A new, ethical, church proposal

[ding]

It's pretty obvious you find being a humanitarian unacceptable

Wrong. I find socialism unacceptable.

I had no idea communism was considered humanitarian-

It isn’t. It only sells itself as it is.

in fact it is grouping forced to accept a political/economic dogma which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying,

It’s a religion. The religion of secular humanism.

so it's also pretty obvious you chose not to read what was written-

I did read it. I’m not a fan of secular humanism. It’s a wolf in sheep’s s clothing.

it could, arguably, show you don't believe christianity will solve anything- since christianity is supposed to be charitable, right?

It’s not meant to solve poverty. We will always have the poor. I believe in subsidiarity not the state.

You pretend you have a moral high ground

I’m no saint. I never claimed to be one either.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Satan would love nothing more than humans taking their eyes off of Christ and putting them directly on themselves.
Because Satan knows that the only way to the Father is through the Son.

 

[Gdjjr]

Satan would love nothing more than humans taking their eyes off of Christ and putting them directly on themselves.
Because Satan knows that the only way to the Father is through the Son.

So says man.

 

[Gdjjr]

Now, to socialism, or any other ism for that matter.
Lets begin with Socialism- it equates to everyone is equal, except the more equal. Sorta like religion, huh?
It too is a socio-economic belief similar the communism without the force- it still is a centrallly planned system that disrespects the Individual. It's believers also paint with a broad brush denouncing capitalism, as does communism, when capitalism, when actually allowed to work offers every Individual the opportunity to determine his own fate, economically.
When you throw in the non-virtuous man in *control* of a centrally planned system it "leads to" corruption- regardless of his religious heritage or claims. When the words "human secularism" are bandied about it creates and "leads to" negative connotations, no different than the rhetoric of late, anti-antisemitism/semitic, however you choose to present it- yet, those in control exemplify that very thing you're accusing my thoughts of leading to- and again, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is what lands us in places we don't want to be- at least I hope "we" don't want to be, although, from this thread and the Confusion thread and all the political threads I must wonder about that.

Ism's, no matter the prefixes, paint with a broad brush- by definition that is disrespectful to the Individual. And why is the fact that ALL conflict begins when one, or many, forces his/their will on another(s) being ignored? The excuse used is immaterial.
It's a lack of respect for the rights, endowed/inherent of the other. Period.

It's claimed that what I've written has been read. I'd like to, kindly, suggest using a dictionary. It helps ward off Confusion.
There is no way on earth what I've stated can be considered or construed or misconstrued as immoral or unethical. I've made absolutely no demands or tried to force anything. I've not used unethical tactics or created a straw man or obfuscated in the least- but, I don't expect it to be easy as nothing worth having comes easy- simple is never spelled easy, regardless of the topic/subject discussed or task undertaken, especially intellectual discourse when achieving something is the goal.
So, one has to ask, I'd hope, what exactly m I trying to achieve? What are the responders hoping to achieve? For my part, thinking.

Now, let's move to: Leads to- well, that depends on the Individual choosing to be led. Right? If said Individual chooses he can be led. If said Individual chooses not to the same holds true. He chose. That is his right. Is it unethical or immoral to tell the Individual the path he's taking will, at some point, be chosen for him by the, you guessed it, leader?- another Individual who may or may not consider the other Individuals preference, or, that of the group being led. He has set himself above the others, democratically or otherwise, to make choices for the entire group. When the leader, or the group, threatens the Individual who doesn't agree what happens to that Individual? He is ostracized, or in some cases killed. There is an in between though, coerced with the threat of force. How is that ethical? How is it moral?

The arena the above take place in is immaterial. It is the way things are, simply because others disrespect others. It is ingrained from the time language is understood and it is the example set by the example setters who are authority figures from birth to death. Often as not the authority figure is elected, even in religious circles. In parenting there is no choice given. In schooling there is very little choice given. In parenting it seems to me it is not only incumbent, but, imperative to pass on a constant vs an evolution only- Truth is constant, knowledge evolves. Even religious knowledge. But, all men are created equal and are endowed (making inherent) by their Creator (whomever that is chosen) with certain unalienable rights- it was true yesterday, it is true today and will be true tomorrow- it is constant.

 

[ding]

Worshiping the created rather than the creator leads to communism.

 

[Gdjjr]

Worshiping the created rather than the creator leads to communism.

That's an unverified opinion-
Again, you're saying "leads to" and ignoring what I've said from the very beginning and pretty well identified in my previous post. Why are you doing that? The ignoring what is written and telling me what you believe I'm writing- what's up with that?

I'm gonna type this really slow- Individual. Group. Do you see the difference? Nowhere have I even hinted at grouping and in fact I rail against every chance I get- grouping is what control freaks do. They use the groups as tools and defense mechanisms. Groups are used to divide/classify people by group. Period.

You keep using the word worship- and no where have I said or implied that. I said; take it to heart- you call it worship,which you also define as obsessed with, and the only thing I'm obsessed with is my belief but I don't worship it- so that too is an incorrect assumption- I call it a reverence for natural creation of another, who had his rights endowed by his creator- you're intententionally conflating an idea with what you want to believe, you, a man. You are exercising a natural right- inherent simply by being born.

You have yet to offer an intellectual argument- you choose to see what isn't there because you want to- that is exercising your inherent right to choose- the only other alternative would be you think you're entitled- which is to earn. If you think that's the case you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Let's look at something- sects.

Baptist

Church of Christ

Mormon

Lutheran

Catholicism
Those are pretty common in the US.

Besides catholicism, what do the others have as a common denominator besides a professed belief?

Even catholicism has it in its history, which is older and larger than any organized religion except Islam. That reading of catholicism makes some pretty strong arguments, but, that proves what I'm saying about having been translated for eons-

As has Islam- although I suspect their language hasn't changed much- I'm not sure about Buddhist and Hindu- although I suppose they could be called religious- so just go with the linked. Tell me what the common denominators are.

 

[talksalot]

What a waste of time.

 

[Gdjjr]

What a waste of time.

Yet you bothered- what does say?

 

[Gdjjr]

For the "waste of time" poster- knowledge isn't biased in its origin and can manifest itself in ways unimaginable AND it evolves whereas Truth is constant.
It's amazing how not one person has given an intellectually honest reply- ethics and moral seems to matter little to the convinced who espouse double standards.

 

[ding]

Worshiping the created rather than the creator leads to communism.

That's an unverified opinion-
Again, you're saying "leads to" and ignoring what I've said from the very beginning and pretty well identified in my previous post. Why are you doing that? The ignoring what is written and telling me what you believe I'm writing- what's up with that?

I'm gonna type this really slow- Individual. Group. Do you see the difference? Nowhere have I even hinted at grouping and in fact I rail against every chance I get- grouping is what control freaks do. They use the groups as tools and defense mechanisms. Groups are used to divide/classify people by group. Period.

You keep using the word worship- and no where have I said or implied that. I said; take it to heart- you call it worship,which you also define as obsessed with, and the only thing I'm obsessed with is my belief but I don't worship it- so that too is an incorrect assumption- I call it a reverence for natural creation of another, who had his rights endowed by his creator- you're intententionally conflating an idea with what you want to believe, you, a man. You are exercising a natural right- inherent simply by being born.

You have yet to offer an intellectual argument- you choose to see what isn't there because you want to- that is exercising your inherent right to choose- the only other alternative would be you think you're entitled- which is to earn. If you think that's the case you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Let's look at something- sects.

Baptist

Church of Christ

Mormon

Lutheran

Catholicism
Those are pretty common in the US.

Besides catholicism, what do the others have as a common denominator besides a professed belief?

Even catholicism has it in its history, which is older and larger than any organized religion except Islam. That reading of catholicism makes some pretty strong arguments, but, that proves what I'm saying about having been translated for eons-

As has Islam- although I suspect their language hasn't changed much- I'm not sure about Buddhist and Hindu- although I suppose they could be called religious- so just go with the linked. Tell me what the common denominators are.

And yet the father of communism said that communism is naturalized humanism.

 

[Gdjjr]

And yet the father of communism said that communism is naturalized humanism.

And you believed him- straw man arguments always fail.

 

[ding]

And yet the father of communism said that communism is naturalized humanism.

And you believed him- straw man arguments always fail.

Sure because the founding fathers of freedom and liberty believed that morality and religion were necessary for freedom and liberty.

 

[YoursTruly]

And yet the father of communism said that communism is naturalized humanism.

And you believed him- straw man arguments always fail.

Sure because the founding fathers of freedom and liberty believed that morality and religion were necessary for freedom and liberty.

Freedom to worship who and what you please. That's it. No more. No less. Be it Christianity, Islam or anything else.

 

[Gdjjr]

Sure because the founding fathers of freedom and liberty believed that morality and religion were necessary for freedom and liberty.

But, but, but- they were mere men- as was the "father of communism"

I posted an essay from a different thread about our founding- did you read it? The original poster, Porter Rockwell, is a Lay preacher, also a lawyer- extremely intelligent and uses his intelligence to advocate for Liberty- if not, which I reasonably suspect you didn't, do yourself a favor CDZ - Confusion

 

[ding]

Sure because the founding fathers of freedom and liberty believed that morality and religion were necessary for freedom and liberty.

But, but, but- they were mere men- as was the "father of communism"

I posted an essay from a different thread about our founding- did you read it? The original poster, Porter Rockwell, is a Lay preacher, also a lawyer- extremely intelligent and uses his intelligence to advocate for Liberty- if not, which I reasonably suspect you didn't, do yourself a favor CDZ - Confusion

Yes, and history confirmed it.

The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

 

[Gdjjr]

and dispersed minority groups

Groups vs groups, a supporting cast, headed by man, an Individual, followed or forced to follow-

 

[Votto]

Lol
Educate yourself
Official Church of Satan Website | churchofsatan.com
They call it the church of satan because true individualism and liberty is often defined as evil by the religious nutters.
I will accept your apology.

Why don't you ejumacate me. Show me what I say isn't true- with facts, not religious nutter dogma. If THEY didn't have someone (Individual) to do their thinking they wouldn't exist as a group. Period.
I will apologize to no one for practicing and believing in the Golden Rule, especially "religious nutters" (notice the plural?) who profess some sort of esoteric knowledge and dogamtize it as truth- that they have no respect for others proves a point I'm making- they- group- demand others see things their way or else-

You do realize where the Golden Rule came from, right?

And? That means what? That being Christ like is sinful vs idolotry, as in man's word?

You are using the morality of a God centered belief system

Shouldn't you come up with your own? If you agree with it, then whey reject the rest?

 

[there4eyeM]

Someday, mankind will have to come to grips with the fact that all the religions and cults are variations of the same combination of human hard wiring mixed with hopes/aspirations. We will realize that the words that form our truths are relative, not objective, and totally susceptible to being misinterpreted and re-interpreted. In other words, we will eventually understand our psychology and find ways to peacefully live internally, so that we can live peacefully externally as well.
In the meantime, one could do well to listen to just the words of Buddha and or Jesus. Not what others say about these words, merely the words.

 

[Gdjjr]

Shouldn't you come up with your own? If you agree with it, then whey reject the rest?

Shouldn't you, and the rest, read what I actually type vs seeing what you want to?
What they're rejecting is humanity- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-
I posted the different denomination and their beliefs and asked what, besides a professed faith, is a common denominator- crickets.

 

[there4eyeM]

By the way, Marx was the father of Marxism, not communism.