"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[Dragon]

My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.

See, I don't have any problem with this at all. It's not religion that bothers me, it's dogmatism and the imprisonment of the mind. In fact, dogma works AGAINST genuine spirituality, which is one of the biggest evils to lay to its blame.

 

[Si modo]

My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.

See, I don't have any problem with this at all. It's not religion that bothers me, it's dogmatism and the imprisonment of the mind. In fact, dogma works AGAINST genuine spirituality, which is one of the biggest evils to lay to its blame.

Here's the way I see things: Some folks, as you well know, are just not all that independent of spirit an/or thought. If following some sort of dogma works for them in reaching the same ends - a morality that jibes closely with yours, for example - what is the 'evil' associated with that?

To each his own, I say, and that includes paths taken and driving force for taking them, unless they stomp on my freedoms.

ETA: Not that I don't promote critical thinking in every aspect of one's life, especially to the most resistant to it.

 

[Intense]

My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.

See, I don't have any problem with this at all. It's not religion that bothers me, it's dogmatism and the imprisonment of the mind. In fact, dogma works AGAINST genuine spirituality, which is one of the biggest evils to lay to its blame.

Maybe it's your perspective. Try looking at Dogma,, like training wheels, which serve a purpose for a time, they are restrictive, they have purpose, they also have limits we outgrow. Who holds the keys to Salvation? Who points you in the right direction? There is One God, if You believe, it is not Me or You. Are we of God, yes. Do we define or limit what God is? I wouldn't try. Do we seek positive direction and growth? The smart ones do. Do we proceed, with endeavors that we know inside are wrong? To our peril, if we are stubborn enough to take it that far. Do I think for Each of us, the real Battle is Internal? Yes. So are we driven by external or Internal Forces? That's the choice, isn't it?

 

[Intense]

My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.

See, I don't have any problem with this at all. It's not religion that bothers me, it's dogmatism and the imprisonment of the mind. In fact, dogma works AGAINST genuine spirituality, which is one of the biggest evils to lay to its blame.

Here's the way I see things: Some folks, as you well know, are just not all that independent of spirit an/or thought. If following some sort of dogma works for them in reaching the same ends - a morality that jibes closely with yours, for example - what is the 'evil' associated with that?

To each his own, I say, and that includes paths taken and driving force for taking them, unless they stomp on my freedoms.

Even the Catholic Church has gone through many changes. I know of Nothing Forced there Anymore.

 

[Si modo]

See, I don't have any problem with this at all. It's not religion that bothers me, it's dogmatism and the imprisonment of the mind. In fact, dogma works AGAINST genuine spirituality, which is one of the biggest evils to lay to its blame.

Here's the way I see things: Some folks, as you well know, are just not all that independent of spirit an/or thought. If following some sort of dogma works for them in reaching the same ends - a morality that jibes closely with yours, for example - what is the 'evil' associated with that?

To each his own, I say, and that includes paths taken and driving force for taking them, unless they stomp on my freedoms.

Even the Catholic Church has gone through many changes. I know of Nothing Forced there Anymore.

Very true. The mountain has moved several times.

 

[Intense]

Here's the way I see things: Some folks, as you well know, are just not all that independent of spirit an/or thought. If following some sort of dogma works for them in reaching the same ends - a morality that jibes closely with yours, for example - what is the 'evil' associated with that?

To each his own, I say, and that includes paths taken and driving force for taking them, unless they stomp on my freedoms.

Even the Catholic Church has gone through many changes. I know of Nothing Forced there Anymore.

Very true. The mountain has moved several times.

 

[Si modo]

Even the Catholic Church has gone through many changes. I know of Nothing Forced there Anymore.

Very true. The mountain has moved several times.

 

[Big Fitz]

One cannot adhere to a DOGMA (any dogma, not JUST religious dogma) and be a free thinker.

One can BELIEVE something of course, but if one believes that something without question, if one clings to a belief even when evidence comes to light that makes that dogma dubious?

Then one is not a free thinker.

A LOT of people who are atheists are not REMOTELY free thinkers.

They believe other dogmas which cannot be proven, which means that they are not exactly the free thinkers they might like to think they are.

I used to think that way. Then I became Born Again, and realized God needs us who believe in Him to be Free Thinkers. We SHOULD question with boldness even the very nature of God, but remember that God is not a man that He may be shown a liar. God did not give us this incredible intellect to be just robots. He did not give us free will in which to follow blindly.

You must understand the nature and goal of God is to have us love Him. You can't have love without free will and the choice to hate Him. Without that choice, what can you do but follow the inevitable truth of His existence as your creator. So when you choose to hate God, it is your choice freely given, and much to His grief.

There are certain undeniable truths to the universe, and He and his Law, as well as Grace are some of them. Just like gravity, matter and energy. This is just one of them. No matter how free thinking you are, you would not deny that matter, energy or gravity exists. Well you could, but that would not stop you from dying by a bus hitting you, falling out a window or having a million volts run through you. It's the dangers of an objective reality, nothing more

But go ahead and free think all you want. Your perspective is not shared nor objective. Then again... neither is mine. Makes it really complex, doesn't it?

 

[Big Fitz]

I am merely noting that in traditional Christianity, there is very little in the way of thought that is considered allowable,

Yeah. Kinda like hard science and mathematics that way, isn't it? 2+2=4. Water is H2O. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Should there be 'free thinking' answers that differ from that? I know that's hard for self proclaimed 'free thinkers' to accept. But if you really want to see an example of this run amok, look here.

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dragon]

I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.

 

[HUGGY]

One cannot adhere to a DOGMA (any dogma, not JUST religious dogma) and be a free thinker.

One can BELIEVE something of course, but if one believes that something without question, if one clings to a belief even when evidence comes to light that makes that dogma dubious?

Then one is not a free thinker.

A LOT of people who are atheists are not REMOTELY free thinkers.

They believe other dogmas which cannot be proven, which means that they are not exactly the free thinkers they might like to think they are.

I used to think that way. Then I became Born Again, and realized God needs us who believe in Him to be Free Thinkers. We SHOULD question with boldness even the very nature of God, but remember that God is not a man that He may be shown a liar. God did not give us this incredible intellect to be just robots. He did not give us free will in which to follow blindly.

You must understand the nature and goal of God is to have us love Him. You can't have love without free will and the choice to hate Him. Without that choice, what can you do but follow the inevitable truth of His existence as your creator. So when you choose to hate God, it is your choice freely given, and much to His grief.

There are certain undeniable truths to the universe, and He and his Law, as well as Grace are some of them. Just like gravity, matter and energy. This is just one of them. No matter how free thinking you are, you would not deny that matter, energy or gravity exists. Well you could, but that would not stop you from dying by a bus hitting you, falling out a window or having a million volts run through you. It's the dangers of an objective reality, nothing more

But go ahead and free think all you want. Your perspective is not shared nor objective. Then again... neither is mine. Makes it really complex, doesn't it?

Nice..Fizzy. You don't get it but you will explain it anyway. Atheists don't "hate" your god. Your god does not exist. What they hate is ignorance. That does exist.

 

[Dragon]

Nice..Fizzy. You don't get it but you will explain it anyway. Atheists don't "hate" your god. Your god does not exist. What they hate is ignorance. That does exist.

Actually, what I see atheists hating is the nuns that used to whack them with rulers, or the equivalent in other denominations. I have yet to meet an atheist who made a point of being one, who was not an abused ex-Christian and still angry about it.

As I said above, that probably doesn't describe all atheists, but it does seem to describe all the ones who make a point of talking about it.

 

[Big Fitz]

I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.

Oh of course. The Council of Nicaea was filled with dunderheads, fools and numbskulls who did not earnestly believe in trying to do the work of God and instead assembled a book in which to consolidate power in their hands.

Really? If God is who He says He is, you think He didn't have any control, say or ability to make sure that outcome was ANYTHING but what He intended? Is God so weak that imperfect men, earnestly seeking HIS heart would just play fuckaround fuckaround with His word for personal power?

And here I thought *I* was cynical to the point of goofiness. I've got nothing on you it appears.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nice..Fizzy. You don't get it but you will explain it anyway. Atheists don't "hate" your god. Your god does not exist. What they hate is ignorance. That does exist.

Actually, what I see atheists hating is the nuns that used to whack them with rulers, or the equivalent in other denominations. I have yet to meet an atheist who made a point of being one, who was not an abused ex-Christian and still angry about it.

As I said above, that probably doesn't describe all atheists, but it does seem to describe all the ones who make a point of talking about it.

No. They hate the CONCEPT of ANY supreme being and anyone who disagrees with them. Don't worry though, we know it's not a personal hatred. It's like hating another race. Generalized, based on emotion and inference with no grounding in fact. So, a distinction without a difference.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nice..Fizzy. You don't get it but you will explain it anyway. Atheists don't "hate" your god. Your god does not exist. What they hate is ignorance. That does exist.

Actually, what I see atheists hating is the nuns that used to whack them with rulers, or the equivalent in other denominations. I have yet to meet an atheist who made a point of being one, who was not an abused ex-Christian and still angry about it.

As I said above, that probably doesn't describe all atheists, but it does seem to describe all the ones who make a point of talking about it.

Of course this is a prime example of transferring a personal hatred to God for the action of a person. Transference is quite typical in those who have 'become' self proclaimed free thinkers and gets back to the subjective concept of "If it feels good to me, it is good" which really is not that intelligent to base a prejudice on.

Ignorance it seems runs both sides of the table, doesn't it?

 

[koshergrl]

I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.

Oh of course. The Council of Nicaea was filled with dunderheads, fools and numbskulls who did not earnestly believe in trying to do the work of God and instead assembled a book in which to consolidate power in their hands.

Really? If God is who He says He is, you think He didn't have any control, say or ability to make sure that outcome was ANYTHING but what He intended? Is God so weak that imperfect men, earnestly seeking HIS heart would just play fuckaround fuckaround with His word for personal power?

And here I thought *I* was cynical to the point of goofiness. I've got nothing on you it appears.

He's not cynical, he's dishonest. As well as ignorant, I imagine. I don't think he has a clue about the history of the bible and its translations and compilations.

 

[Si modo]

I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.

Oh of course. The Council of Nicaea was filled with dunderheads, fools and numbskulls who did not earnestly believe in trying to do the work of God and instead assembled a book in which to consolidate power in their hands.

Really? If God is who He says He is, you think He didn't have any control, say or ability to make sure that outcome was ANYTHING but what He intended? Is God so weak that imperfect men, earnestly seeking HIS heart would just play fuckaround fuckaround with His word for personal power?

And here I thought *I* was cynical to the point of goofiness. I've got nothing on you it appears.

He's not cynical, he's dishonest. As well as ignorant, I imagine. I don't think he has a clue about the history of the bible and its translations and compilations.

I'm pretty sure Dragon has quite a bit of knowledge about the history of the Church, though.

Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me. However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?

Live and let live. Believe and let believe.

 

[Big Fitz]

I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.

Oh of course. The Council of Nicaea was filled with dunderheads, fools and numbskulls who did not earnestly believe in trying to do the work of God and instead assembled a book in which to consolidate power in their hands.

Really? If God is who He says He is, you think He didn't have any control, say or ability to make sure that outcome was ANYTHING but what He intended? Is God so weak that imperfect men, earnestly seeking HIS heart would just play fuckaround fuckaround with His word for personal power?

And here I thought *I* was cynical to the point of goofiness. I've got nothing on you it appears.

He's not cynical, he's dishonest. As well as ignorant, I imagine. I don't think he has a clue about the history of the bible and its translations and compilations.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, for fairness' sake. Most people, even regular church goers understand the Bible, or have read it in more than one translation, questioned the words used in a Concordance, or even looked at what great Biblical scholars have said and thought about many things.

So, I don't hold it against most 'free thinkers' for doing the same unless they're utter asses.

 

[HUGGY]

Nice..Fizzy. You don't get it but you will explain it anyway. Atheists don't "hate" your god. Your god does not exist. What they hate is ignorance. That does exist.

Actually, what I see atheists hating is the nuns that used to whack them with rulers, or the equivalent in other denominations. I have yet to meet an atheist who made a point of being one, who was not an abused ex-Christian and still angry about it.

As I said above, that probably doesn't describe all atheists, but it does seem to describe all the ones who make a point of talking about it.

Hi..I'm Sean... Glad to know ya.."Dragon"? is it?

I've never been physically abused by any member of organized religion.

Some of my close relatives have been physically abused in the name of Christ...but I was a long time hater of religion before I found out about it. That knowledge was just icing on the cake. My hatred was a result of free thinking at an early age..around five or so when I started reading well above my typical age .. science and history mostly. The stupidity and obvious lies like Santa Claus and seeing people pray to non existant sky fairies.

Reading about what the christians did in South America..the hubris of people like Colombus. Claiming other peoples land and societies and murdering them in the name of "god".

I was offended by the whole fantasy christmas thing..easter bunnies..tooth fairies..Many parts of the bible..resurections..etc..which were easy to see as fake... yet ..adults keep tring to sell that bullshit and most children buy into it. It was the whole proccess of propaganda in the name of something that was supposed to be good and clearly were lies that put me on the course of disgust of religion.

It is simple really. There is an obscene imbalance of truth and what is fact against what is claimed and sold. What has been a great dissapointment is seeing other people buy into the lies of organized religion. I have to admit my hatred has grown over the years as I see more and more otherwise good people fall into the trap of fear and false promise.

 

[HUGGY]

Nice..Fizzy. You don't get it but you will explain it anyway. Atheists don't "hate" your god. Your god does not exist. What they hate is ignorance. That does exist.

Actually, what I see atheists hating is the nuns that used to whack them with rulers, or the equivalent in other denominations. I have yet to meet an atheist who made a point of being one, who was not an abused ex-Christian and still angry about it.

As I said above, that probably doesn't describe all atheists, but it does seem to describe all the ones who make a point of talking about it.

No. They hate the CONCEPT of ANY supreme being and anyone who disagrees with them. Don't worry though, we know it's not a personal hatred. It's like hating another race. Generalized, based on emotion and inference with no grounding in fact. So, a distinction without a difference.

You are almost half right. It is "general hatred" in that witnessing others fall into the trap of religion, although not a direct personal injury, is more BS to wade through in life..more idiots carrying the water for religion and getting in the way of human progress. It IS personal when these zombies are convinced that they are required to act on their dogma and promote law and convention in society that is willfully ignorant, destructive and affects all in that society including myself.