“God” is not a derivative of the Original creation, Maani - unless you want to refer to the Sun as god. It is the nearest thing to god in our part of the cosmos anyway.

Despite the bad press, the Pagans were basically Sun-worshippers. That is, they had it better defined than most of us today. And the Sun is neither male nor female despite what some astrologers say.

Even the ancient religions referred in some way to an “absolute” and unknowable creator as well as a pantheon of lesser gods. Pity the foibles of some of the ones in human guise, ha ha, and especially the Roman ones.

But what you say is that humans are still somehow at the centre. This is our illusion. We are all actually on a journey to some (also unknown) point in Space known as “the Great Attractor” - and have been for all of human existence.

As such, it is the human race which is “co-incidental” and unnecessary - or so it might seem. The one true fact about us all, though, is that we have not yet realized the real true reason for our existence, whether you believe we were “created” or were “evolved”.

Doug:

This is really good: it is a nice concise assessment in a few short sentences.

I would simply add that, for those on the fence, the anthropic principle plays a part here; i.e., even if they do not believe in a “creator” or “personal” God, it does seem rather...coincidental to them that the Big Bang just happened to lead inexorably (after 13 billions years, of course) to the existence of humans - the only creatures in the entire universe (that we know of) who are “conscious” enough to even realize that the universe (and its “laws") exists, and to have been given the ability to ponder it.

Peace.

Would it not be more accurate to say some scientists? 
You are so full of it, enlightenment, wisdom and truth that is, go DC.

By Inherit The Wind, February 18: “I do not have faith there is God. I do not have faith there is no God.  I do not have faith...

The Marxists are old hat (I mean black shirts, uhh) and Atheism is hardly a faith as it is a form of desire for non-existence as a means of relieving oneself of the human condition or its true origins.

Of course, it is not possible as there is a god whether you call IT a g-o-d or not. There was once a radio program on which it was not permitted to mention the ‘G’ word. But that is as unnecessary anyway now as it was then anyway.

There is a creator of the Universe. The scientists accept that with their ‘big bang theories’. Obviously, that is not a human creator and therein lies the dilemma for most people. Being able to think outside of our human existence is not really possible.

What is more, we are the mere product of some form of supposed evolution on this Earth which is, in itself, a microscopic speck in the Universe. To say that we motes who/which crawl on Its back have any decisive opinion is thus ludicrous - and always was.

So, I do agree that is is not wise to be either an aethiest or a Marxist. Neither lead anywhere beneficial and are superseded or irrelevant constructs anyway. Reality is the great Truth and Truth is the great religion.

I hope you are feeling better in the last few days, Inherit The Wind. LOL

ITW,

How about faith as hope, faith in the possibility of a better world, faith that problems can be solved, that peace can prevail, that reason can obtain, as opposed to cynicism and despair?

A self righteous Agnostic takes the cake. Faith? You have an accident or something, your delusions supersede the orthodox religious. 

You talking about the Marxist brothers? 

Now I know where that hole in the wall came from.

Guess, I can say I am glad you are not an Atheist, could not care less if you were a Marxist.

You may have your A’s mixed up, and really want to say your an antagonist not an agnostic. 

ITW, it is one thing to state what you believe or do not, another thing to state what you believe others believe or not.

Dictionary definitions, Maani, not grounded in reality. I call myself an Agnostic to differ myself from the Atheists who believe, without any evidence, on faith, that there is no god. They have faith--that there is no god.

As Agnostic, I denounce the concept of belief, and of faith.  I do not believe in god.  Likewise, I do not believe in no god.  I do not believe either way because I do not believe in belief! I do not have faith there is God. I do not have faith there is no God.  I do not have faith.

The Marxists celebrate Atheism--as a faith.  That’s why I’m neither an Atheist, nor a Marxist.

Tony:

Actually, it is not delusions that determine one’s sanity.  In fact, the definitions of “sanity” and “insanity” are woefully lacking in any sort of details that would make understanding those terms clear to a majority of people.

Einstein, of course,came up with one fairly good definition: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”

Personally, I believe sanity is defined by each specific culture.  In our culture, sanity would seem to be “the acceptance of the generally accepted norm” and insanity is “deviation of acceptance of the generally accepted norm.” Though this is by no means as “solid” a definition as we might like, it seems to be fairly close to the...generally accepted definition of sanity and insanity.

Delusions only tend toward “insanity” if they are incompatible with an OVERALL “normality.” Plenty of people are delusional without being “insane,” and, indeed, would otherwise be considered “normal” if you interacted with them.

A belief in God is not a “delusion” in either sense, since (i) more people believe in God than do not, so it is, like it or not, the “norm” rather than the exception, and (ii) a belief in God is not mutually exclusive from an OVERALL normality, and ability to interact with people and the world in what would be considered a “normal” fashion.

Peace.

“There was a door to which I found no key,
There was a veil through which I could not see”
The Rubiyat by Omar Khayam

Maani, your synopsis seems in agreement with my own on the defining of religion.

We happen to disagree on the best choice for president.

There is an incerdible amount of semantics going on here.  Let’s look at some basics.

“Atheism.” Literally, a-theism, or non-belief in “theism,” which is “the belief in the existence of a god or gods.”

“Religion.” Primary definition: “The service and worship of God or the supernatural.”

Thus, atheism is NOT a “religion,” but rather the ABSENCE of religion.

Indeed, even the tertiary definition of “religion” - “a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” - would not give rise to “atheism” being a “religion,” since atheism is not a “cause” or a “principle” or a “system” of beliefs.

In this regard, psychology/psychoanalysis is only a “religion” in the broadest sense of the tertiary definition of “religion,” if we accept psychology as a “system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

Peace.

A person who believes in delusions is considered to be insane.  A person who does not believe in same delusions of the deluded individual, cannot be declared insane except by the deluded one.  Many people who believe in a delusion and call themselves religions, does not make the fact any less deluded.  Atheists do not believe in the delusions of the religious, Tony Witcher so why when you say atheism is the same as religion, is your argument any different than an insane person? 

In your case, calling someone a close-minded bigot for not agreeing with a deluded sense of self rightness is stretching it.  You should know of all the delusions out their Buddhism seems to have the most enlightenment.  Unlike you who speak for Buddhists, I speak from not knowing myself ignorance with mild amusement.

Must agree with you though, it does appear some atheists do use their non beliefs like religion, I part company with them, when they get their tax exemptions.

Earlier reporting about Shoebat has noted that he is a U.S. citizen.  If he indeed ever was a terrorist then the U.S. government has granted citizenship to a self-admitted terrorist.  Either we’ve made a monumental goof or Shoebat is a liar.

There’s lots of money to be made by these people who go on the lecture circuit spouting their propaganda & fantasies.  Plus there are lots of Christian evangelicals prepared to fund their activities.  It stinks.

Shoebat also speaks widely to Jewish audiences too naive to understand how they are being exploited in a campaign to discredit Islam by fomenting Islamophobia among Jews.

Thanks for this excellent history lesson Village Elder.

Having recently added to my own ‘enlightenment’ about the Colonial history of these United States, I can only say that there’s more than a tad bit of hypocrisy in the political use of Christianity, when the colonists were hashing things out with King George, and trying to become emancipated and all. (I mean the ‘original’ King George of course)

So, it would seem like things haven’t changed all that much. Christianity is somehow conveniently manipulated to work on either side of the argument, or to play both ends against the middle. Like a reversible jacket, or a double-edged sword.

Then again, maybe all religions are like that. Now of course that’s just sort of a passing thought, seeing as how it’s not my area of expertise. (religion that is). I could argue better on spirituality, which is of course a different concept, if only because it comes from a different source.

Thanks again for the learned correction on the Constantine connection.

Fadel,

I’ve just ordered this book by Stephen Sizer. Thanks for the recommendation.

By Tony Wicher, February 15: “The “Crusader-Zionist alliance” is a reality, and it is the most reacionary and dangerous movement I have ever seen...”

It IS really scary but you still vote for “the crucible of the sword” and “I don’t oppose all wars”, uhh. You must know that you are an idiot, TW.......

But as far as “The Buddha is a philosopher” is concerned, I note that your lot here are as arrogant about your white Western version of Buddhism as you are about your PC pretensions in favor of Barack Obama.

Straw man, TW, straw man.

Atheism comes in two flavors:
One: Those who believe there is no deity.
Two: Those who do not believe in a deity.

Into the first fall, of course, the Marxists--"Atheistic Communism”.  To me, they are no different than a religion because they take it ON FAITH that there is no deity--they “believe”. They are, if you will, cynics.

To me, the latter is more properly defined as Agnostics. They do not believe in a deity because it requires BELIEF--which is faith.  Faith to an Angostic is the real issue--They are skeptics.

The concept of belief and faith lumps Atheists in with religion but separates Agnostics from them all. The Agnostic does not, like the Atheist, deny the existence of a deity dogmatically, but, rather, because when held up to the scientific standard of proof, there’s no evidence.

Belief and Faith are, to me, then enemies of mankind.  For every good and kind person of a faith (any faith) there are 10 of that religion who will kill everyone who deviates from it.

Some religions have a god, or gods, and some don’t.

Psychoanalysis is one atheistic religion, Marxism is another. Two great atheistic texts are Freud’s “The Future of an Illusion” and “Civilization and its Discontents. I think there is a lot of truth to be found in them, yet I do not accept what they say to the exclusion of other viewponts. 

I leared from my comparative religion teacher in college that there are five major branches of Indian philosophy, and Buddhism is considered one of the two “atheistic” branches. In the following Buddhist text, the venerable Malunyaputta approaches the Buddha with the following question:

“These theories that the Blessed One has left unexplained, has set aside and rejected – that the world is eternal, that the world is not eternal, that the world is finite, that the world is infinite, that the soul and the body are identical, that the soul is one thing and the body another, that the worthy person exists after death, that the worthy person does not exist after death, that the worthy person both exists and does not exist after death, that the worthy person neither exists nor does not exist after death– these the Blessed One does not explain to me. And the fact that the Blessed One does not explain them to me does not please me nor suit me. Therefore I will draw near to the Blessed One and inquire of him concerning this matter. If the Blessed One will explain them to me, . . . I will lead the religious life under the Blessed One. If the Blessed One will not explain them to me, . . . I will abandon religious training and return to the lower life of a layman.”

Buddha replies as follows:

“Pray Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, ‘Come, Malunkyaputta, lead the religious life under me, and I will explain to you either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal . . . or that the worthy person neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, indeed, Reverend Sir.”

“Malunkyaputta, any one who should say, ‘I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One shall explain to me either that the world is eternal. Or that the world is not eternal . . . or that the worthy person neither exists nor does not exist after death’; that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before the Tathagata had ever explained this to him.

“It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man had been wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his relatives and kinsfolk, were to procure for him a physician or surgeon; and the sick man were to say, ‘I will not have this arrow taken out until I have learned whether the man who wounded me belonged to the warrior caste, or to the Brahmin caste, or to the agricultural caste, or to the menial caste.’

“Or again he were to say, ‘I will not have this arrow taken out until I have learned the name of the man who wounded me, and to what clan he belongs.’

“That man would die, Malunkyaputta, without ever having learned this.”

“The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the world is eternal; nor does the religious life, Malunkyaputta, depend on the dogma that the world is not eternal. Whether the dogma obtain, Malunkyaputta, that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, there still remain birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair, for the extinction of which in the present life I am prescribing . . .

The “Crusader-Zionist alliance” is a reality, and it is the most reacionary and dangerous movement I have ever seen. It is really scary.

Your inclusion of atheism as a belief seems a personal necessity to support your premise, since ignorance is a perfect perch for religion, the need to pigeon hole seems important to religions and you, why do you find it necessary to include atheism as a religion? 

Your seem to be an expert on atheism, not I.  You also seem to be a proclaimed expert on bigotry’s, FYI, I am trying to give them up.

It is once again a case of failure of self-knowledge. The charicature of religion you present here is a perfect case intolerance and prejudice. The Buddha is a philosopher and saying that an atheist “would not care” what he says just shows once again your narrow-minded, ignorant bigotry. As I said, atheists do not have lack of belief; on the contrary, they are very passionate about their beliefs, as you are.

Leefeller:

“Now how many atheists do you know stand on the street corner and give out Atheist towers, bang on your door the one day off and try to give you some propaganda on what you should think, believe or breath?”

Forgive the outrageous controversiality of the statement I am about to make, but in fact atheists DO tell me, and most of us, what to do every single day - because they control our educational system, the biggest propaganda machine in the whole country!

Note that I am NOT suggesting here that Jews or Christians or Muslims of Buddhists or Zoroastrians or any other religion should control our educational system.  But to suggest that atheists do not in any way “try to give you some propaganda on what you should think [and] believe” is simply dishonest.

At the risk of opening an enormous can of worms, let me give you an example.  Although I am not for the teaching of creationism, or even intelligent design, in anything resembling “equal time,” our educational system essentially teaches, whether tacitly or otherwise, that Darwin set out to disprove the existence of God - which, of course is not the case.  Darwin simply set out to disprove that each species was “specially created”; i.e., that species come about through the processes of random mutation and natural selection.  And Darwin DID prove this.  HOWEVER, while he eventually gave up Christianity, he remained a diest his entire life; i.e., he believed in a “Creator,” and, in The Origin of Species, made it clear that he believed that the Creator created “life,” and “set in motion” the “processes” that led to speciation.  In other words, Darwin believed in evolution “with first cause.”

But do you hear this in the classrooms?  Does any teacher teach that Darwin started out as a Christian, got his only earned degree in theology, studied for the ministry, fell away from Christianity (but not deism), but, after writing his last book, became a deacon of his church?  Why should this information be withheld from students?  Are the atheists who run the educational system afraid that it might “confuse” them?  So what!  Let them be confused.  But tell them THE TRUTH!

And again, while I am not suggesting that believers should run the educational system - or exactly what kind of job they would do with it - you can be sure that if they DID, they would NOT be turning out the consumerist worker bees that our educational system is set up to create to maintain the status quo of our power-money-greed Madison Avenue mentality socio-culture and politico-economics.

Peace.

Another sober piece by a super intellectual and a fine first-rate humanist!

Certainly, “three stooges of the Christian right,” “frauds,"con artists,"ignorant," “scum,” “racist,” and “deadly” are all appropriate words to describe the three individuals mentioned in Chris Hedges’ article. However, when he describes them as “three jokers,” I beg to disagree. Far from being jokers, those three, along with the movement they represent, are not to be taken lightly or dismissed as “jokers;” they are part of a big, well-financed and highly connected dangerous movement of home-grown would-be international terrorists, whose aim is to hasten and bring about the fictitious Biblical battle of Armageddon.

In a recent international interfaith dialogue, I had the honor of sharing a panel with a very fine British Christian scholar by the name of Stephen Sizer. He recently published a book entitled, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon.” A very well-documented history about this dangerous movement and their unholy work to marry their religious chauvinism and fanaticism to politics. If you need to know the enemy from within, then this book is a must read.

No point in that.  Clearly you are lost in fantasy. I’ve seen people calculating and I’ve seen them acting, and I’ve seen them frozen in fear.  That’s what George Bush was--frozen in fear.  And I’ll stand on my judgment long before I’ll stand on yours.

If you use new tin-foil, it doesn’t wrinkle so much and reflects the telepathy waves better....

Bacon:
Perfect name for a nazi pig.

Not for the intolerances, but for your definition of religion.  Atheism is a non belief, not a belief, so your premise is not even out the gate, but you try very hard to keep carrying it down the road, just to keep the empty air moving along. 

Now how many atheists do you know stand on the street corner and give out Atheist towers, bang on your door the one day off and try to give you some propaganda on what you should think, believe or breath?  When was the last time the Atheists had a Grand Pubea instill the way you part should part your hair, live and sleep and live your life? 

For one thing atheists would not attempt to tell you what your Buddha really means, nor would they care.  Knowing a Catholic dose not make an expert on Catholicisms, so you come off as an expert on non believers of believers?  Tell me more.

Now how atheists behave is another story, and they are not all the same and may be intolerant of different aspects of life, just like anyone else.

Re By WriterOnTheStorm, February 14 at 2:07 pm #
(45 comments total)

“With equal respect, your ‘logic’ contains the same flaws of most conservative arguments in this debate. Claiming that criticism of intolerance is itself intolerant is dishonest. And I think you know this. It’s like calling an executioner a murderer. It’s the same shabby rhetorical trick calling atheism a religion.  A cheap play on words that will convince few except the most disingenuous among us.”
----------------------------------------------------
I’m having trouble with your logic. I agree with the first thing you said. Tolerance is absolutely necessary for a democracy to work. Intolerance is the enemy of democracy. The intolerant deserve not to be tolerated in a democracy. It is their just desert.

On the other hand, you call saying atheism is a religion “the same shabby rhetorical trick”. I may be among the “most disingenuous among us” that you speak of, but I find this way of looking at theology very useful sometimes. If one’s religion is defined as one’s belief system, then atheism is a religion. Like all religions, it is liable to intolerance of other religions, and some atheists are among the most intolerant people I know.

Thus atheism is a belief system and people who have such a belief system act very much like adherents of other beliefs systems that we do call religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. So why not call atheism a kind of religion? 

Tolerance is to live and let live, believe whatever we believe, and allow others to believe whatever they believe.

Buddha tells us that whatever we believe, it is only a modification of our essence of mind. Meditation on this fact may enlighten the mind past the limitations of belief.

Re By Maani, February 14 at 11:31 am #
(545 comments total)

Re: A Christian nation?
Tony:

Amen!  Actually, the country was founded by theists (not Christians) who established the principle of the separation of church and state to protect BOTH from the other, but allow the free expression of both.

Peace.
-----------------------------------------------------
Quite. I would describe them as eithteenth-century rationalists, most of whom may have espoused some form of non-sectarian deism.

With equal respect, your ‘logic’ contains the same flaws of most conservative arguments in this debate. Claiming that criticism of intolerance is itself intolerant is dishonest. And I think you know this. It’s like calling an executioner a murderer. It’s the same shabby rhetorical trick calling atheism a religion.  A cheap play on words that will convince few except the most disingenuous among us.

You are correct when you suggest though, that just as Christians take much on faith, so too does the liberal. Few liberals in America really challenge the sacred cows of capitalism or “democracy”, or American military and cultural hegemony. These are simply not to be questioned.

It’s as if every culture is blind to it’s most dangerous element: itself.

Village Elder:

“The primitive christianity was less less idyllic than your description.  The Pauline doctrines were being discussed and taken seriously throughout christendom.  Specificaly I refer to the misogyny which carried over from the OT.”

Actually, this is not entirely true.

Women played important roles in the NT, and particularly in Jesus’ life.  Mary, his mother, for one.  Then the sisters, Mary and Martha.  And of course Mary Magdalene, whose role within Christianity - and particularly vis-a-vis Jesus and the other apostles - was FAR greater than after the Council of Nicea got hold of her and turned her into a second-string prostitute and disciple, eliminating any evidence that she had played a substantial role, one which was broadly accepted by the early church.

Even in the Pauline documents, women serve important roles, including Priscilla (a co-minister of a home church), Tabitha/Dorcas, Phoebe (also a minister), Euodia and Syntyche, Etc.  Indeed, women served in all roles in the early (pre-Nicean) church, including deacons, ministers, elders, etc.

And, of course, there is Paul’s admonition that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus,” which would have been a powerful statement to the early church, and one which they would almost certainly have taken to heart.

I am not suggesting that sexism and misogyny was magically eliminated in or by the early church.  But it was almost certainly not as pronounced as you suggest, and only became truly pronounced after Nicea.

Peace.

Tony:

Amen!  Actually, the country was founded by theists (not Christians) who established the principle of the separation of church and state to protect BOTH from the other, but allow the free expression of both.

Peace.

Indeed, this country is NOT a “Christian nation”. Our democracy is based on the ideas of the enlightenment. Fundamenalist Christians reject the Enlightenment and would like to go back to the Dark Ages into which they originally plunged Western Civilization when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Over my dead body, you reactionary bastards!

Maani,

From your reply to Cyrena:

“Religious extremism in the form of violence is relatively new to Islam. It’s formed the foundation of Christianity, and those are just the facts.”

No, that is not the fact.  The “foundation” of Christianity existed peacefully for almost 300 years before it was co-opted by Constantine at the Council of Nicea.”

The primitive christianity was less less idyllic than your description.  The Pauline doctrines were being discussed and taken seriously throughout christendom.  Specificaly I refer to the misogyny which carried over from the OT.

I agree with your assessment that christianity began settling around a core dogma circa 300 CE.  Interestingly enough after Constantine recognized christians as having a legitimate cultus they provided him with extra military fodder.  Constantine remained of follower of Sol Invictus until his death bed.

The christians and other cultus had been content to worship virtually side by side until 300 CE.  Having been recognized by the state, given the support of the state they used their new found powers to destroy libraries, temples and books moving the European peoples into the dark ages.  That which was not doctrinaire to their cultus was not tolerated.  We have seen this patten repeated when ever members of the abramic traditions gain power.  Look a Colonial history of these United States.  Theocracy abounded with the usual dismal results.  How about those witch hunts in Germany, and the Spanish Inquisition?

As a matter of personal thoughts:  I find all these cultus based in the stone age and before.  There seems to be a growing amount of evidence that our morality is shared throughout all primates to a great extent.  This is probably a matter of the shared DNA.

I am wondering why we are having this discussion of who and what makes one a christian.  We live in a secular democratic republic.  This was settled in the mid 18th century by people who very aware of the excesses of the preceding centuries.  The were individuals who were living in and products of the Age of Reason/Enlightenment and wished to insure that this country never fall into the hands of kings or theocrats.

I have to agree - the disconnected thinking, the non sequiturs indicate that beneath a cultured veneer he has some “issues” that affect rational thought. Of course this is probably true of all of us to some extent, but if it gets bad enough, one is called “psychotic”.

Re By Greg Bacon, February 14 at 3:45 am #

“Jews are the most hateful people on the face of the earth.”
-----------------------------------------------------
I know lots of Jews, and some of them could perhaps be described as hateful. But when you say “Jews are ...’ you are smearing a whole people. That makes you an out-and-out anti-Semite. Know yourself. The hate comes from within you. Hate comes in many forms. I don’t think this cartoon particularly is funny, but I would no more censor it than I would those Danish cartoons the idiot Muslims were rioting about.

Go back to your neo-Nazi blogs. You are not welcome among civilized people.

Rick:

I would only add that this holds true for atheists, scientists et al: since THEY don’t know what happens to us after we die either, any claim THEY have to such knowledge is equally speculation.

Peace.

Cyerna:

I’m proud of you: at least you didn’t call him a moron.  LOL.  (Laughing WITH you, not AT you.)

Peace.

This particular cartoon proves beyond a doubt that Jews are fearless and wantonly explicit in their hatred of our European-American heritage and our people and they are not scared in the least to say it openly because there will NEVER be consequences for them. Of course if this cartoon taught someone how to cook a Jew, careers would end, death threats would commence and fines or imprisonment would follow. Jews are the most hateful people on the face of the earth.

The magazine was not bought at a Zionist meeting or AIPAC meeting, no, far more insidiously it’s sold openly on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

A pdf of the cartoon has been uploaded here, check it out, be outraged, these Jews have some serious explaining to do as to what makes this “funny.”

More trash passing off as Jewish entertainment can be seen at Heeb Magazines website.

How to contact Barnes and Noble and get this garbage off of store shelves? Contact customer support and share a piece of your mind.

http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/02/jewish-mag azine-shows-how-to-cook.html

Think CNN’s Wolf Blitzer will cover this story?  Or maybe FOX’s Britt Hume will give it some air time.

Don’t hold your breath for this atrocious cartoon to ever see the light of day in the Zionist owned MSM.  In that Never-Never Land of disinformation and propaganda, news anchors get a pat on the back and pay raises anytime they slander, malign or distort anything Muslim/Arabic.

But woe to the fool who dare question anything about Israel/Zionism, for their reward is to be fired, threatened with violence, possibly even tossed in prison, all for asking honest questions about the descendants of the Khazars.

Here’s a link to the original story in Heeb Magazine

http://www.heebmagazine.com/articles/view/125

Chalmers..what the hell are you talking about?

You write:

“By cyrena, February 13: “Maani writes: It was only AFTER that that Christianity was “spread by the sword” and came to be “used” for violent purposes via the Crusades, etc.”...”

You use MY name, “by Cyrena”, and then proceed with a quote from Maani,(?)about Christianity and the Crusades, and then you continue with this gibberish:

• “Isn’t following the Golden Rule all you need to be a Christian?”

What does ANY of that have to do with me or what I wrote? Yeah, I suppose following the golden rule is all one ‘needs’ to be a Christian, if one is really hung up on having a religious identity/affiliation. I’m NOT, and I’ve made THAT pretty clear. Why do you presume that somebody, -anybody- ‘needs’ to be a Christian? (or any other religion for that matter)

Consequently, this is even MORE bizarre and inappropriate:

• “Frankly, I find some of your statements to be offensive but Christianity is not the Catholic Church or the current Neocon pope. Nor is Islam any less of a religion of peace in actual fact.”

Now, presumably this is directed at me, since my name “by Cyrena” is at the beginning of this bizarre post, despite the fact that you follow with a quote from a different poster. (Maani) The only other recent poster that I see here that has made any reference to Catholics is DesertFather, and that was because he was relating a personal experience about his travels in the Muslim community, and ON TOPIC for the discussion about TOLERANCE! (as in religious and multicultural tolerance.)

So, why are you telling me/us that Christianity is not the Catholic Church? I’M not the Catholic Church either, and I certainly don’t give a rat’s ass about the current Pope. I also don’t have any interest in your description of various religions. Who the hell are YOU to say what religion is peaceful, or if Catholics are Christians? THEY think they’re Christians, and apparently they WANNA be Christians, so what the hell is it to YOU, one way or another?

If I wanted to know that stuff, I’m surrounded by scholars of Religious Studies, who actually have STUDIED these things, and make sense, if one is interested in learning more. Since I’ve certainly learned all that I’m interested in knowing, (at least in reference to Christianity) I’m not interested. If I ever DO have a question though, I’ll ask an expert.

Seriously Chalmers, for anyone whose attempted to pay any attention to your posts on this board, the warning signs are obvious. It doesn’t take a professional in mental health care to know that there’s something seriously wrong with you. I don’t know the actual ‘diagnosis’ because I don’t claim any certified expertise. Whatever it is, it’s the EXTREME form of it. And, as with most of the extreme forms of any mental or personality disorder, the person doesn’t KNOW that they are psychologically impaired. It’s called delusional. I know THAT much.

Even for a non-professional, your obsession with religion is a clue. Then there are all of these issues that you have with femaleness and womanhood, and motherhood, and just this overwhelming need to defend all of the women of the world. What is UP with that? If you’re not accusing everybody on this board of being a misogynist, or accusing people of having ‘issues’ with their mothers, you’re mumbling this unconnected gibberish about religion.

WHO ‘really’ has these ‘mother’ issues? WHO is a misogynist? Makes people wonder.

You’re a scary dude, and I’m sure you should be under constant professional observation and treatment.