basimpson22

Clergymen Say The Darndest Things

49 posts in this topic

don't need no a-the-ism either--no ism at all!

But what about individualism? :wink:

We are talking about people so it doesn't matter. So the religious guy and the irreligious gal can still get it on.

Can't refute that statement, lol. Hormones are certainly powerful enough to 'override' divergent worldviews (at least for a short time), no doubt about that. :D

I just went over to the UU website - while they seem to welcome all kinds of religious beliefs, I can't see any atheist explicitly invited there, so the Wikipedia article may have got it wrong.

Maybe the UUs have nothing against beliefs that don't contain the idea of a personal god (Buddhism is often called an 'atheist' religion/philosophy), but imo they don't have prounouced through-going atheists (like e. g. George H. Smith) in mind who might start discussions that question the premises of all those beliefs ....

And what atheists would go there anyway?

I just scrolled upthread - Rich Engle (who I think is a UU member) too speaks of "lots of atheists here" - hmm, it would interest me whether they have fervent debates with theists or whether they go there primarily for 'socializing' ...

[replying to Aristocrates]:

Or take your parents to a Unitarian Universalist church. They should find that thought-provoking. And maybe even horrifying, but for the wrong reasons. You'd like it--it is fun. They have lots of atheists there, and everything. Rand readers. And if you go to one with a not-too-old congregation, very hot pagan chicks. Even if not, usually a very fine collection of intellectual, well-maintained cougars.

I've just expanded my English vocabulary by looking up what "cougar" means in the above context. :smile:

Individualism is not a philosophy. Freedom represents a philosophy for true individuals. There is no such thing as freedomism. Individualism is a state of basic being, honored or not by whomsoever.

As a young teenager all I wanted was cougars and the closest I got was being molested by a nurse during a hospital stay. Too bad for me it was molestation-lite. There I was stripped completely naked by her at the age of 14 late at night on my stomach on a hospital bed behind a curtain as she rubbed me down to prevent bed-sores. I had a huge erection I couldn't make go away. I looked back over my shoulder and she seemed to be in a trance, practically drooling over me. I was so sexually ignorant and stupid, frankly, I didn't learn about mastubatory relief for two more years (that was about three lost years of jerking off) or even oral sex until I was in the army. I was supposed to turn over and she was supposed to finish the job so to say, in the biological nature of things. She didn't and that was the real wrong of the situation as long as no penile-vaginal sex was involved for I was too young to be a father. I'm not kidding. Why can't a 14-yo boy get oral sex from a 22-yo woman--that could be so wonderful? Dad (in my case Mom) could bring in a whore for the job who specializes in that sort of thing. That's not done above-board in this country, but I suspect it happens anyway. Instead, boys do it with boys then start dating girls who get some protection from pregnancy by boys' experienced sexual knowledge and sexual relief by a third party. John gives Frank a blow job so Frank doesn't have to get it on with Mary--or so Frank doesn't suffer from premature ejaculation with Mary when she works on blowing him for an hour or two. And Frank returns the favor as needed--or wanted, maybe.

--Brant

I always use this as the how-I-lost-my-virginity story for psychotherapy or psychological intensives even though it is a lie--it is simply a better story than the truth--the lie was what supposedly happened next--it didn't--she just went away--so I hired a private-eye and tracked her down and . . . (more lies)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get so frustrated with many of the statements I hear in church. It's especially irritating when someone gets up to lead a prayer and thinks it an opportunity for a short sermon. In this prayer/sermon he blamed all the recent natural disasters on this being a "fallen world". Just because you say something with conviction doesn't make it true. These guys can say some of the most ridiculous things and people just nod along.

The preacher's sermon centered around Pascal's Wager. He talked about all the things we wouldn't have to worry about in hell: listening to sermons, receiving letters about the gospel.... Something that had me a bit confused is that he said we wouldn't have to worry about people criticizing our lifestyle anymore. Well, Mr. Preacher, we definitely wouldn't have to worry about that if there were no self-righteous bigots like yourself, now would we?

But did Pascal, in his wager, even consider the posibility that other religions might have got it right?

In that case, to have wagered on the Christian God would provide not only no gain, but possibly even a loss. A loss which Pascal said could not happen. According to his wager, you either gain all [in case there is a [Christian] God), or have lost nothing (in case there is no [Christian] God).

Not true, for the 'other' god might be furious that you have not worshipped him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get so frustrated with many of the statements I hear in church. It's especially irritating when someone gets up to lead a prayer and thinks it an opportunity for a short sermon. In this prayer/sermon he blamed all the recent natural disasters on this being a "fallen world". Just because you say something with conviction doesn't make it true. These guys can say some of the most ridiculous things and people just nod along.

The preacher's sermon centered around Pascal's Wager. He talked about all the things we wouldn't have to worry about in hell: listening to sermons, receiving letters about the gospel.... Something that had me a bit confused is that he said we wouldn't have to worry about people criticizing our lifestyle anymore. Well, Mr. Preacher, we definitely wouldn't have to worry about that if there were no self-righteous bigots like yourself, now would we?

But did Pascal, in his wager, even consider the posibility that other religions might have got it right?

In that case, to have wagered on the Christian God would provide not only no gain, but even a loss. A loss which Pascal said could not happen. According to his wager, you either gain all [in case there is a [Christian] God), or have lost nothing (in case there is no [Christian] God).

Not true, for the 'other' god might be furious that you have not worshipped him.

Gods--or God--belong purely to the realm of epistemology (subjectivism) so it matters not the doctrine apropos that if that's what you believe. As a pantheist I don't believe in a Supreme Being, only the supremacy of reality--reality being my god--which I respect but don't worship. This is metaphysics accessed by epistemology and represents true objectification consequently, for I must adduce real evidence for this or that or admit I don't know or my knowledge is tentative. My basic attitude is scientific.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But did Pascal, in his wager, even consider the posibility that other religions might have got it right?

In that case, to have wagered on the Christian God would provide not only no gain, but even a loss. A loss which Pascal said could not happen. According to his wager, you either gain all [in case there is a [Christian] God), or have lost nothing (in case there is no [Christian] God).

Not true, for the 'other' god might be furious that you have not worshipped him.

Gods--or God--belong purely to the realm of epistemology (subjectivism) so it matters not the doctrine apropos that if that's what you believe. As a pantheist I don't believe in a Supreme Being, only the supremacy of reality--reality being my god--which I respect but don't worship. This is metaphysics accessed by epistemology and represents true objectification consequently, for I must adduce real evidence for this or that or admit I don't know or my knowledge is tentative. My basic attitude is scientific.

--Brant

The point I was trying to make: the idea of the Biblical god as the only possibility of an existing god was so deeply ingrained in Pascal's mind and soul that he did not even think of the theoretical scenario that the gods of other religions might exist (but his own god not).

So while Pascal, in his wager, did list the theoretical scenario of 'no god at all', the theoretical scenario "no Biblical god might exist, but another god (or other gods) instead" is not listed.

Pascal's wager rests on a purely "either - or" premise: if there is a god, it can only be the Biblical one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possessiveness about God(s) was my first bemusement about religion. Hang on, those guys believe

they've got the right and only one -but so do those - and those - but so do we...What's going on? Competing gods?

Ohh, must be the same one! Competing religions then. But you can't monopolize him fellas - follow youronly-way to your only-god, nooo, sir. Tell you what, you can all take a running jump and I'll see if I can open my own dialogue with him. That didn't happen so I got rid of the rascal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friedrich Schiller

  • Die Jungfrau von Orleans (The Maid of Orleans) (1801), Act III, sc. vi (as translated by Anna Swanwick)
  • Variants of the most commonly quoted portion:

    Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

    Against stupidity the gods themselves labor in vain.

    Against stupidity the gods themselves fight unvictorious

    Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain.

    Against stupidity gods themselves contend in vain.

    With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

    With stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.

144px-Joan_of_arc_burning_at_stake.jpg

And, of course, Asimov's

The Gods Themselves is a 1972 science fiction novel written by Isaac Asimov. It won the Nebula Award for Best Novel in 1972,[2] and the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1973.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Themselves

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind the gods, what are the NHL disciplinary officials supposed to do about Max Pacioretty?TTalk about stupid. The man is lucky to be alive, let alone playing after what Chara did to him. Now he is whining that Grabovski bit him, after he nearly twisted Grabo's head off his neck.

I hear that Mikhail explained that he is a devout Paleo Eater, and was very hungry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind the gods, what are the NHL disciplinary officials supposed to do about Max Pacioretty?TTalk about stupid. The man is lucky to be alive, let alone playing after what Chara did to him. Now he is whining that Grabovski bit him, after he nearly twisted Grabo's head off his neck.

I hear that Mikhail explained that he is a devout Paleo Eater, and was very hungry.

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/2/11/3976862/max-pacioretty-mikhail-grabovski-biting-candiens-vs-maple-leafs

Very cool, the above article has a link of the history of biting in the NHL! Where is Tyson when you really need a tutor!

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as to clergymen, do you not find it suspicious that the New Jersey Devils are at the top of the heap, amidst rumours than certain NJ "businessmen" made a certain offer of souls which a certain personage could not refuse? And then the Pope resigns?Hmmm... coincidence, I don't think so.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the OP. You may want to try a church different than your current one. I fully agree that there are a bunch of Christians whose belief systems fall into the realm of “whacked”, but not all are like that.

You might want to look at a friend’s blog, The Christian Egoist. Jacob like myself are Christian egoists and support much of what Rand stated. We also attend churches that eschew mysticism, anti-intellectualism, post-modernism (yes, it thrives in some churches), etc. The ubiquitous kookiness in the Christian community troubles me to no end.

I would advise you to check his blog: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/

Jacob is also writing a book which will be titled, “The Galt Like God. Meditations of a Christian Egoist"

Also a new book which will be released any day, "The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1V5BV6AD84JQ7&coliid=I2WSDSF9RQ23TX

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

Aha!

The dirt comes out!

:smile:

You may not find much agreement around here for that particular blend, but I certainly welcome an honest attempt. From everything I have read, Rand would have hated it, but that's OK in my book. Just so long was no one fools themselves into replacing speculation with outright inaccuracy declared as fact. Anyway, Rand is not you--or me.

Working through ideas firsthand in the quest for truth is a messy business.

It was for her and it is for anyone who gives it his or her best shot. Let's go whole hog. It was for Jesus, too, if the gospels are accurate.

Gloriously, fascinatingly messy for everyone...

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

My post was directed at Aristocrates as he seemed to be having some conflict and being familiar with his folks’ denomination, was offering some advice. Myself and others have much admiration for Rand and Objectivism and our commonalities far out weigh the differences. I've often wondered whether Rand’s animosity toward religion, which seems primarily focused on Christianity, is a product of her exposure to the Kantianized segment sprinkled with some weirdness of Aimee Semple McPherson who was popular in Los Angeles during the time Rand was there. I deal with religious kooks on a frequent basis and dread it.

From what I’ve read, Rand’s and Objectivism’s strongest criticism against religion was the church’s supposed view of altruism as a virtue. This is at best, a composition fallacy and at worst, a straw man. While Roman Catholicism (the segment I was raised in and left as a teen) typically holds that view it is by no means even close to being a majority view and I am somewhat surprised at the lack of scholarship by the luminaries of today’s Objectivism on this issue as well as the “faith versus reason” argument which simply a false dichotomy. Numerous Christian philosophers have addressed that at length.

But as you wrote, working through ideas firsthand in the quest for truth is a messy business as is the continuing search for truth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the OP. You may want to try a church different than your current one. I fully agree that there are a bunch of Christians whose belief systems fall into the realm of “whacked”, but not all are like that.

You might want to look at a friend’s blog, The Christian Egoist. Jacob like myself are Christian egoists and support much of what Rand stated. We also attend churches that eschew mysticism, anti-intellectualism, post-modernism (yes, it thrives in some churches), etc. The ubiquitous kookiness in the Christian community troubles me to no end.

I would advise you to check his blog: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/

From the blog:

"The political and religious commentators above are quick to blindly pit Christianity against the philosophy of Ayn Rand and then proceed to wholly denounce one in favor of the other as if the two are some random opposing sports teams behind which the masses are to gather according their personal and subjective preferences. They drop, or entirely ignore, the context and the nature of what is being discussed.

I think it is the Christians who drop the context here by ignoring the premise their belief is based on: the idea of an "original sin", which then made the Jesus character necessary as the "savior"/ "redeemer".

Since the idea of an original sin is completely incompatible with Objectivist premises, imo trying to 'marry' Christianity to the philosophy of Ayn Rand doesn't work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the OP. You may want to try a church different than your current one. I fully agree that there are a bunch of Christians whose belief systems fall into the realm of “whacked”, but not all are like that.

You might want to look at a friend’s blog, The Christian Egoist. Jacob like myself are Christian egoists and support much of what Rand stated. We also attend churches that eschew mysticism, anti-intellectualism, post-modernism (yes, it thrives in some churches), etc. The ubiquitous kookiness in the Christian community troubles me to no end.

I would advise you to check his blog: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/

From the blog:

>"The political and religious commentators above are quick to blindly pit Christianity against the philosophy of Ayn Rand and then proceed to wholly denounce one in favor of the other as if the two are some random opposing sports teams behind which the masses are to gather according their personal and subjective preferences. They drop, or entirely ignore, the context and the nature of what is being discussed.

I think it is the Christians who drop the context here by ignoring the premise their belief is based on: the idea of an "original sin", which then made the Jesus character necessary as the "savior"/ "redeemer".

Since the idea of an original sin is completely incompatible with Objectivist premises, imo trying to 'marry' Christianity to the philosophy of Ayn Rand doesn't work.

It would help if you were to describe your religious background as I would have a better context on which to address your comment. But here goes: I am not trying to “marry” Christianity to Objectivism as I view them as non-overlapping magisteria. Additionally, it all depends on how you define "original sin” as there are differences between denominations, then I would need to see which (some, all?) Objectivist premises are incompatible.

I have no intention of proselytizing anyone here as I understand and respect other peoples’ beliefs. I only seek to further my knowledge of open Objectivism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the idea of an original sin is completely incompatible with Objectivist premises, imo trying to 'marry' Christianity to the philosophy of Ayn Rand doesn't work.

It would help if you were to describe your religious background as I would have a better context on which to address your comment. But here goes: I am not trying to “marry” Christianity to Objectivism as I view them as non-overlapping magisteria. Additionally, it all depends on how you define "original sin” as there are differences between denominations, then I would need to see which (some, all?) Objectivist premises are incompatible.

I have no intention of proselytizing anyone here as I understand and respect other peoples’ beliefs. I only seek to further my knowledge of open Objectivism.

I was born a and raised a Roman Catholic but no longer belong to this church.

I have never been very religious (even as kid, I had certain doubts about elements of the catholic dogma). This has made it easier for me to finally leave not only Catholicism, but all other attachment to the Christian faith behind me.

Over the years, I have become an agnostic currently leaning more the the atheist side of the fence.

As for 'original sin' - I was referring to Adam and Eve's fall from grace, resulting in their expulsion from paradise.

Jesus Christ is seen as the redeemer because he was 'sacrificed' in order to make god forgive our sins and thus erase the 'collective guilt' of mankind.

He then 'rose from the death', ascended into heaven alive (the belief in the Resurrection of the Flesh is the key element of the Christian faith).

Now one could argue: "But my Jesus is somewhat different! I couldn't care less what a dogma says. Instead I'm free to model this character as I see fit for my purpose."

This is a form of patchworking which in some form or other has always occurred over the ages (otherwise, no new impulses would never be absorbed);

But the consequence of this patchworking process is something dogmatists don't like: their organized religion is 'fraying at the seam', so to speak, with the dogma slowly becoming an empty shell devoid of sense because people just don't believe it anymore.

The Jesus character is a good example to demonstrate what can happen in patchworking: let's disconnect, for illustration purposes, from the Jesus figure the idea of original sin, the idea of his resurrection from the dead, the idea of his being sacrificed to assuage the wrath of god ... taken to the extreme, one might as well then drop the whole religous context that goes with the Jesus figure. Jesus will be 'humanized down' to such a degree that he resembles more a psychological guru than a godsend.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the idea of an original sin is completely incompatible with Objectivist premises, imo trying to 'marry' Christianity to the philosophy of Ayn Rand doesn't work.

I was born a and raised a Roman Catholic but no longer belong to this church.

I have never been very religious (even as kid, I had certain doubts about elements of the catholic dogma). This has made it easier for me to finally leave not only Catholicism, but all other attachment to the Christian faith behind me.

Over the years, I have become an agnostic currently leaning more the the atheist side of the fence.

The Jesus character is a good example to demonstrate what can happen in patchworking: let's disconnect, for illustration purposes, from the Jesus figure the idea of original sin, the idea of his resurrection from the dead, the idea of his being sacrificed to assuage the wrath of god ... taken to the extreme, one might as well then drop the whole religous context that goes with the Jesus figure. Jesus will be 'humanized down' to such a degree that he resembles more a psychological guru than a godsend.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I will respond shortly in a PM as I am busy with my kids.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angela:

This has made it easier for me to finally leave not only Catholicism, but all other attachment to the Christian faith behind me.

This conflation with Catholicism and Christianity does not bear up. However, I do understand your other arguments.

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angela:

This has made it easier for me to finally leave not only Catholicism, but all other attachment to the Christian faith behind me.

This conflation with Catholicism and Christianity does not bear up. However, I do understand your other arguments.

A...

Agreed. Having been raised in Roman Catholicism and leaving it as a teen, then 15 years later becoming a Christian (which is different than a Catholic), I can attest to the huge differences between the two.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angela:

This has made it easier for me to finally leave not only Catholicism, but all other attachment to the Christian faith behind me.

This conflation with Catholicism and Christianity does not bear up. However, I do understand your other arguments.

A...

Agreed. Having been raised in Roman Catholicism and leaving it as a teen, then 15 years later becoming a Christian (which is different than a Catholic), I can attest to the huge differences between the two.

Mike:

We share the same travels.

My father was a Mason and was excommunicated by the Roman church in the 30's.

My father was one of the most remarkable persons that I have ever known.

When I made my "confirmation," being "allegedly" enlisted as a soldier in the army of God, which never made sense to me,

I then had to kneel before a drunk Irish priest to be slapped...well that was basically the breaking point for me.

I was then supposed to kneel before another human and be slapped by a drunk!

That was it.

Read Atlas about twp (2) years later and I have never looked back.

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angela:

This has made it easier for me to finally leave not only Catholicism, but all other attachment to the Christian faith behind me.

This conflation with Catholicism and Christianity does not bear up. However, I do understand your other arguments.

A...

Agreed. Having been raised in Roman Catholicism and leaving it as a teen, then 15 years later becoming a Christian (which is different than a Catholic), I can attest to the huge differences between the two.

Mike:

We share the same travels.

My father was a Mason and was excommunicated by the Roman church in the 30's.

My father was one of the most remarkable persons that I have ever known.

When I made my "confirmation," being "allegedly" enlisted as a soldier in the army of God, which never made sense to me,

I then had to kneel before a drunk Irish priest to be slapped...well that was basically the breaking point for me.

I was then supposed to kneel before another human and be slapped by a drunk!

That was it.

Read Atlas about twp (2) years later and I have never looked back.

A...

That is perilously close to child abuse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is perilously close to child abuse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob:

I disagree completely.

However, I can empathize with why you would advance that point of view, in light of the touchy "feely" parenting concepts that have arisen since my birth in 1946.

A,...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone!! It's been a while.  Hope the past few years have been kind to you all.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2013 at 6:57 PM, Selene said:

Bob:

I disagree completely.

However, I can empathize with why you would advance that point of view, in light of the touchy "feely" parenting concepts that have arisen since my birth in 1946.

A,...

.... delete

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now