So, I’m currently in second place in the American Idol pool at work. Each week, we choose the bottom 3, and the person who we think will go home. Also, earlier in the season, we chose whom we thought would be in the top 4, and we get points for each week they are still around. This week, the theme was inspirational songs. But what was really interesting was the difference between those who sang of God, those who sang generic (but good) songs like Clapton’s Change the World, and those like Blake Lewis, who sang the athiest’s anthem, John Lennon’s Imagine.
I’ve always disliked this song because of its anti-religionist, humanist-utopian leanings, not only because they conflict with my beliefs, but because the only humanist, atheistic utopias attempted so far have been the horrible Socialist and Communist experiments. But they do support my contention (and that of our founding fathers) that without God, man can only be brutal when given power unaccountable to God and the higher law.
“The only foundation for a useful education in a
republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no
virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty”– Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
The communist and socialist “utopias” were not, even in the slightest, humanistic. In fact, they were as far from a humanistic viewpoint as one could get.
Yes, I agree, they were not humanistic. Atheistic. But the lennon song is, don't you think?
I don’t think of the Lennon song as humanistic. Rather, I think of it a wooly-minded pap, wishful thinking, and pure balderdash. So there.
Contrast…
With…
Well, who had Cineaste in the Godwin’s Law pool?
Aaron, funny. However, I just mentioned Hitler in the abortion debate, so whoever had me in the pool won yesterday ;)
Here's the contrast for you Cineaste:
Rush: Religion is the only useful foundation for education
Hitler: Secular education can NEVER be tolerated
To Cin, this bit of verbiage is trivial. But to those who understand Christianity (and Hitler), these make all the difference in the world. The former is a statement of principle, the second of prohibition.
How's that for contrast?
I’ll add one more thing. Benjamin Rush was a man of character and principle. Hitler was not. In fact, Hitler was known to lie through his teeth (look at his audience) to get political buyin. While he made such external statements about his allegiance to religion, his internal documents and writings show just the opposite.
Because his real underlying suppositions were not based in Christianity, but in Social Darwinism. Glad to see you’re quoting one of your own adherents.
Seeker, yeah I meant it as a light hearted dig because, as you pointed out, that is the easiest thing to do in a debate – slip that Nazi reference in to illustrate absolute moral authority.
Like with the abortion debate – the word murder makes it difficult. Dropping the H-bomb (Hitler) makes it almost impossible.
Aaron, are you kidding? You brought up Hitler in the other conversation we’re in! : )
Did I? Oh, your right I did. :)
But I wasn't comparing anybody to him or his positions. I was using him as an example of immorality not to say anyone's position is the same as Hitler's.
I think that is more what Godwin's Law is talking about – making a comparison of your debate opponent or their position to that of Hitler, not mentioning Hitler as immoral or evil.
But you are right, I did kinda drop my own H-bomb there.
The problem is, i think that the link between Darwinism and Hitler is a real historical and ideological one, not just a guilt by association one.
Same with Islam – both are anti-Semitic, racist, bent on world domination by force, and guilty of horrible genocides in our modern era.
And both had a psychopath leader.
xianity has much the same history. Look it up.
I have addressed the history of xianity in multiple posts, this is a red herring for two reasons:
1. The histories are inaccurate – they have an anti-Catholic (and therefore anti-Christian) spin – esp. the Crusades and the Inquisition
2. The violence associated with Christendom is contrary to the teachings of Christ, not in accord with it.
Nazism and Islam are not only expressly and outwardly racist and violent in their teaching and methods, they have a very consistent pattern of violence for their entire history, while xianity's foibles are periodic, speaking more of one-off human issues, not a foundational teaching issue.
What a fascinating double-standard you have, seeker. You make a big deal about the Koran's violent and racist teachings as well as the history coming from those teachings – in fact, one might call you anti-Islam. Yet, whenever anyone brings up the very same problems with Christianity's history and text, you're quick to excuse it and label your critics as "anti-Catholicism" or "anti-Christian." How can you ignore the explicit antisemitism, racism, violence and imperialism so evident in Christianity's history? When Christians defeated the Muslims in Spain, they proceeded to kick out all the Jews (that is, the ones they didn't kill or force to convert) – just one episode in the long, vicious and brutal jihad Christendom has waged against God's "chosen people." They were also instrumental in the conquest of the New World, spreading their religion through the sword and forced conversions. One could go on and on, but why bother? You'll just explain it all away as an aberration or something.
Islam also contains teachings about peace and nonviolence, but also provides the necessary impetus to violence and imperialism. The Bible contains the same elements (remember my post quoting Deuteronomy?). Just because you can point to Jesus' teachings doesn't excuse the religion built around him. Even you argue against Jesus' express pacifism.
Why can't you be fair for once? Why must you whitewash the manifest failings of your religion and denigrate others'? Why are you so intent on picking the speck out of your neighbor's eye while ignoring the boulder in your own? It's exactly like your post condemning gays as promiscuous & disease-riddled mental cases, as if we all fall under that stereotype (and ignoring the very same problems with heterosexuality and any mitigating circumstances). You appear to be nothing less than a stinking hypocrite, a Pharisee, a wolf in sheep's clothing. And you want to be a minister?
Why am I surprised? You're a Christian. And, of course, you'll ignore anything I say because I'm just an atheist, leftie, diseased faggot.
Whatever.
Seeker said "While he made such external statements about his allegiance to religion, his internal documents and writings show just the opposite."
So if a public figure makes an "external statement"(??) on religion we cannot tell if it's legitimate until we get a good look at "internal documents" etc.
Hmm, so you mean that Bush could secretly be a Buddhist for all we really know?
Fascinating. :)
So, was Hitler godless or godly?
His REAL views on his allegiance to religion?
Name the document and the quote.
Please, pretty please! :)
So if a public figure makes an "external statement"(??) on religion we cannot tell if it's legitimate until we get a good look at "internal documents" etc.
If he turns out to be a murderous psychopath who has shown a pattern of deception in order to take over the world, absolutely you should doubt what they say publicly, esp. if it could be construed as appeasement, as this example of Hitler does.
BTW, you can start here if you are interested in Hitler's views on religion. Briefly.
1. Hitler may have considered himself a "Christian," but his definition is not orthodox, as you might expect.
2. Hitler was not an atheist.
3. Hitler was a Social Darwinist (and perhaps a Darwinist too)
4. Hitler persecuted Christians who did not buy into his pogrom.
5. Hitler may also have been involved in the Occult, not something a Christian would do.
6. Anyone who takes his claim to be a Christian as evidence that Christianity was responsible for his evil is really missing the point that he was an insane mass murderer.
Seeker said "While he made such external statements about his allegiance to religion, his internal documents and writings show just the opposite."
Translation: I don't know of any internal documents written by Hitler spilling the beans. I just read a little about "Table Talk" on a web-site devoted to putting as much distance between Hitler and Christianity as possible.
1. Hitler may have considered himself a "Christian," but his definition is not orthodox, as you might expect.
Translation: Maybe he called himself a Christian but he wasn't a REAL Christian.
(Insert the No True Scotsman Argument here)
2. Hitler was not an atheist.
(So he was a bad guy but not an atheist? I thought you wouldn't distinguish between the two. Hmmm. Fair enough)
3. Hitler was a Social Darwinist (and perhaps a Darwinist too)
(Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.)
4. Hitler persecuted Christians who did not buy into his pogrom.
(Hitler persecuted a lot of people. Take a number. This doesn't have anything to do with Hitler being a Christian or not. History is full of devout (nay, FANATICAL!) Christians who were more than ready to 'persecute' other Christians who didn't buy into their personal pogrom/politics/denomination. But then again…were they REAL Christians?)
5. Hitler may also have been involved in the Occult, not something a Christian would do.
(So he said he was a Christian but he wasn't a REAL Christian?…Sounds like a familiar argument)
6. Anyone who takes his claim to be a Christian as evidence that Christianity was responsible for his evil is really missing the point that he was an insane mass murderer.
(Insane mass murderer? No argument here. Was Christanity responsible for his evil? Dunno, but I wouldn't say it was. Was Hitler a Christian? Well he sure as heck wasn't a Buddhist.)
So, is George Bush secretly a Buddhist?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Ahh, if only I had access to Bush's secret "internal documents and writings" then we all could know for sure. :)
The question, at base, is: "what is a REAL Christian?"
I think you will come up with as many definitions as people you ask.
My view, again at base, lies in the well-known idea "Imitatio Cristi," where one tries to imitate Christ in his behavior here on Earth. Note, this doesn't mean believing that He died for our sins, or that the Bible is literally, or even figuratively, true. It just means modeling your life on that of Jesus. Of course, we see very little of this anywhere.
seeker, give it up and embrace the man-love. maybe then you'll stop checking out the younger guys in costco on the weekends. or it is sexier to condemn to hell while lusting after those tight young muscles?
what is the title of the song you sang?..
here are some lyrics..
i'm letting you go
you letying me down..
and so on.. and so for…