Re: Malaysian row over word for 'God'

fergus <ferguscapewrath@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

fergus <ferguscapewrath@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The ones Jesus taught. Basically monogamy and marriage being a life
committment. .

Well, /is/ that what Jesus taught? All we know about his teachings are
what the church that Paul founded permitted to be kept in the bible.

ummm, Paul didn't decide what would be included in the Bible.

<puzzled> Indeed he did not. I'm not sure why you chose to mention
that.

If
you read the bible, you'll see that it was acceptable to have as much
sex with your female servants as you liked, to take one example.

That's distorted and unhelpful.

Seems to me that it's dishonest to make such claims without providing
specifics of what's wrong.

Certainly there are instances of sex
with servants and Solomon was reknown for the size of his harem but,
as Jesus said, this wasn't how it was intended.

Where, exactly? Damn. I wanted to do some bible study before making
this post, but I've not been able to get my head into the right space.

So I
think that we must assume that Jesus wasn't as harsh on such matters as
the lunatic Paul who founded the religion we mistakenly call
Christianity.

Why should we assume anything of the sort? That's illogical, that is.

It's perfectly sensible to assume that Jesus wasn't as barking mad on
the subject of women and sex as Paul of Tarsus, who was famously
completely screwed up over women and sex. It's reasonable to make that
assumption because not many people are as barking mad on the subject as
Paul of Tarsus without some loony religion egging them on.

Moreover, I don't see that social rules that were appropriate for a
society that existed 2000 years ago are necessarily going to be
applicable to the here&now. Rather that following obsolete rules, it
seems a lot more sensible to me to try to understand why the rules were
as they were back then, and to ensure that the rules we develop for the
modern world do the job that the old rules were meant to do in terms of
looking after individuals and the general social fabric upon which
individual welfare depends.

Sounds sensible to me.

Go on then - get on with it!

And that very sensible, anti-fundamentalist approach is what the C of E
seems to have engaged in. Much more sensible than just taking a rigid
line based on a partial reading of what the noted looney Paul and his
cronies permitted to be kept in the Bible.

You seem to be obsessed with St. Paul. Why is that?

You seem to be obsessed with spotting obsessions. Why is that?

(I've no idea why you suggest I'm obsessed with St Paul; it's a fact
that the religions called `Christian' these days aren't modelled on what
Jesus wanted, but do go back to the church that Paul founded. Hardly
obsessive to point that out, especially when the religion was
dishonestly named after the wrong bod).

I'm not a fundamentalist, by the way.

I'm not aware that I've suggested you are.

Sex outside marriage goes against the plain teaching of the Bible.

The bible appears to condone sex with your servants (if you are the
master of the household, that is), so I have to say it's not as plain as
you make out.

It reports such things, I don't think it condones them or recommends
them.

From my reading of the bible, such acts are condoned.

Condoms aren't mentioned as far as I know.

What of it? The modern Anglican church has been very sensible, followed
the teachings of Jesus, and applied some sense when coming up with its
modern ideas about sex and what's best for people and so on.

modern ideas, eh? I suppose they must be better than centuries of
accumulated wisdom.

<snort> `Centuries of accumulated wisdom'? Great steaming piles of
*** if you ask me. Read what's been written, but one must put it in
social context in order to understand it - the social context that
applied when&where it was generated, bearing in mind distortions due to
who made the record, and also bearing in mind the point of view of all
those involved in generating the ideas and so on. It's worth pointing
out that all Abrahamic ideas was worked out largely by men and for men,
and so are - in almost all cases - very badly flawed (every bit as badly
flawed as the mad ideas that societies run by women only come up with),
so Abrahamic social ideas have to be discarded as `complete crap';
modern Europe, with nominal equality for women, human rights rather than
immediate execution for homosexuals, and so on does generally agree with
me.

And you must always bear in mind that what was worked out *then* was
never ideal and so can't apply all that well to the here&now precisely
because here&now things are different.

What one needs to do is analyse it all these `writings of wisdom' (you
can hear my derisory snort, I expect) and learn their lessons after
studying the history and so on of the eras which generated each pile of
crap. Then you generate new ideas that take into account all the
lessons of the past, include all current relevant factors, and so are
better optimised to modern conditions.

So yes, modern ideas generated as I would like to see them generated
haven't really got any choice but to be better than the `centuries of
accumulated wisdom' you seem so keen to tie your colours to. None of
the old ideas ever worked all that well, and in any case they don't
apply to now, so why you want to stick to obsolete crap, I cannot
imagine.

I still believe that the past has something to
teach us.

<puzzled> Of course: if you don't learn from the mistakes of the past,
you're doomed to keep repeating them.

<puzzled> I don't see that the Burmese authorities are trying to get
people to behave against their natures. And I'm not sure that the USSR
ever tried that on, either - but if it did, they're both examples of the
rare exceptions that caused me to write `polticians don't _OFTEN_ demand
that people behave against their nature' - whatever their `nature' might
be.

Actually, I was thinking that the fascist states were guilty of getting
people to behave against their nature, not the USSR or a simple
repressive military dictatorship like Burma.

They certainly get people to act against their will if not their
nature. Anyway, the aim of religion isn't to get people to act against
their nature but to change their nature for the better.

If that's what you think it's about, I don't know what to say except
that `You're mad'. The lessons that Jesus preach merely encourage
people to act in accordance with what one might say is the `good' side
of their `nature'. The effect works like this: when people are being
nice to each other, people are nice to each other and things are nicer.

That's all. Nothing about *changing* people at all. Or are you one of
those lunatics who thinks that we'd all be murdering and raping if it
weren't for the restraint of religion and the law?

(okay, I'll admit that the law is all that's stopped me hunting down and
killing a few people, but on the other hand I'm not unhappy 'cos the
existence of the law probably stopped someone doing the same to me)


And a ruled people can change the sort of political leadership they
have.

Even it it takes bloody revolution to do it.

Yep. I never said Mother Nature was nice or efficient.

But to overthrow a religion takes a *MUCH* bloodier mess in general, and
is never fully successful that I know of. There's never been a
political revolution as bloody as the Thirty Years' War, which was
caused by the Pope wanted to maintain his power over all of Europe,
without anyone questionining his authority.

And that's not in the bible, and that's not in accordance with the
teachings of Jesus. But the Pope in Rome, by his anti-Christian desire
for power over his fellow man, decided to cause a three decade European
bloodbath. It's much less trouble when you have politicians to deal
with than religious leaders: religions are much more evil than political
ideologies on the whole. The Popes have killed more people than Hitler
managed - bear that in mind.

Hitler was only one person.

So you think that makes what the Popes in Rome have done acceptable, do
you? `Oh, it's perfectly all right, they've been doing it for thousands
of years, and hundreds of them have been at it, that excuses them'.

Come on!

Anyway, like I've said before I'm not
going to let other peoples bad deeds in the name of Christ stop me
following him.

My interest is in whether or not you're following Jesus or what other
people have told you Jesus wants you do to.

My yardstick is Jesus teaching, not what people for all
sorts of reasons have done with it. Remember Jesus said that not
everybody who called him "Lord" were true followers.

I didn't need *him* to tell me that. I figured that out a long time
ago. Some of the most deeply unpleasant individuals I've ever met have
been those who have loudly proclaimed their `Christianity'. And don't
get me started on bloody RC priests... I've met more of 'em than
Anglican priests, mind, so the Anglicans might be as bad. But I doubt
it.

Assuming they have the
power to even attempt it.

The USSR collapsed after a mere 70-odd years. That's how it works these
days. You don't need a bloody revolution any more.

No, just a superpower with a film star leader.

Wha? Oh, you've not fallen for all that crap about Reagan being the man
who won the Cold War? Tsk. It was a war of attrition: Reagan just
happened to be the man on watch when the whole Iron Curtain project fell
to bits. It was due to collapse some time.

Admittedly, sometimes there are long periods when the population
has very little say in the matter, but any sufficiently bad political
system will collapse eventually and be replaced by something where the
population is better served.

It's cyclical. Communism fell to be replaced by, what? Best not go
there.

Best to pay very careful attention if you ask me, and I've been trying
to. The old Soviet state (not communist, by the way) fell to bits, and
has been replaced by a /process/. We've got a system of government;
Russia has a process of evolving a form of government. They've not
stopped yet. It's working pretty well right now, mind.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I haven't kept up to date with that part of the
world.

I've been looking. It's looking good - but only if you're willing to
take a long term view.

But I doubt that any political system, good or bad, will remain
for the long term.

<puzzled> Political systems are supposed to evolve with society.
They're supposed to change.

And go round in circles? Like a bad optimisation routine.

<puzzled> What does that have to do with evolution? I'm not talking
about going round in circles. I've no idea what you're on about at all.

Not only that, but a lot of non-religious types are unhappy at the role
taken by some religious bosses in the modern world in influencing events
they (and I suppose that includes me) don't see why these people should
have any say in how they are governed.

It works both ways. Many irreligious bosses are doing the same thing.
It's not a religious thing.

Eh? But it is a religious thing that I'm talking about. No
non-religious boss can expect a billion people to pay attention to him.

Tell that to Bill Gates.

<wry grin> Haven't you noticed that those who strongly advocate one
computer platform over another behave as religious zealots? Microsoft
is a religion; Bill Gates is/was the personality at the heart of the
cult, you might say. The Steve does for `the other side'. Don't ask me
about the Linux types: they seem to be too busy schisming to pay
attention to stuff like that.

No non-religious boss tries to demand that people obey a 2000 year old
moral code that was anti-humane when it was drawn up.

That's just bull***.. What's anti-humane about the teachings of
Jesus?

Nothing whatsoever. What's that got to do with it? I'm talking about
the edicts of the various religions that have nothing to do with the
teachings of Jesus.

No non-religious
boss has a global organisation dedicated to brainwashing the young so
that they obey the Pope in Rome.

Well, they wouldn't, would they?

There aren't many organisations that do that sort of thing at all:
Disney, maybe (Mickey Mouse - thankfully, that's just marketing for
profit); and the old Soviet style regimes played around with that sort
of thing.

You simply cannot compare the activities of non-religious bosses with
that of the Pope - there's just no comparison at all. A billion people
on the planet take their orders from the Pope in Rome - what right does
he have to do that? What choice did most of them have? They were
brainwashed into following his orders from birth! This is scandalous!

Poor wee brainwashed catholics. No choice at all, huh?

<shrug> Well, the Jesuits always openly claimed that's what they did -
brainwash the kids so they'd never leave the RC church. I think they
still do. And I wouldn't dream of trying to argue with a Jesuit - any
of 'em they let out in public should be capable of arguing me into a
twist.

If I were a
catholic, which I'm not, I'd be suitably insulted by that.

No skin off my nose. I've got an RC dad; his side of the family's all
RC (check out my surname, dude - Irish, yes?). I've spent a lot of time
around the `RC world', if you see what I mean; getting more and more
cynical about it the more I saw.

btw, if you peg your allegiance to an apostolic church, it'll most
likely be a Catholic (i.e., universal) one: AFAIK, all the apostolic
churches claim to be universal (Catholic). It's not just the Pope's
church based in Rome that's universal; it's just his conceit to pretend
that only his church deserves to be called `Catholic'. I don't intend
to help him with his propaganda. The Pope in Rome runs the /Roman/
Catholic church; other churches are Catholic too. Catholic just means
`universal'. Don't let the Pope get away with it!

That's one thing Judaism gets
right: not messing around in anything that doesn't concern Jews. Of
course, there's always the chance that if (say) Israel /did/ try to
influence events all over the globe as our government does, then the
poor bloody Palestinians might find that they'd be getting less heat.
Tsk. Bomb Jerusalem: it's the only way.

Destroy the Earth and start again.

Oh no! Only one small corner that's been a festering sore on humanity's
backside for all of recorded history, that's all.

hmmm, I think I've heard that somewhere before.....

Yes, it's God's plan for us all, if you read the Bible. It's not my
plan: I'm a lot more humane than the God of the Bible on my shelves.

Well, I'm glad you aren't in a position of power, that's all.

Oh aye? Why say that? I should mention that most people develop
completely insane ideas about me. Quite a lot of people, for example,
fail to spot my sense of humour.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.

Loading