I don't think that's it, exactly. I'm pessimistic about everything, be it capitalism, communism, communalism, or whatever else, but am still sympathetically left.

Well, not everyone builds an edifice of bullshit. Many are just looking for the truth, and trying to keep things simple. Most Christians are not screaming, greedy manipulators.


The Roman Catholic church still maintains as central several things that a great many Christians find to be contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I am one of those people, and I think the faith needed stripping of those things. I am not one of the people who think that RCs are not Christian, however (a growing trend within non-RC communities).


Yes. But the thing is, and at the risk of repeating my central thought too much, what Jesus taught is pretty clear and obvious. It's simple, beautiful and no hard to get at.


It opened the door for people to look for the truth without strict control. That's good.

There are just as many cuckoo cult-type groups within things like socialism &c for me to repeat another point; these criticisms are criticisms of people, not religion. Religion, like politics, nationality &c, is often misused by people with their own motives.


It isn't. You have my word on it.



Earlier, as you will recall, I quoted a Bible passage that agreed with you, but with a slightly different spin. Whether you personally 'need' a god is not going to make much difference to whether or not one actually exists. He does. I definitely do not need socialism, but, to my extreme annoyance, it seems to keep spawning and surviving like some kind of insane labour party flu virus.


I go to some lengths to follow Chrisitanity aound the world - printed media, broadcasts etc.

I have to admit that I do not like the vast majority of what I hear from America. I can understand Americans having huge problems with Christianity - most of what I see certainly doesn't represent what I believe, and certainly doesn't represent the teachings of Jesus. There are some people I really like, but they are the exception.

Christianity in the UK is not usually so aggressive, although that aspect is certainly present.

Christianity's main problem in recent years, I think, is that it is largely the lunatic fringe who have taken full advantage of the internet, while genuine Christian bodies failed to do so, and still fail to do so.


I understand.




I remember reading that.

Left? Liberty? Together?

:eek: :confused: (and imagine a tears of laughter smiley)

it's almost impossible to teach human-animals humility.

Jesus gave it his best shot.

so did MLK.

the system always destroys the best people; destroys and then subverts their images for global profits.

so depressingly true

I'm fucking brilliant at humility. Seriously, I'd out-humil the lot of you.

Precisely.


The kind who allows free will.

only humility (and the strong feeling that I would end up offending people) is preventing me from making a post comparing rich men, eyes of needles and yr nigh-impossible description of yr tinklenozzle.

have a sun-shiny day.

:)

I remember this brilliant letter to Viz - "They say it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. That's Cliff Richards fucked then".

"Albert Einstein may have been a genius who invented the theory of relativity, but he's dead and I'm alive. So who's laughing now?"

That's my favourite Viz letter.

Of course, I think Einstein is laughing now, because he's in Heaven, so the point of the letter is kind of lost, but still.

SONIC GAIL, you are so muthafucking RIGHT ON with this thread. YOU GO GIRL. check yr pms.

I would say that laughing (and, as implied, living in the moment) isn't necessarily a superior position, particularly in the way of contributing to science.

@ hip priest's reply

Oh yes, I missed this part. What are my personal beliefs and my age? This should be fun.

If you say I am pro- same sex marriage and the right to abort that DOES NOT COUNT because I stated that clearly.

Pour a shot,
Fire up a doob,
Have sex,
Take a leisurely dump,
Do yoga,
Eat chocolate,
Walk outside and take a look up at the stars....

it's ok i am not religious, i don't have to be accepting.

it's not really that good?

It's the spirit of the thread that now takes on a life of it's own.
It's a perfect example of your earlier comment: Religion is a private matter.

Religion should be a private matter.

yes that's what we were discussing.
discussing. ideally, in a non-personal way.

only new thing i learned from this thread is that knox is a massive prick.

repped hip priest, glice, and fltngslwly along the way though.

and suchfriends, God is the Bible, dawg. John 1:1... i don't even have to look that up

i enjoy discussing stuff, so thanks.

It's difficult discussing religion in an objective way. As has already been mentioned in terms of connections between church and state, a person's experience may well be informed by the extent of that relationship (either officially or otherwise) depending on where they are. Living in England I find christianity to be a fairly harmless benign force. It has next to no impact on my life so my views on it are quite moderate. I doubt that would be the case however if choices that I tend to take for granted such as abortion rights, same sex marriage, decisions surrounding who i can marry or even have a relationship with, etc, were suddenly in the hands of (or at least heavily influenced by) the church. I've found that people with the most moderate views on religion tend to be those living in largely secular countries.

I agree.

I don't have to agree with teaching children condoms don't work and preaching virginity in schools.

That does not make me intolerant towards religion and that does not make me a prick.

That just makes me realistic enough to know kids will always fuck.

you've been saying the same thing since like page 3... we get it, kids should fuck.

what public schools "preach virginity"?

ay, republicans! always blind to reality!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505647,00.html

that's 2009 cuz the DOE is no longer in repuke hands

of course the article features heavily the redneck states that are choosing to keep abstinence only as an "alternative track". it's faux-news anyway.

read, get informed, learned the crimes of your religulous-bent party

you're for palin 2012, right?

anyway, i'm just passing by, and i think calling knox a prick is a bit wrong since she's a woman, if you're going to chose epithets make them gender appropriate. just saying.

anyway, i'd pos-rep her for holding the fort in a reasonable manner, but i need to shoot more blanks first or something.

don't like palin...

kids are pretty stupid either way, but if the abstinence thing is true yeah i didn't know about it

Going back to this, I found this video interview of Chomsky were he explains the historical situation of this left libertarian idea. Fortunately, Chomsky avoids attempting the interviewer's question to connect his linguistics with his politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgWVZUD3pKE

Also, I should mention, I wasn't looking for this (in fact I hadn't seen it before) nor any Chomsky video but just kind of came across it. Again, I've been leaning that way, though skeptical as always.

edit: I misquoted pbradley here, so to anyone who thinks religion should be a private matter:

Why?

Why should religion, or politics, or philosophy, or scientific views, or national identity, or anything else, be a private matter?

Why should people have the right to stop me, or you, stating who we are?

Why can we all not have the freedom to state what we are, defend that position if necessary, and then tolerate (and maybe question) the position of others?

And, especially, why do I keep reading that people should keep religion to themselves, even when it promotes kindness and tolerance, yet see aggressive and abusive anti-religious statements go without comment?

And in the case of Christianity, whether anyone likes it or not, it's not really possible to keep it to oneself. We are told to spread the word, either by word itself or by living a life that is a god example to others.

In what way is anyone entitled to run around insisting that people keep their thoughts peivate?

I was caveatting the previous post which was making a descriptive statement of a prescriptive. It is not my statement. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear with a quote.

Though, if you are taking something from where I described myself as 'religiously quietist,' I should have said something more along the lines of spiritually quietist (which may lead one to suspect me of hypocrisy for describing myself as leftist but I'd argue that its maintained through my position as favoring metaphysical absurdism and, more directly, ethical sentimentalism).

My mistake then. Sorry.

If that's about me, I gotta stop being misunderstood. By being a private matter, i didn't necessarily mean you gotta keep it to yourself. I basically meant religion has to stay away from making decisions in politics, laws, work, school, institutions that we all share. I also think that attacking or discriminating someone because they don't agree with your religious beliefs should be taken more seriously, you know, all in order to promote tolerance in a free democratic state.

We gotta cherish the right to have whatever beliefs we want, so I have to protect that right for everyone else. When I am making decisions that will act outside my religious sphere or community, I gotta put it aside out of respect for that free democracy.

It's really funny how people keep twisting my words. I never say kids SHOULD fuck. I said they will. And it's their right to be educated about their bodies and how to protect themselves. Abstinence can't be taught, it is not information, it is a choice. Proper education doesn't stop anyone from keeping their virginity if they want to do so.

However, that was only an example to illustrate how religious bias in making decisions can affect people in general.

and if someone's a republican, it seems obvious they'd think I'm a prick or whatever.

Thanks. A really interesting interview. I tend to blow hot and cold over Chomsky but I was pleased to see that he hasn't changed his hairstyle in thirty years. I'm also glad that he brought up the differences between an American liberalism and the current European one, a difference that often makes trans-atlantic discussions on the topic quite difficult. Again, thanks for the link.

I hope that last bit isn't true, because I don't see why a Republican should be intolerant either.

As for the general thing, it wasn't targeted at anyone specifically, just anyone who says that people shouldn't talk about their faith.

Thanks for your reply. I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with you.

Davenotdead is a dunce.

Funny you would say such a thing because, from what I can tell, DND at his worst is comparable to you at your best.