case 2. He is being condescending. In that case, my 'thanks' (or a 'thanks for nothing') may just infuriate him, particularly if I put a slight edge on it, or it may dupe him into thinking that he is on his way to converting me to "his" version of The Truth. More the fool he, and I get a chuckle out of that. Should he ever try to use "hey, man, I prayed for you" as some sort of leverage, a nice reply is "and see the good it did you. Either you prayed for selfish reasons, and the answer is being revealed to you in my indifference, or they don't work. Now, go and pray on that mystery to see where the solution to your problem may lie."
Case 3. He is going to pray that I die of rotting fungus. Were I an athiest, he is of course wasting his time, his loss, not mine, and in any case, my "thanks" is a nice little "killing with kindness." And if the God he is praying to is the God of the Bible, I doubt that such a prayer will be answered: that sort of prayer is most likely answered by other forces . . . or not at all, which again fits the Athiest's sensibilities beautifully: no fungus in your future.
Letting him get your goat, now, do you really want to give him the satisfaction? :o
Another useful reply is: "Thanks for the offer, pray for someone who needs it more than I do." Trouble with that it, I have found, is that it leaves open "But you, the unsaved, need it more than anyone." All that does is reopen a conversation which was going nowhere in the first place. Which is why a simple "thanks" has been working for me since I was about 19.
Win-Win, and no one gets inside your head. You know who belongs in there. :)
The good stuff. - Quark - 03-20-2003
"pray for me" ... eh, whatever. I'll generally pass that over just like the fact that I'll say "oh my god".
"missionary" - is something I despise. There's a big difference between those two.
The good stuff. - NuurAbSaal - 03-20-2003
I really don't want to enter the discussion, I remember a VERY long thread on a similar topic at The Mill some time ago, which got, of course, nowhere. I just happen to agree with everything Quark said up there and thought I'd share :)
Nuur,
atheist
The good stuff. - Occhidiangela - 03-20-2003
Missionaries can be fun to tease, though. :)
The good stuff. - WarBlade - 03-20-2003
Indeed. :D I remember once I was crossing an intersection and a hare krisna passed me coming the other way and said something like, "You look like you could use some spirtual heaing." Well that had me sniggering to myself! :lol:
The good stuff. - Occhidiangela - 03-20-2003
About those interesting folks in the Hare Krishna movement.
*Take on the mein of a carnival barker*
"Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare, Hurry, get your Krishna, while it's hot! One for two dollars, or special deal for you, Joe, two for five dollars! Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna . . ."
We thought it was funny. I suppose some humor is contextual.