View Full Version : Religion
Pages :
1
[
2]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Djoser
03-21-2010, 03:15 AM
Most of the old testament is taken from Babylonian polytheism. Anyone reading the Babylonian and Sumerian mythology can easily see that.
There's nothing wrong with just being spiritual, you don't have to follow a religion. Religious people argue about God, and spiritual people live it.
I'm a pagan and couldn't be happier. I've never believed in the Bible ever. Maybe there's some truth to it, but it's been edited so much over the years for various rulers to use it for power over the people and for their own political gains. And who really can deny that evolution is a fact now?
Research other religions and you might find something that suits your beliefs better. Or just go with what's in your heart.
:)
That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls pissed off so any people, they clearly contained the original shit, but differed so much from what had been rammed down everyone's throats for several thousand years, it was really fucking embarrassing.
I think there is something to the Pagan view of things. Anyone out and about on a Midsummer's Eve with a full moon in the wilderness somewhere, or maybe out on the ocean will know that. Some nights the magic jumps at you through the air. And the whole of Life on this Earth is all a gigantic symbiotic system, sometimes you can feel it..
pussyinboots
03-21-2010, 04:13 AM
That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls pissed off so any people, they clearly contained the original shit, but differed so much from what had been rammed down everyone's throats for several thousand years, it was really fucking embarrassing.
I think there is something to the Pagan view of things. Anyone out and about on a Midsummer's Eve with a full moon in the wilderness somewhere, or maybe out on the ocean will know that.
Some nights the magic jumps at you through the air. And the whole of Life on this Earth is all a gigantic symbiotic system, sometimes you can feel it..
This is a beautiful point to make, and so true. IMHO one of Mankind's biggest problems - maybe the biggest - is that it has set itself ABOVE nature - rather than accepting its place as just being a part of it........
teleron
03-21-2010, 04:23 AM
"the biggest argument against creationism is the male nipple"
-possibly me or I might have heard it somewhere-
my stance on religion is do what you want believe what you want and leave me the hell alone
organized religion annoys me with all the shouts of "your going to hell unless you give god money care of us"
although I think if the government is hurting so bad for money maybe they should remove the tax free status from religious institutions
I call myself a satanist just so I can mess with religious people but I consider myself a pagan
this post was not intended to offend anyone in any way shape or form
princessjas
03-21-2010, 07:25 AM
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (94%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (89%)
Apparently, I fit with the oddball religions. haha
LilSweetVixen
03-29-2010, 11:06 AM
I am so confused. I honestly don't know if I even believe in God or not. I think the bible is silly and hippacritical (sp) to believe in. However I see miracles, love and beauty every day.
God's people "Christians" are amounst the most judgemental, sinful and evil people I know. When I was in my teen years mother kept insisting I hang out with the kids that were in church all week long and on every commitie. We went on a retreat and when they opened their suitecases they had more condoms then clothes falling out. Recently I went to a Epicipol college. It had theives, physical assults and anything else you can think of. Aside from that reading the bible itself upsets me sometimes because it says 1 thing in 1 chapter and something else in another.
On the other hand prayer has helped me through so much. LOL and more than that I really do believe I've met demands in human form. Where there's evil there must be good right. I don't know.
Ive been praying and recently called a church for spirtual guidance with no reply. But that Popi guy popped up. Here's the link to that situation http://forum.stripperweb.com/showthread.php?t=137427 Anyway I think he's a nut but on the other hand maybe he's an answer to my prayers. Maybe I'm reaching. Well thanks for listening anyway.
There is a huge chasm between believing in the Xtian God and being atheist. You could be a spiritual agnostic, Buddhist, or believer in an unspecified god. I've experimented with tons of religions over the years. Just keep trying them out until you find the right fit.
With Xtianity it's better not to read into things too much. The existence of hypocrites doesn't negate the religion's veracity.
Kellydancer
03-29-2010, 08:27 PM
As I get older, I get more into religion. Lately, I've been dealing with a ton of issues both professionally (jobwise) and personally (the guy I like, various family member's illnesses, etc). I have been doing a lot of praying. I admit I have prayed in the past and my wishes came true (various things such as jobs and college). However the last time I prayed before now was January 2007 where I prayed I'd get a better job. I got a job rejection an hour later and was so mad at that point that I vowed never to pray again. However, looking back maybe there is a reason I didn't get that job but I didn't see it then. Maybe it was a worse job, or went to someone who needed a job more than me (I had a job then). I admit my faith is somewhat shaky, so I made several vows this time. I intend to keep these vows if my dreams come true. If not, I won't know what to do.
Private_Twist
03-29-2010, 09:55 PM
I believe in God, Im what u call a non denominational Christian. I've seen way too many things in my life a lot of people would not believe, that itself could be a thread. I try my best to be a good person, but just like the red-blooded human that I am, I make mistakes so I would never point fingers or judge anyone who isnt a christian, nor tell anyone to follow me because that would be straight down hypocritical we're all grown adults that can make our own decisions.
Find out what works for you, and go with it by simply meditating for a couple weeks so that your soul can overvoice your mind, give you some clarity while also giving you what it belives to be an accurate decision before you go jumping on the religion bandwagon. Meditating is more spiritual than religious and focuses on the heart,soul,spirit rather than God himself, so go for it, get elevated! And give yourself time, choosing or not choosing a religion is a big decision
And whatever you choose there WILL be someone on this board who probably has the same religion (or lack of) depending on your decision and they will support you and help you thru your time of transition.
firemaiden04
04-01-2010, 03:22 PM
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Neo-Pagan (93%)
3. Mahayana Buddhism (83%)
The key phrase to describe my #1 seems to be "diverse beliefs." Which is pretty much on the money.
kitana
04-12-2010, 07:51 AM
I was born and raised methodist, converted to Judaism, and now I believe in all paths to G-d.
Here is what the test said about me:
1. Neo-Pagan (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Neo-Pagans-Believe.aspx) (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Unitarian-Universalists-Believe.aspx) (96%) 3. Mahayana Buddhism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Mahayana-Buddhists-Believe.aspx) (96%) 4. Reform Judaism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Reform-Jews-Believe.aspx) (94%) 5. New Age (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-New-Agers-Believe.aspx) (90%) 6. Liberal Quakers (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Liberal-Quakers-Believe.aspx) (89%) 7. Orthodox Judaism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Orthodox-Jews-Believe.aspx) (88%) 8. Baha'i Faith (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Bahai/What-Bahs-Believe.aspx) (79%) 9. Hinduism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Hindus-Believe.aspx) (79%) 10. Islam (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Muslims-Believe.aspx) (79%) 11. Theravada Buddhism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Theravada-Buddhists-Believe.aspx) (76%) 12. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Liberal-Protestants-Believe.aspx) (75%) 13. New Thought (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-New-Thought-Practitioners-Believe.aspx) (73%) 14. Jainism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Jains-Believe.aspx) (72%) 15. Sikhism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Sikhs-Believe.aspx) (71%) 16. Scientology (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Scientologists-Believe.aspx) (64%) 17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Christian-Scientists-Believe.aspx) (52%) 18. Orthodox Quaker (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Orthodox-Quakers-Believe.aspx) (48%) 19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Conservative-Protestants-Believe.aspx) (45%) 20. Secular Humanism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Secular-Humanists-Believe.aspx) (42%) 21. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Latter-Day-Saints-Mormons-Believe.aspx) (38%) 22. Eastern Orthodox (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Eastern-Orthodox-Christians-Believe.aspx) (38%) 23. Roman Catholic (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Catholics-Believe.aspx) (38%) 24. Taoism (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Taoists-Believe.aspx) (38%) 25. Nontheist (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Atheists-Agnostics-Believe.aspx) (32%) 26. Jehovah's Witness (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Believe.aspx) (32%) 27. Seventh Day Adventist (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Seventh-Day-Adventists-Believe.aspx) (24%)
I'm really surprised that Catholicism made the list at ALL, lol.
jennsweet
04-12-2010, 08:32 AM
believe in YOURSELF!!!! following god, or a book, or beliefs that are told are right/wrong by others is stupid. I believe in being nice to others, treat ppl how you want to be treated, and it's worked for me.:)
flickad
04-20-2010, 05:40 AM
100% secular humanist. Not unexpected, I'm atheist.
Lucifera
04-20-2010, 04:51 PM
I was forced to grow up Christian, and now I'm a Satanist. I don't judge anyone who doesn't deserve it, and my best friend is a VERY strict Baptist (26, and a virgin waiting for marriage). Don't let anyone pressure you into something you don't believe in. You believe whatever you want to. You are you.
tempest666
04-27-2010, 03:34 AM
No religion is perfect, at least not after man gets through with it. They call it the opiate of the masses for a reason. More people have died in the name of God, allah, whatever you want to label it than any other reason.
wanderlust08
04-27-2010, 04:09 AM
100% Neo-Paganist
96% Mahayana Buddhism
95% Unitarian Universalism
93% New Age
89% Liberal Quakers
Quakers?!? Really? That one surprised me a bit.
hot4ablackchick
04-27-2010, 10:13 PM
The best way to sum up religion is this: IT. FUCKING. SUCKS.
The only way to make it not suck is to "modify" it to fit your lifestyle, or 'invent' a new one. Since its not much of a stretch to make up your own (its all made up anyway) that may be the best way to go. Just look at the mormorms. There is a possibility that you could even make some money. The cathlicks are going to need something else to follow after all this molestation shit blows up even more.
The best way to sum up religion is this: IT. FUCKING. SUCKS.
The only way to make it not suck is to "modify" it to fit your lifestyle, or 'invent' a new one. Since its not much of a stretch to make up your own (its all made up anyway) that may be the best way to go. Just look at the mormorms. There is a possibility that you could even make some money. The cathlicks are going to need something else to follow after all this molestation shit blows up even more.
Yeah, well the atheists are going to have to start praying for redemption when the end of the world comes.... :D
hot4ablackchick
04-28-2010, 03:53 PM
Yeah, well the atheists are going to have to start praying for redemption when the end of the world comes.... :D
I know, I'd better get to it. If only I knew which one was right??? Must be christianity because they have "eye witness accounts" but fuck what if I'm wrong and Allah is at the gate, or a leprechaun whose son died so that we could enjoy lucky charms without guilt? What if, just if, I was suppossed to worship a leprechaun whose "signs" I "chose to ignore" Aggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!............FUCK FUCK FUCKITY FUCK..........:D
Spankie55
04-29-2010, 10:59 PM
Christians are some of the most sinful people I've ever met.
Just because you believe Jesus was the son of God doesn't make you a christian,there is way more to it than that!!!!
My man's mom for example,swears up and down shes a good christian. Fuck her..All she does is talk shit about people,and her current husband was married when she started dating him.
Morons. (and NO I don't think all christians are morons)
Spankie55
04-29-2010, 11:06 PM
tehe.
I did that quiz thing and both of my top answers were of the Buddhist faith,which is my faith of choice.
Im not buddhist,but I give mad probs to people who are.
hot4ablackchick
04-30-2010, 12:48 AM
Christians are some of the most sinful people I've ever met.
Just because you believe Jesus was the son of God doesn't make you a christian,there is way more to it than that!!!!
My man's mom for example,swears up and down shes a good christian. Fuck her..All she does is talk shit about people,and her current husband was married when she started dating him.
Morons. (and NO I don't think all christians are morons)
You know this makes me think of many "christians" who say they are christians, but judging by their actions they are definetely NOT! I know, I know, "No man is perfect, We all sin, Jesus died for our sins, God forgives," blah blah. Even if this is true, does that mean that you incapable of AT LEAST giving it your best, and at the very least trying your hardest to live your life the way god would want you to?? I wonder whether they actually believe in the book they base their blind faith in. Hell, I wonder if any have even read it. If you truly believe in your god and believe in hell, why are most "christians" living the way they are? Then some of them go (it seems like most of them these days) call "fanatical christians" (like Kirk Cameron) crazy or annoying. The "fanatics" are doing what YOU should be doing! I respect them far more than the 'typical' half ass christian. At least they are trying to act like they believe in what they say they believe in.
Christians aren't suppossed to judge, but you are suppossed to spread the joy of christ, put god first, yadda, yadda, yadda. I am seriously annoyed by other "christians" who are soooo convinced that they are going to get into their heaven (when they are far from christ like and not even trying), and will tell me I risk "damnation" because I'm atheist. WTF!!! According to the bible you are too, I say. They can never accept it, because jesus can forgive their sins, and somehow they all seem to think that is all they really need to do. "Accept christ as their personal savior" and they are done. Sorry jesus believers, there is more to it than just that!
I get this response from christians a lot: "I'm not one of those fanatic christians! I don't like them either!" Oh ok, you're a cool christian ::) I think these christians know deep down, that the bible sucks but they are too cowardly/stubborn/brainwashed to abandon their beliefs. Either you believe it or you don't, is how I feel now. Don't tell me, "Well I don't believe that part of the bible." Now you really sound like an idiot. Either its the word of god or it aint.
Christians are like klansman who go: "Oh I'm not one them crazy, lynching KKK members! I just don't want blacks/jews around me or my family, but I do like black people really!" Sure, many klansman never killed or hurt anyone, but they still joined an institution with such a fucked up and disgusting history with fucked up and disgusting views. If you are a christian you are joining an institution with fucked up and disgusting views, with a fucked up and disgusting history. Whether you believe all the views is besides the point, as I said before there are plenty of KKK members who may feel it is wrong to murder blacks/jews. Christians "joined" into something that calls gay people 'abominations' and are worthy of death and hell, as well as other disgusting values. I realize most "christians" are pretty brainwashed and ignorant about their own views, but their comes a time when you need to take the blinders off.
How many more children have to die from easily curable diseases because their stupid "christian" parents 'prayed for healing,' and didn't take them to the doctor. Those kids sure paid the ultimate price for their parents ridiculous beliefs.
Why bother with something that is homophobic, sexist, intolerant, and cruel? You will worship a god that drowned an entire planet of people, "tempts" a man to kill his firstborn son to prove his love, loves animal sacrifices, burned an entire village and turned a woman into salt for looking back, is satisfied that 'witches' and non believers are burned alive, is "jealous".............I could go on and on. Boy god was such an asshole in the Old Testament. He needed to sacrifice his own son/himself? to feel better and forgive us for every asinine "sin" we commit. Christians are right, it is the book of love and forgiveness. Worship me or I'll fucking burn you forever! Sounds ggggggrrrrrrrreeeeaaaaaatttttttttt.
Harleigh HellKat
04-30-2010, 01:48 AM
Sounds like Unitarians... a pretty cool group if you ask me.
Yay tolerance! ;D
Also, I do have quarrels with some of the misogynistic views of the bible. Like how women are the cause of original sin. We're just naughty, not sinful. ::)
You have to think of the area and time period all that stuff was written in... And as far as whether or not you believe... that's up to you. You can't force it, and no one can force it on you. And don't let anyone else judge you for what you believe!!
Ive given up on religion-- im completely agnostic. At this point my official statement in regards to religion is "We cant use natural proof to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being(s)."
There are some good messages in the bible. I believe that Jesus preached peace and love, never a bad thing. I have beef with the old testament though, with the genocide and treatment of women (i.e. how Lot was considered the good guy and rewarded for offering his daughters up for rape in place of the strangers! ech!:O). If a loose interpretation of hte book and praying helps you out, then go for it. IMO, you dont need to associate with the crazy judgemental christians to get something out of the bible. Even if its not for me personally, i know some chill christians who never shove anything down anyones throat or judge anyone unfairly. You can also probably find a more liberal group.
I know around here there is a 'church' that gets together once a week. but its not really a 'church', its mostly old hippies and young hippies getting together to discuss some sort of spiritual stuff. my one friend who goes is buddist, she says the whole 'church' is non-denominational, as in not even specifically christian or anything really, its just spiritual. i have never been, so i dont know what they talk about. If you want to pray and be around other spiritual people, why dont you look for a 'church' or gathering like that in your city? There is probably some sort of non denominational church around you. And if you are someone who follows the ten commandments, it doesnt worship a different god so you wont be breaking commandment #? (not christian or jewish, dont know what number), i think it just celebrates spirituality or existence of something supernatural, even if that supernatural thing is not specifically named.
In regards to that nut who contacted you, i only skimmed a little bit of the message. However, any sort of accusations about being a sinner from people i ignore. At the end of the night, are you ok with your actions? Do you consider yourself a good person with good intentions and qualities? If you do, then i wouldnt sweat what some nut over the internet spews out. I think if you were going down an evil path you would know it somewhere deep in your heart/consciousness/spirit/soul/whatever term you choose ;).
Harleigh HellKat
04-30-2010, 01:55 AM
And furthermore:
http://www.venganza.org/
Praise Him!!
Hopper
04-30-2010, 04:28 AM
Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin, Jomo Kenyatta, Mugabe, Castro, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Columbine killers - all atheists.
Or failed atheists maybe? Still, that excuse doesn't work for Christians, does it.
firemaiden04
04-30-2010, 04:52 AM
My ex that I dated from 2005-2007 has had this whole religious awakening or some such nonsense. He's claiming to be a hardcore conservative Christian now. He's always on facebook spouting some judgmental nonsense about gay people or abortion or whatever. Talking about how he has GOD in his life and now he's saved, etc. I always get very, very angry whenever I think about it. This guy fucking raped me, stole from me, tried to kill me, destroyed my self-esteem, and not a day goes by that all that doesn't affect me in some way or another. And now he's saying he's a fucking GOOD PERSON because he has "GOD" in his life?!!! He's such a fucking hypocrite it makes me sick. Being Christian should mean you try to be a good person, and be tolerant of others. It doesn't mean you're better than anyone, or that you know better than others. It seems to me that all in-your-face Christians just use their religion to justify the terrible things they do and say and think. They hate people who are different from them, so it must be God's Will. Fuck that shit.
Hopper
04-30-2010, 06:54 AM
You know this makes me think of many "christians" who say they are christians, but judging by their actions they are definetely NOT! I know, I know, "No man is perfect, We all sin, Jesus died for our sins, God forgives," blah blah. Even if this is true, does that mean that you incapable of AT LEAST giving it your best, and at the very least trying your hardest to live your life the way god would want you to?? I wonder whether they actually believe in the book they base their blind faith in. Hell, I wonder if any have even read it. If you truly believe in your god and believe in hell, why are most "christians" living the way they are?
Everyone has beliefs of right and wrong and disobeys them. Why are you singling out Christians? Hating?
Then some of them go (it seems like most of them these days) call "fanatical christians" (like Kirk Cameron) crazy or annoying. The "fanatics" are doing what YOU should be doing! I respect them far more than the 'typical' half ass christian. At least they are trying to act like they believe in what they say they believe in.
I hate both kinds. One says they are Christian but disagree with the Bible about this and that just to conform to "modern" ideas which are fucked anyway. The "fanatics" are not doing what Christians should be doing - they are off on the wrong track, blinkered, emotional.
Christians aren't suppossed to judge, but you are suppossed to spread the joy of christ, put god first, yadda, yadda, yadda. I am seriously annoyed by other "christians" who are soooo convinced that they are going to get into their heaven (when they are far from christ like and not even trying), and will tell me I risk "damnation" because I'm atheist. WTF!!! According to the bible you are too, I say. They can never accept it, because jesus can forgive their sins, and somehow they all seem to think that is all they really need to do. "Accept christ as their personal savior" and they are done. Sorry jesus believers, there is more to it than just that!
Well that's the doctrine, isn't it. For them there isn't any more to it. Christians aren't supposed to judge others, but they still must recognise that God judges us all and that's where the damnation comes in.
I get this response from christians a lot: "I'm not one of those fanatic christians! I don't like them either!" Oh ok, you're a cool christian ::) I think these christians know deep down, that the bible sucks but they are too cowardly/stubborn/brainwashed to abandon their beliefs. Either you believe it or you don't, is how I feel now. Don't tell me, "Well I don't believe that part of the bible." Now you really sound like an idiot. Either its the word of god or it aint.
I hate the "cool Christian" routine too. They think it's cool to believe in God, like in a celebrity's Grammy acceptance speech, but only the cool parts.
Christians are like klansman who go: "Oh I'm not one them crazy, lynching KKK members! I just don't want blacks/jews around me or my family, but I do like black people really!" Sure, many klansman never killed or hurt anyone, but they still joined an institution with such a fucked up and disgusting history with fucked up and disgusting views. If you are a christian you are joining an institution with fucked up and disgusting views, with a fucked up and disgusting history. Whether you believe all the views is besides the point, as I said before there are plenty of KKK members who may feel it is wrong to murder blacks/jews. Christians "joined" into something that calls gay people 'abominations' and are worthy of death and hell, as well as other disgusting values. I realize most "christians" are pretty brainwashed and ignorant about their own views, but their comes a time when you need to take the blinders off.
Disgusting because they are not YOUR views. Way to get along. Everyone has beliefs and rejects other's beliefs and the denounces the actions of others which go against his beliefs. That doesn't apply only to Christians. It sounds a lot like it applies to you considereing on how much you are hating on Christians here.
This is why I hate people who preach about tolerance. They mean that OTHER people should be tolerant - of them. Or that other people should think like them. Tolerance means accepting something you don't approve of.
It's pretty ridiculous that you are denouncing Christians for denouncing other people who do wrong by their standards. You sound like a klansman yourself: you wouldn't kill a Christian but you wouldn't have one as a friend or family.
How many more children have to die from easily curable diseases because their stupid "christian" parents 'prayed for healing,' and didn't take them to the doctor. Those kids sure paid the ultimate price for their parents ridiculous beliefs.
What easily curable diseases? I expect their child had something easily treatable most Christian parents would go to a doctor. Those who don't are pretty fringe.
Why bother with something that is homophobic, sexist, intolerant, and cruel?
There is an ideology behind those first three words. Why should anyone conform to yours any more than to Christianity? "Homophobic" just means that you think homosexuality is okay and even though you can't prove the truth of that opinion to everyone else, you think anyone who disagrees is irrational, even if they have actual reasons to disagree. "SExist" means you have a particular opinion about women's roles in society and how the sexes should relate and anyone who disagrees is just bigotted. Both words - along with the accusation of "intolerant" - are just ways to smear other people who disagree with your ideas.
You will worship a god that drowned an entire planet of people, "tempts" a man to kill his firstborn son to prove his love, loves animal sacrifices, burned an entire village and turned a woman into salt for looking back, is satisfied that 'witches' and non believers are burned alive, is "jealous".............I could go on and on. Boy god was such an asshole in the Old Testament. He needed to sacrifice his own son/himself? to feel better and forgive us for every asinine "sin" we commit. Christians are right, it is the book of love and forgiveness. Worship me or I'll fucking burn you forever! Sounds ggggggrrrrrrrreeeeaaaaaatttttttttt.
This is a misrepresentation. For one thing, not all Christians believe that people will burn forever in hell - the Bible doesn't specifically say that. You talk as if God killing people is the same as Christians doing it themselves. That is like accusing environmentalists of mass murder because they are warning us that global warming will kill us all if we don't "repent" of our carbon emissions. Actions have consequences and I don't see any difference between God stepping in or the climate doing it's thing when man fucks up.
Spankie55
04-30-2010, 08:08 PM
My ex that I dated from 2005-2007 has had this whole religious awakening or some such nonsense. He's claiming to be a hardcore conservative Christian now. He's always on facebook spouting some judgmental nonsense about gay people or abortion or whatever. Talking about how he has GOD in his life and now he's saved, etc. I always get very, very angry whenever I think about it. This guy fucking raped me, stole from me, tried to kill me, destroyed my self-esteem, and not a day goes by that all that doesn't affect me in some way or another. And now he's saying he's a fucking GOOD PERSON because he has "GOD" in his life?!!! He's such a fucking hypocrite it makes me sick. Being Christian should mean you try to be a good person, and be tolerant of others. It doesn't mean you're better than anyone, or that you know better than others. It seems to me that all in-your-face Christians just use their religion to justify the terrible things they do and say and think. They hate people who are different from them, so it must be God's Will. Fuck that shit.
what a fucking douche bag. Oh but hes "saved" so he's going to heaven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68
Christianity just doesn't make any sense..never has ..never will.
hot4ablackchick
04-30-2010, 11:41 PM
@Hopper,
I understand that nobody is perfect. Even the bible recognizes that it is not possible to be perfect. I am talking about those who are NOT even giving an honest effort to try. Those christians who are simply using their jesus safety net to do whatever, while saying they believe in the bible and jesus. I am not hating on anyone, nor saying that christians should be perfect. Those who make no, or very little attempts to do ANYTHING christ-like are the ones who are deluding themselves. The 'every man sins' excuse to live a 'secular' lifestyle is pathetic at best. Its one thing to honestly try with all your effort and still have mistakes and slip ups, than to just say 'fuck it, jesus will forgive me.' Don't you think an almighty god will know the difference between honestly trying and failing, than not giving much effort to put god first???
I am terrible at sports. No matter what, I could never hit a baseball. I would try and swing at it, and I would always miss. 9 times out of ten, I would miss. Once I got to high school and had PE, I stopped trying to even hit it. I would just swing half ass, and clearly make no attempt. I wasn't good at it anyway, why waste effort trying I thought. The gym teacher noticed this, and told me that I needed to start participating right and giving an honest effort. It didn't matter if I wasn't 'good' at it, or if I missed. I blew her off because I didn't care, and I felt I wasn't going to hit it anyway, why try? I tried before and never hit it. Well I continued my behavior during baseball week at PE, and the gym teacher got fed up and sent me to the office. I tried to rationalize my behavior, but later I realized the gym teacher was right. She did not punish me for not being able to hit the baseball. In PE I was supposed to participate and make an earnest effort. I simply gave up because I didn't enjoy it and wasn't 'good' at it. I knew what I was suppossed to be doing, I just made excuses. A lot of "christians" aren't even trying to hit the baseball.
If christians love christ, why do they not make an honest effort to do just that, and why label people who do, 'crazy fanatics' who don't represent 'real christians.' Many christians have actually said to me that those christians who go door to door trying to save people are annoying or fanatics. Um, thats what you should be doing you ass, is what I think to myself. Of course christians are not suppossed to be judgmental, but 'spreading the gospel' and judging are two different things. You can spread jesus love without condemning people. The fact that supposed "christians" are slamming those people as fanatic or crazy, is whats crazy to me.
Yeah I believe christians have disgusting beliefs, so what? That somehow makes me intolerant, or similar to the klan also? Don't think so. " You disagree because you are intolerant of my views," you say. Nobody calls people who disagree with the KKK or Hitler intolerant. I am tolerant. I do not try to pass laws to say its illegal to worship, and I also do not believe any christian should be hurt or harassed becuase of their personal views. That doesn't mean that I can't disagree with them and find them disgusting. I find the KKK to be disgusting and insane, but I feel that they too have the right to do what they do as long as they are not physically hurting anyone or trying to pass laws to support their viewpoints. Unfortunately, christians ARE passing laws to support their viewpoints! I guess since I find Hitler to be disgusting, I am not "getting along." LOL. After all, those were his personal beliefs. That logic is insane, and only applies to christians who feel they are being 'persecuted' for believing in something cruel. Nobody would tell me 'way to get along' if I said that the KKK was disgusting.
Who said I didn't have christian family members? ALL my close relatives are christans. 90% of the people I work with are christians. I don't teach my kids atheism. They know I don't believe in god, and if they ask me a question I will tell them my honest opinion. I don't want to 'brainwash' them into believing what I believe. I want them to think logically and come to their own conclusion. I don't ever say, "God isn't real, don't believe." I don't lie, but I will ask them, "Does that seem right to you? What do you believe? Does that make sense?" They are too young to understand all the dynamics of religion, and I do want them to be atheists, but I want them to reach that conclusion for themselves. Nobody in my family will be "disowned" for being a christian. I cannot have a meaningful relationship at this point in my life with a christian. Other than family members whom I love unconditionally, I can't have a true friend who still believes. Thats just me. I can, and am friendly to christians. But on a deep down, personal level, I could never marry, date, or have a BFF who was a christian. Klan-like to you, but simple to me.
If you think homosexuality is wrong, that is you right. I don't care. But they deserve to have the same right to marry and it should be recognized under the law. The ONLY reason why it isn't, is because the bible bans it. If two consenting adults want to marry, that is their right. It is not just my opinion. Many people would have said my marriage wasn't real or was an 'abomination' 40 years ago, because I am black and married to a white man. What is going on now is unconstitutional. I don't remember "choosing" my sexuality. I never had to "try" to turn myself onto men. Its something I just liked. I can't imagine how gay people are feeling. If you are not gay, its so easy to dismiss it and say that it isn't right.
You say I am "smearing" you. Damn right. What you believe in would be considered wrong by any sane persons standards, but since someone is god, then that makes it okay. I will continue to smear christians, the KKK, nazis, and anyone else with asinine, cruel, and hateful beliefs. Your god, says that you shall not covet, or be jealous of other things. He expects YOU to let go of the senseless, jealous emotion, when he, himself can't even conquer it. Ludicrous. He has to be 'put first,' and becomes so angry that he will wipe out entire populations because of it.
I don't oppose the bible's views on women because of "different opinions on women's role in society." I oppose it because women are viewed as less than men, less important. Even if I believed it to be true, why is a "womans role" less valuable than that of a man? Isn't it still important to "raise children, cook, clean, support the man," as to "hunt, gather, protect and provide?" Remember the bible story where the price for killing the unborn baby girl was two cents LESS than that of an unborn baby male? Why do all 'god assisted' pregnancies seem to result in sons? Why are women always 'barren' and shamed when they cannot 'produce' males, even though we now know sperm determines sex. Why are women "unclean" for TWICE as long if they give birth to a baby girl, then that of a male? Why do baby girls make women extra dirty, opposed to males? Its not just a different roles argument, women are not as important and "dirtier" because they are women. But thats cool because god says so, and she did tempt Adam to eat an apple so thats what we deserve. Yup, makes sense to me.
So hell isn't fucked up??? Come on, now you're backpedaling! Its pretty clear, that in hell you will suffer. Forever. I don't know any human being that deserves that kind of punishment. Hell isn't punishment, its torture. Have you ever thought about how long forever is?? Its forever!! Even Hitler doesn't deserve that. When I punish my kids, its out of love. I love them and I want them to be nice people and be respectful. I do not want them to harm others or themselves. We are attempting to change ones behavior with punishment. God doesn't say that people "burn in hell" for finite amount of times, or until they truly turn over their heart to god and see the error of their ways. God has the capacity to see such a change, according to the bible, but would not redeem anyone who does. If your "soul" goes to hell, then surely your "soul" in hell is aware. We put murderers in jail for life (usually) or impose death penalties because we don't know what that person is capable of. We have to protect people from others and themselves. God does know what people are capable of, yet who chooses to torture people forever, he doesn't punish, he tortures. I don't love my children because they love me back, I love them because I love them. God doesn't love everyone, he loves only those that devote themselves to him. To me, that is not true love. God puts a ridiculously high standard on people (a standard so high that no human could follow it) and then tortures them for the fuck ups. Yeah, that sounds loving and fair. If I put that high a standard on my children, I would get the death penalty, be seen as unfit, and everyone would be outraged.
If you're god, its ok to be a raging asshole. Imagine if I put a bowl of candy on the dinner table. I say to my 6 children, "Do not eateth from this bowl. I know you love candy, but do not eateth because it will rotteth thy teeth and if you really love me you won't eateth. If you eateth you don't love me, so I will be forced to kill you. I love you, so love me back by proving that you won't eateth the candy. I see and know everything, so I will know if you eateth the candy." On top of this standard, I KNOW that they will eat the candy, because they are just children and can't help it. Its too tempting. I also know everything before it even happens. I don't want to take away the candy bowl, because I want them to have free will. Its too boring watching my children be good and happy all the time! My son eats the candy as soon as I turn my back, and one of my daughters eats the candy a few days later. I had to kill them and now I am sad/angry that they ate the candy. Another daughter eats the candy, and I tell her I must kill her. My 'perfect' son steps in and says, "NO! Don't kill her!! I will die for her even though I didn't eateth the candy. I will die so that every child you have that eateth the candy can live and be forgiven." "Hmmmmm," I say. "Well how about they also have to worship you/me and admit that you died so they can eateth the candy, then they can be forgiven," I add. My son says alrightee. I burn my nobel son, and now I can relax and not freak out when my kids eat the candy. Burning my son was my anger management. I now realize that my kids did love me, they just couldn't help not eating the candy. I guess I was kinda wrong for burning the other kids but oh well, I had to show them I'm not a pussy right? Hahaha, now certainly they will worship me. Unfortunately, this scenario would not work out well for me in the legal system. The "But I created their life!" excuse wouldn't really help me in court. Its not insane for god to kill and torture, oops I mean "test," because he is god and creator. He made us, so he can do what he wants. God is an unfit parent at best.
I'm really not trying to be an asshole. I just would like people to think. Think about what you really believe in. I know you will defend your beliefs no matter what. I was a christian myself too. I know that your faith teaches you not to doubt, so you probably won't consider any alternative. I'm glad that most "christians" don't take the bible too seriously. It will be a scary day when you do. Sure there are some great things in the bible. That shouldn't overshadow the horrendous. Anyone who believes that it is ok to do something because some invisible sky daddy says it is ok, scares me. Gays will never get there equal rights until more people abandon these beliefs. Religion just makes it ok to be a bigot.
hot4ablackchick
05-01-2010, 12:39 AM
what a fucking douche bag. Oh but hes "saved" so he's going to heaven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68
Christianity just doesn't make any sense..never has ..never will.
:rotfl::rotfl: Thanks for that video spankie. It seriously made me laugh so hard I cried. Seemed to sum up god pretty accurately! I needed that after that long rant. :D
Hopper
05-01-2010, 05:36 AM
@Hopper,
I understand that nobody is perfect. Even the bible recognizes that it is not possible to be perfect. I am talking about those who are NOT even giving an honest effort to try. Those christians who are simply using their jesus safety net to do whatever, while saying they believe in the bible and jesus. I am not hating on anyone, nor saying that christians should be perfect. Those who make no, or very little attempts to do ANYTHING christ-like are the ones who are deluding themselves. The 'every man sins' excuse to live a 'secular' lifestyle is pathetic at best. Its one thing to honestly try with all your effort and still have mistakes and slip ups, than to just say 'fuck it, jesus will forgive me.' Don't you think an almighty god will know the difference between honestly trying and failing, than not giving much effort to put god first???
I am terrible at sports. No matter what, I could never hit a baseball. I would try and swing at it, and I would always miss. 9 times out of ten, I would miss. Once I got to high school and had PE, I stopped trying to even hit it. I would just swing half ass, and clearly make no attempt. I wasn't good at it anyway, why waste effort trying I thought. The gym teacher noticed this, and told me that I needed to start participating right and giving an honest effort. It didn't matter if I wasn't 'good' at it, or if I missed. I blew her off because I didn't care, and I felt I wasn't going to hit it anyway, why try? I tried before and never hit it. Well I continued my behavior during baseball week at PE, and the gym teacher got fed up and sent me to the office. I tried to rationalize my behavior, but later I realized the gym teacher was right. She did not punish me for not being able to hit the baseball. In PE I was supposed to participate and make an earnest effort. I simply gave up because I didn't enjoy it and wasn't 'good' at it. I knew what I was suppossed to be doing, I just made excuses. A lot of "christians" aren't even trying to hit the baseball.
I don't know why people who don't want to try to obey a religion would bother joining it, even just to have a safety net for hell. Anyone who believes in the hell part would also believe the rest and therefore want to obery it. If they don't believe it all, they don't believe in hell and don't believe they need a net.
If christians love christ, why do they not make an honest effort to do just that, and why label people who do, 'crazy fanatics' who don't represent 'real christians.' Many christians have actually said to me that those christians who go door to door trying to save people are annoying or fanatics. Um, thats what you should be doing you ass, is what I think to myself. Of course christians are not suppossed to be judgmental, but 'spreading the gospel' and judging are two different things. You can spread jesus love without condemning people. The fact that supposed "christians" are slamming those people as fanatic or crazy, is whats crazy to me.
I don't think Christians are necessarily required to go door to door or preach in the street. At least not all of them. Imagine all of them doing it - it would be a real nuisance.
Like I said, Christians say that God judges. Christians just warn others that he will do that. That's not the same as Christians doing it themselves. If the Bible calls something a sin, Christians have to call it a sin whenever they see someone else doing it. That is not judging or condemning. You want them to pretend they don't think it? Judging would be going further and judging the person based on the sinful action. Often we do judge others by their actions. Everyone believes that there is a right and wrong of some kind. Your lengthy tirades here show that you do it with the best of them.
Yeah I believe christians have disgusting beliefs, so what? That somehow makes me intolerant, or similar to the klan also? Don't think so. " You disagree because you are intolerant of my views," you say. Nobody calls people who disagree with the KKK or Hitler intolerant. I am tolerant. I do not try to pass laws to say its illegal to worship, and I also do not believe any christian should be hurt or harassed becuase of their personal views. That doesn't mean that I can't disagree with them and find them disgusting. I find the KKK to be disgusting and insane, but I feel that they too have the right to do what they do as long as they are not physically hurting anyone or trying to pass laws to support their viewpoints. Unfortunately, christians ARE passing laws to support their viewpoints! I guess since I find Hitler to be disgusting, I am not "getting along." LOL. After all, those were his personal beliefs. That logic is insane, and only applies to christians who feel they are being 'persecuted' for believing in something cruel. Nobody would tell me 'way to get along' if I said that the KKK was disgusting.
Just saying Christianity is like Nazism or the KKK is being judgemental. You are just excusing your bigotry by making that characterisation. The KKK justified their dislike of blacks by saying that blacks do disgusting things or breed disgusting people or are morally and intellectually inferior etc. "Of course I treat blacks like they are stupid - they really are stupid". Well that's okay then.
This is the logic the Nazis used to excuse persecuting Jews. First they vilified the Jews to provide their own excuse.. They said the Jews are an elite who dominiated and oppressed Germans and that their religion and customs contained harmful elemements and that they are a morally inferior race. Oh, okay Adolph well that's a different story; of course you are justified in persecuting those sort of people. You'd be wrong not to buddy.
Who said I didn't have christian family members? ALL my close relatives are christans. 90% of the people I work with are christians. I don't teach my kids atheism. They know I don't believe in god, and if they ask me a question I will tell them my honest opinion. I don't want to 'brainwash' them into believing what I believe. I want them to think logically and come to their own conclusion. I don't ever say, "God isn't real, don't believe." I don't lie, but I will ask them, "Does that seem right to you? What do you believe? Does that make sense?" They are too young to understand all the dynamics of religion, and I do want them to be atheists, but I want them to reach that conclusion for themselves. Nobody in my family will be "disowned" for being a christian. I cannot have a meaningful relationship at this point in my life with a christian. Other than family members whom I love unconditionally, I can't have a true friend who still believes. Thats just me. I can, and am friendly to christians. But on a deep down, personal level, I could never marry, date, or have a BFF who was a christian. Klan-like to you, but simple to me.
That's all up to you.
If you think homosexuality is wrong, that is you right. I don't care. But they deserve to have the same right to marry and it should be recognized under the law. The ONLY reason why it isn't, is because the bible bans it.
The only thing wrong with homosexuality is not that the Bible bans it. You make it sound like the Bible bans it for no reason. Is murder wrong just because the Bible bans it? Does the Bible ban it for no reason? Well for a Christian that is partly true - sin is disobedience toward God's commands, not just an act which does harm or deviates from the natural order of things. But disapproval of homosexuality does not come from the Bible. Societies around the world throughout history have rejected it. There are actual reasons for that.
I see no reason for someone to insist that homosexuality is definitely right or healthy, so you have no basis for saying it is insane to not to believe it is.
If two consenting adults want to marry, that is their right. It is not just my opinion. Many people would have said my marriage wasn't real or was an 'abomination' 40 years ago, because I am black and married to a white man. What is going on now is unconstitutional. I don't remember "choosing" my sexuality.
Marriage between a man and woman of different "race" is not the same as marriage between two people of same sex. There is really no such thing as "race". It would be more correct to call them breeds, but even that isn't accurate - there are no hard genetic categories within human-kind. Nor was interracial marriage an "abomination" 40 years ago - it has been happenning all through history. Only a small section of society - racists - thought so.
I don't believe in making homosexual marriage illegal. But then I don't believe homosexual marriage is even possible. Marriage is by definition a union between man and woman, normally for the purpose of raising a family. Since I don't recognise homosexual relations as valid, nor do I recognise homosexual marriage. But if homosexuals want to pretend to be married, that is alright by me - as long as they don't expect me to pretend with them.
But homosexual marriage is not illegal and nobody is trying to make it illegal. That would be like outlawing unaided flight. What homosexuals are demanding is not for homosexual marriage to be legalised, but for it to be recognised by the state - two different things.
For the state to recognise homosexual marriage, the state has to recognise homosexuality. That should not be a decision of the state. That position should be left to individual choice, not decreed by goverment. It is an area of belief.
The problem with it is that if the state recognises homosexuality, then the state must make all other laws and state services conform to this belief. State schools, and state-funded private schools, would have to teach kids that it is okay, and allow no alternative view. Research into homosexuality would be biased because to recieve state funding it would have to assume that homosexuality is normal - biasing conclusions at the outset. Anyone acting on a personal belief about homosexuals which conflicted with the state-sanctionned belief that it is normal would be liable to charges of discrimination. The interpretation of any law affecting speech or education would be affected by discrimination legislation. Freedom of speech would be restricted. Bills to that effect are already being proposed.
These are only a few of the consequences. Of course, I don't believe that the state should have any of these powers and the problem only really exists if the state does have them. But if it didn't, there would be no need for the state to make such a decree anyway, since it would not affect homosexuals' entitlements.
I never had to "try" to turn myself onto men. Its something I just liked. I can't imagine how gay people are feeling. If you are not gay, its so easy to dismiss it and say that it isn't right.
That is circular reasonning. It has the underlying assumption that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. The same applies whether it is or it isn't - the homosexual doesn't have to try to be (and may not have chosen to be) even if it isn't a natural condition. I can see that you are using this to foster understanding from the homosexual point of view but your point is meaningless as an argument.
Of course it is easy to dismiss homosexuality if you are not homosexual - because you are not homosexual. That's what a homosexual is - someone who can't dismiss it. It is also easier for you to dismiss the problems with homosexuals than it is for someone who has to live with it. Not all of them are happy to be homosexuals. Maybe none really are.
So let me ask you a moral question. Say homosexuality isn't okay - say it is an illness. Would you be doing them a favour by assuming that it is right and telling anyone who disagrees to STFU, thus closing off any investigation to the contrary? You probably know that he pink mafia also silence homosexuals who disagree or who are unhappy. Let's say a homosexual you know gets cured at age 60, say after science finally breaks through the dogma that you have helped enforce on everyone. Now he likes women. But it is too late for him to fuck one - he missed the boat. He would not thank you for keeping himself and society afraid or unwilling to question whether it was right for him to be homosexual.
Hopper
05-01-2010, 05:37 AM
You say I am "smearing" you. Damn right. What you believe in would be considered wrong by any sane persons standards, but since someone is god, then that makes it okay. I will continue to smear christians, the KKK, nazis, and anyone else with asinine, cruel, and hateful beliefs. Your god, says that you shall not covet, or be jealous of other things. He expects YOU to let go of the senseless, jealous emotion, when he, himself can't even conquer it. Ludicrous. He has to be 'put first,' and becomes so angry that he will wipe out entire populations because of it.
Before saying that believing homosexuality to be wrong is insane, you have to prove that it is definitely right. Remember, I am not trying to force my views on homosexuals with laws, I am just believing about them what I think seems reasonable.
A man putting his dick into another mans shit-hole does not seem reasonable and any condition he has which drives him to do it does not seem reasonable. Is that too controversial for you? Is a container of excrement really a "sane" place to put one's penis? People talk as if all homosexuals do is hug, kiss and hold hands. Well we all naturally want to do more than that but the options for homosexuals aren't as appealing as those the rest of us have. Nature must have really fucked up if that's the natural order of things.
I know many heterosesxual men like anal with women, but they don't have to receive it. It's not so attractive for either heterosexual partner without condoms, which were not widely available and manufatcured in a convenient and effective form until last century, made possible by the invention of synthetic materials. Same goes for lubrication, which the anus does not produce of itself. The man doesn't want the woman's shit rubbed onto his dick - it's hygenically risky and smells bad - and the woman doesn't want her shit all over her boyfriends dick either. The anus is not accustommed to penetration and you know sex shops sell "butt plugs" which women have to wear in their asses just to get them loose enough to take it. Long term frequent anal penetration causes the anus to weaken and loosen so that it loses it's function: to keep the owners shit inside his rectum once it gets there. He has to shit right away. This is a problem experienced by homosexuals and porn actresses. The difference between homosexual anal and heterosexual anal is that it is the only way homosexuals can do it, so that is the way they do it every time, and therefore much more frequently.
Well if we are talking about whether homosexuality is natural, we can see that nature didn't plan for it very well - condoms, lubricant, pain and "anal leakage".
Again, say homosexuality is wrong - which for all you really know it could be - do you want to needlessly consign someone to this practice by insisting, without real reason, that it is the only way for them - the right way?
So it's nothing to do with Christians being jealous. What is there to be jealous of? What is there to stop them from fucking other guys' asses anyway, if they wished to? Why would they make such a rule if it were against their personal wishes?
I don't oppose the bible's views on women because of "different opinions on women's role in society." I oppose it because women are viewed as less than men, less important. Even if I believed it to be true, why is a "womans role" less valuable than that of a man? Isn't it still important to "raise children, cook, clean, support the man," as to "hunt, gather, protect and provide?"
You've got it the wrong way around. Feminists denigrated that role for women because they viewed it as demeaning and dull and restrictive compared to the man's role. Christians, along with most other cultures around the world and throughout history, advocated that role for women. It seemed to make sense. Nor did the Bible, or any culture, view that role as demeaning or inferior. Some cultures viewed women as inferior, but I don't believe the Bible anywhere implies that. That's something feminists read into it based purely on the fact that they believe it is demeaning according to their own ideology.
Remember the bible story where the price for killing the unborn baby girl was two cents LESS than that of an unborn baby male? Why do all 'god assisted' pregnancies seem to result in sons? Why are women always 'barren' and shamed when they cannot 'produce' males, even though we now know sperm determines sex. Why are women "unclean" for TWICE as long if they give birth to a baby girl, then that of a male? Why do baby girls make women extra dirty, opposed to males? Its not just a different roles argument, women are not as important and "dirtier" because they are women. But thats cool because god says so, and she did tempt Adam to eat an apple so thats what we deserve. Yup, makes sense to me.
No I don't remember the punishment for killing babies being a fine. The penalty was death, the same as killing an adult, if I recall correctly. I don't know all of the God-assisted pregnancies in the Bible, but if you are talking about Abraham's wife Sarah, I guess that was becaese the line of descendancy was through the son and God had promised him a child in connection with his promise to give him numerous descendants. I don't know where in the Bible it says women who have only female babies are "barren and shamed". (It would be stupid to say they are barren.) Eve tempted Adam to eat the apple, but that was obviously no excuse for Adam - they both got thrown out of the garden. The uncleanliness bit I don't remeber the exact explaination for, but ritual uncleanliness is generally understood to be about hygene and other practical purposes, with some religious meanings also, not goodness and evil. For example, lepers were not ritually unclean because they were bad people.
So hell isn't fucked up??? Come on, now you're backpedaling! Its pretty clear, that in hell you will suffer. Forever. I don't know any human being that deserves that kind of punishment. Hell isn't punishment, its torture. Have you ever thought about how long forever is?? Its forever!! Even Hitler doesn't deserve that. When I punish my kids, its out of love. I love them and I want them to be nice people and be respectful. I do not want them to harm others or themselves. We are attempting to change ones behavior with punishment. God doesn't say that people "burn in hell" for finite amount of times, or until they truly turn over their heart to god and see the error of their ways. God has the capacity to see such a change, according to the bible, but would not redeem anyone who does. If your "soul" goes to hell, then surely your "soul" in hell is aware. We put murderers in jail for life (usually) or impose death penalties because we don't know what that person is capable of. We have to protect people from others and themselves. God does know what people are capable of, yet who chooses to torture people forever, he doesn't punish, he tortures.
I said that some Christians don't believe that hell is eternal punishment. Some believe that unsaved people are punished briefly in some manner and then quickly extinguished from existence.
I don't love my children because they love me back, I love them because I love them. God doesn't love everyone, he loves only those that devote themselves to him. To me, that is not true love. God puts a ridiculously high standard on people (a standard so high that no human could follow it) and then tortures them for the fuck ups. Yeah, that sounds loving and fair. If I put that high a standard on my children, I would get the death penalty, be seen as unfit, and everyone would be outraged.
Christians don't say that. They say that He does love people who don't love Him back. The whole idea of Christianity is that God doesn't set a high standard - the reason for salvation is that we are unable to be good enough by our own efforts.
If you're god, its ok to be a raging asshole. Imagine if I put a bowl of candy on the dinner table. I say to my 6 children, "Do not eateth from this bowl. I know you love candy, but do not eateth because it will rotteth thy teeth and if you really love me you won't eateth. If you eateth you don't love me, so I will be forced to kill you. I love you, so love me back by proving that you won't eateth the candy. I see and know everything, so I will know if you eateth the candy." On top of this standard, I KNOW that they will eat the candy, because they are just children and can't help it. Its too tempting. I also know everything before it even happens. I don't want to take away the candy bowl, because I want them to have free will. Its too boring watching my children be good and happy all the time! My son eats the candy as soon as I turn my back, and one of my daughters eats the candy a few days later. I had to kill them and now I am sad/angry that they ate the candy. Another daughter eats the candy, and I tell her I must kill her. My 'perfect' son steps in and says, "NO! Don't kill her!! I will die for her even though I didn't eateth the candy. I will die so that every child you have that eateth the candy can live and be forgiven." "Hmmmmm," I say. "Well how about they also have to worship you/me and admit that you died so they can eateth the candy, then they can be forgiven," I add. My son says alrightee. I burn my nobel son, and now I can relax and not freak out when my kids eat the candy. Burning my son was my anger management. I now realize that my kids did love me, they just couldn't help not eating the candy. I guess I was kinda wrong for burning the other kids but oh well, I had to show them I'm not a pussy right? Hahaha, now certainly they will worship me. Unfortunately, this scenario would not work out well for me in the legal system. The "But I created their life!" excuse wouldn't really help me in court. Its not insane for god to kill and torture, oops I mean "test," because he is god and creator. He made us, so he can do what he wants. God is an unfit parent at best.
Unfortunately in the real world there are bowls of candy everywhere, even if there were no tree of knowledge to eat from.
You have some points there, but Christians don't just believe in their religion because they think it makes sense. It's not like it's something (in their minds) which they made up themselves. If they believed that it were, there would be no reason for them to believe it - it would just be a fairy story. It is a case of the world being the way it is and having to accept it. We all believe things about the world which we don't understand the reason for or don't like. What you are asking for is God to do what makes sense for you. He is not necessarily obliged to do that, and there may be reasons for why He would not be able to. i don't understand all the theology of that, but my point is that you are criticising Christianity on the assumption that they wrote it themselves (which is your belief), which would be a reason for them not to believe it at all. In other words, you are basing your argument on the assumption that you are right, which is an invalid way to argue.
I'm really not trying to be an asshole. I just would like people to think. Think about what you really believe in. I know you will defend your beliefs no matter what. I was a christian myself too. I know that your faith teaches you not to doubt, so you probably won't consider any alternative.
I don't consider myself a Christian, so I don't have a personal vested interests in defending it. But I have learnt a lot about it and I do enjoy reading some Christian books on certain topics, or even just on the relition itself. I have discussed it with Christians I know - some of them intelligent. I defend Christianity only to correct unfair and/or fallacious criticisms of it. II don't defend it out of faith, I defend it from intellectual position. So I am not just closing out doubts. It's all about understanding. You should try harder, since it is what you want Christians to do for you.
I've had the same questions that you have and probably most Christians have too. The difference between you and I is that i went to the trouble of looking for answers before making a comment. And I don't just mean asking the Christian who happenned to be nearest at the time - I mean looking. I may not agree with it all but I should still try to understand it properly before I do.
I'm glad that most "christians" don't take the bible too seriously. It will be a scary day when you do. Sure there are some great things in the bible. That shouldn't overshadow the horrendous. Anyone who believes that it is ok to do something because some invisible sky daddy says it is ok, scares me. Gays will never get there equal rights until more people abandon these beliefs. Religion just makes it ok to be a bigot.
You hate Christians who don't believe in going door to door, but you like it if they don't take the Bible, which is from God, seriously? What sort of horrible things does sky daddy permit Christians to do? I thought he forbade all the bad things, not encouraged them.
Homosexuals have always has the same rights as everyone else. Which laws restrict their rights? Most Christians aren't the least bit interested in what they do - as long as they do it in privacy like heterosexuals also should. Since you believe they do, and must in order to follow their religion, you are effectively saying that Christianity must go in order for homosexuals to be free. This contradicts what you said earlier about Christians having the right to their beliefs.
hot4ablackchick
05-01-2010, 06:31 PM
@ Hopper,
Oh jeez. I don't hate christians who don't go door to door. I don't believe christians have to go door to door either. There are plenty of ways to "spread the gospel." I just wonder why some seem to believe that asking someone to join their church, or if they have been saved by jesus, is "pushing their beliefs on others." They simply THINK what they believe in is great, so of course they want to spread it around. A christian belives the same thing they do, so why label some christians as "stupid, crazy/annoying," when they are they are just doing what the bible (which they also suppossedly believe in) are doing. Why make fun of them? I surely wouldn't ridicule them if I were a christian. Asking someone to join a church or if they have been 'saved by jesus' is different than trying to pass laws to support your viewpoints. You surely can try to "save" people without being judgemental, so why call those who are doing so "crazy," because you are too lazy to do it. Thats what annoys me. The christians who are like, "I'm not all in somebody's face like that christian over there handing out pamphlets and preaching about jesus. I keep my belief to myself and I'm not all pushy!" You are suppossed to be friendly and a little "pushy" with your beliefs I think, so why try elevate yourself to "cool christian." Their bible even says so! Its become so retarded now that doing nothing = christian, while being christian = crazy.
Sure I think christianity should go and is no longer necessary in 2010, but can I do anything to stop it? No. Even if I could, would I? Fuck no. I wouldn't take away someones rights to give rights to another. Unfortunately, homos will have to fight and earn it like everyone else. I never said that I would abolish christianity if I could, so I didn't understand that point. Sure I HOPE more people abandon religion, but that is just wishful thinking. Everyone has the right to religion no matter how stupid it is.
I compare christians to the KKK, because the christians believe in a book where their 'god' said it was ok to kill people who disagreed. God himself, wiped out villages and killed people for asinine reasons, and for disagreeing. God was happy when people burned 'witches' and non believers alive. Didn't matter whether they would/did hurt anyone. They disagreed. They died. The fact that the "god" doesn't do it anymore, so its ok to worship him, is a pathetic, useless, and stupid argument. Just because he killed his son, so he doesn't need to do it anymore, doesn't change the fact that it happened. They support a god who says its ok to kill people who disagree. If a 'crazy' christian blows up everyone in an abortion clinic, EVERY CHRISTIAN holds part of that blame. Doesn't deserve to be punished for that crazy christian's actions, but holds a tiny part of that blame. The KKK don't typically go around lynching blacks anymore, and nazis aren't pushing people into ovens, but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen, and that plenty would probably do it again if made acceptable again. I would not worship a god who killed children, no matter how long ago it was. The KKK saying, "We don't lynch anymore," doesn't make them that much better. Its still a vile organization and it always will be. People saying that was in the old testament, is just as stupid. If a KKK member runs over a black person, every KKK member holds a tiny part of that blame. I certainly wouldn't join any athiests groups who said it was okay to hit christians with shovels. I don't can't care if they don't "believe in it anymore." I don't care if I didnt believe it was ok to hit christians with shovels and never did or would. If the group was founded by someone who once said it was okay to kill christian children, women, and men, to stop them from their "evil" ways, I ain't subscribing. I don't care if the founder ran over his own son and killed him so he doesn't have to kill christians anymore.
If I joined an athiest group that I KNEW liked to blow up churches long ago, and then an atheist from the group blows up a church, I would hold a tiny bit of that blame. I don't care if the atheist group promised my loved ones a fat check when I died, for joining. I don't care if I could use the money. I don't care if the organization says not to do it anymore, but if you do, you just have to be REALLY SORRY and kiss our ass to get back in. I may not deserve jail time if one of the members blows up a church, but I sure do deserve to feel guilty. If the first half of an atheist pamphlet is "Christians are worthy of death and will be put to death." It then goes on to tell all the 'cool' stories of the fucked up things they did to christians. It talks about how happy the founder got when he heard about the mean things they did. But the next half of the pamphlet is "Don't kill because you could go to jail and we need people like you. Plus, we realized its better not to judge and christians are so stupid they will suffer anyway. Watch out for them though, they are super dangerous people with evil in their hearts. They will take away all our rights and have bad intentions. Don't kill them though, thats not right, but they are fools." Got it? Why would I read that and go, "Why this organization sounds wonderful. They are really trying to get atheism appreciated and keep separation of church and state." Don't you see how a pamphlet like that could give someone a very conflicted message? Especially if one started to base their life around it and follow it to the core. I could NOT get past something like murder if I read that myself. If I did, wouldn't that say a lot about myself? Why would I need to feel so much better and important about my life that I would join something with hateful views. The need to feel special and loved transcends into sheer stupidity and ignorance. Why would I want to worship someone who was vile and hateful? I give christians as much sympathy as a kkk member. I know many probably don't know what they actually believe and just haven't given it much thought at all. Reading the bible and going to church is what made me become an atheist. Perhaps I just had shitty pastors who were not able to effectively brainwash me. Perhaps if I hadn't read it, I would be a theist. I know I sound harsh, but to me there is not much difference. I just think are people really that weak or scared, that they just have to hold onto it even if its disgusting? Apparently so.
If you don't like homos, fine. Imagine if I magically become christian. Suppose I think marriage is important. I think people have been way too loosy goosey with divorce. I want to pass laws that mandate that people who want a divorce, should have to go through many legal hurdels to get one, and even then, it would be hard to get one. I could say that one must have a really good reason to get a divorce. No more plain old dissolutions, or irreconcilable differences. They have to go to counseling. Intense counseling, for at least a year. I could say that, "Its not about god. Marriage needs to be taken seriously. This law can 'save' some unhappy marriages. What if all they needed was counseling, but with the way law is now, they just get divorced. Divorce disrupts the 'natural order of things.' I have proof that divorce isn't good, especially for children. I'm not forcing people to live together. You could always SAY that you are not married. The law just won't recognize most divorces. You may have to get your divorce in Massachusettes. They are more liberal there. You won't be punished for wanting a divorce, but you probably just won't get one. You won't be able to marry anyone else. The government will decide whether your divorce is worth it. This can turn some unhappily married people into happy! Sure it may make some miserable, but it can SAVE some too! I just want people to value marriage. Married couples with children will be better off. Children thrive better in two parent households, and divorce does disrupt children. We especially need to do this for children. Sure there are some great kids with divorced parents, BUT most kids want their parents to stay together. This can help some kids, and teach people to THINK AND CHOOSE more carefully before they CHOOSE to be married." Is there some merit and truth to this argument? Of course. Does that make it the governments business? Of course not. The christians would be saying the same things the gays are saying, "Stay out of our bedroom governmet! Its none of your business why I want to divorce! If I want to end my marriage, thats my business! Separation of church of state! I don't give a fuck what "facts" you have about divorce being harmful, or if you think I need counseling! MYOB!" Sound familiar? The christians who did support the bill, would be labeled crazy and stupid. Just like people who support gays aren't the majorty or are "too liberal." When things interfere with a "christian" lifestyle, they would be in uproars. Nobody would shrug and say, "I don't agree with it, but god would support it and they could always say they are not married. Whats the big deal? They still have the right to live separately and say they are divorced. They shouldn't have CHOSEN to get married. Oh well, not worth fighting for." They would fight it the same way the gays are now.
Its not my business if another man wants to stick his dick in another man's shithole. Its not my business if he wants to marry the guy who he has shithole sex with. How exactly is there lifestyle going to affect me? Marriage is certainly not going to stop or increase their shithole sex. Well, actually if it goes like most marriages it would probably decrease their shithole sex. They just want to have the same rights as straight couples. I think they deserve that, whether or not I feel it is 'right,' or 'natural.' Also, anal sex is not exclusive to homos as we all know, nor do ALL homos engage in anal sex. Whether they were born gay or 'chose it' doesn't really matter. I believe they were born, but I am not a homo so who knows. Lesbians should be able to marry too. Didn't mean to leave you guys out. I don't think its 'natural' to want a lick a vagina, because I sure don't, but is that my business? I am not gay, so of course I can say that.
When I stated that god was a jealous god, I didn't mean that you were jealous of homos. Sorry for the confusion, my thoughts sort of ran together. I just meant why worship a jealous god? Why worship someone who can't let go of a petty emotion? That is just further evidence that he doesn't exist to me.
More replies to come later, I gotta go to work!
hot4ablackchick
05-01-2010, 08:28 PM
[QUOTE=Hopper;1930563]
I know many heterosesxual men like anal with women, but they don't have to receive it. It's not so attractive for either heterosexual partner without condoms, which were not widely available and manufatcured in a convenient and effective form until last century, made possible by the invention of synthetic materials. Same goes for lubrication, which the anus does not produce of itself. The man doesn't want the woman's shit rubbed onto his dick - it's hygenically risky and smells bad - and the woman doesn't want her shit all over her boyfriends dick either. The anus is not accustommed to penetration and you know sex shops sell "butt plugs" which women have to wear in their asses just to get them loose enough to take it. Long term frequent anal penetration causes the anus to weaken and loosen so that it loses it's function: to keep the owners shit inside his rectum once it gets there. He has to shit right away. This is a problem experienced by homosexuals and porn actresses. The difference between homosexual anal and heterosexual anal is that it is the only way homosexuals can do it, so that is the way they do it every time, and therefore much more frequently.
Well if we are talking about whether homosexuality is natural, we can see that nature didn't plan for it very well - condoms, lubricant, pain and "anal leakage".
Again, say homosexuality is wrong - which for all you really know it could be - do you want to needlessly consign someone to this practice by insisting, without real reason, that it is the only way for them - the right way?
There may be some truth to this here. I don't like anal myself and it grosses me out. I don't do it with my hubby, even though he would love too. I am not disputing that there could be possible health risks. I am not saying I think its even 'normal.' Again, I don't know, but I THINK homos are born that way. Either way it goes, is it the governments business? No. So to me it is insane for the government not to recognize gay marriage. I displayed my reasoning above.
You've got it the wrong way around. Feminists denigrated that role for women because they viewed it as demeaning and dull and restrictive compared to the man's role. Christians, along with most other cultures around the world and throughout history, advocated that role for women. It seemed to make sense. Nor did the Bible, or any culture, view that role as demeaning or inferior. Some cultures viewed women as inferior, but I don't believe the Bible anywhere implies that. That's something feminists read into it based purely on the fact that they believe it is demeaning according to their own ideology.
The bible does. You've got a point that feminism may have spun so far out of control that a stay at home is viewed as less worthy than working moms! But the bible did not view women as equals. Women fought for equal rights and why do you think it was okay to beat/rape you wife 20 years ago? Yeah, maybe they went a teensy bit off the deep end, but my point is that even IF you are sexist, a "woman's job" should be viewed as just as valuable as a man. Surely raising children, preparing meals, cleaning and so forth are important. Why would the bible not recognize this, and treat women as equals, but with different roles?? Here's some biblical examples, I'll sum it up:
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 sums up that if a woman is raped in the city and doesn't cry loud enough, "the men of the city shall stone her to death." If someone was close enough to hear, then she should have been louder obviously.
Deu- 21:16. Sums up that wives and daughters get nothing at all if the husband dies. Everything goes to sons. Probably the reason that it is so important to bear a son, and why women seem to be shamed when they don't have one.
"If a women is to bear a seed, and bear a manchild, she shall be unclean 7 days. She shall then continue in the blood purifying three and thirty days." It goes on to say that she is "unclean" for twice the amount of time if bear a girl. (Leveticus 12:1, 5)
I'll have dig out my bible and find more quotes. There are plenty of stories that talk about women not speaking out in church, where men are 'punished' for 'listening' to their wives, only women are 'cursed' with being barren, women are referred to as property, when divorce is granted it always seems to be the man's decision, women can't decide to divorce, and so on. I'll have to find the story where a man offers up his two daughters for rape when an angry mob comes to his house. Until I can cite my sources I'll shut up for now. It becomes apparent that women aren't worth too much in the bible. I don't mind if women are referred to as the "homemakers" in the bible, and not allowed to fight in battle and so on. That makes sense. It doesn't make sense that the role of the homemaker is easily replaceable and not worth as much. The real value is God, man, woman, then animals. Men are the ruler over women like god is the ruler over men. It clearly states that in the bible. Even though women are the 'givers of life' so to speak, it is interesting that the woman was made from Adam's rib. Wives are to obey their husbands, they are not allowed to disagree. That doesn't sound like equal but different roles. A man as a grown woman's authority figure? If that isn't sexist..........Perhaps women are less valuable because you can just 'take' another wife in the bible, or have more than one anyway. Women could certainly not have more than one husband!
I said that some Christians don't believe that hell is eternal punishment. Some believe that unsaved people are punished briefly in some manner and then quickly extinguished from existence.
If a christian doesn't believe that hell is eternal, they have either not read the bible, are stupid, or it is because they know the idea of eternal punishment is cruel. Any sane person would have to change that because its obviously unfair. They KNOW in their hearts that sending a "good" person to hell, who never hurt anyone and helped others, simply for not believing (or being born into the wrong religion!) is unfair. They have to modify it so they can feel better about their beliefs. Its clear in the bible that its heaven or hell, eternal punishment or eternal bliss. No clause for getting out once in hell. They fall into the "I don't believe in that part of the bible," camp. Either its god's word or it ain't. The fact that they have to change shit to make it tolerable should tell them something.
Christians don't say that. They say that He does love people who don't love Him back. The whole idea of Christianity is that God doesn't set a high standard - the reason for salvation is that we are unable to be good enough by our own efforts.
Someone who loves you doesn't send you to hell for eternal punishment. Especially for not believing in a bunch of asinine sounding fairy tales that were written 2,000 years ago. I'm not buying the "He love you" crap! Someone who is god wouldn't judge you primarily on how much you worshiped, but on your actions. My kids don't need to tell me how much they love me for me to love them, nor will them telling me how much they love me make their wrongs ok. If they wreck my car, I'm not going to forgo grounding them if they tell me how awesome I am. It don't work that way. I'm gonna say to my kids, "Since you told me how much you loved me everyday Andy, I will buy you a new car on your birthday even though your grades sucked, you cussed me out last week, punched me in the face last year, and drank my last grape soda. You told me I was awesome and said thank you, plus you did apologize so you get a car." Now I turn to my daughter, "You had straight A's, wow! You have never hit me, you volunteer, you come home on time, you're so pleasant all the time, BUT I don't think I really remember you saying how awesome I am all the time, sooooo I'm not getting you shit. As a matter of fact, you told me you loved me yesterday, not 8 times a day like your brother." Now if you were to factor in that I was INVISIBLE, and they couldn't see or hear me, I just left a manual on how I would like them to behave, we would have a whole new ball game. The whole idea is idiotic. It so surpasses idiotic that I cannot express words for it.
You have some points there, but Christians don't just believe in their religion because they think it makes sense. It's not like it's something (in their minds) which they made up themselves. If they believed that it were, there would be no reason for them to believe it - it would just be a fairy story. It is a case of the world being the way it is and having to accept it. We all believe things about the world which we don't understand the reason for or don't like. What you are asking for is God to do what makes sense for you. He is not necessarily obliged to do that, and there may be reasons for why He would not be able to. i don't understand all the theology of that, but my point is that you are criticising Christianity on the assumption that they wrote it themselves (which is your belief), which would be a reason for them not to believe it at all. In other words, you are basing your argument on the assumption that you are right, which is an invalid way to argue.
My point is their beliefs are mean and cruel. To me they have no argument, since the "proof," is right in their bible which is what is the basis of their faith. Sure, I don't believe in god, and I can't prove god doesn't exist just like you can't prove leprechauns and unicorns don't exist. A christian can't prove I don't have a flying spaghetti monster in my garage either. I don't believe in christianity or any religion, because it sounds just as insane as me saying I have a flying spaghetti monster in my garage. Nobody can "argue" my spaghetti monster doesn't exist, without applying logic and common sense like I am doing with their beliefs. They believe in it, so the burden of "proof" rests on their shoulders. Just like the burden of proof would rest on me if I said there was a flying spaghetti monster.
I don't consider myself a Christian, so I don't have a personal vested interests in defending it. But I have learnt a lot about it and I do enjoy reading some Christian books on certain topics, or even just on the relition itself. I have discussed it with Christians I know - some of them intelligent. I defend Christianity only to correct unfair and/or fallacious criticisms of it. II don't defend it out of faith, I defend it from intellectual position. So I am not just closing out doubts. It's all about understanding. You should try harder, since it is what you want Christians to do for you.
Christians don't have to do anything except NOT try to pass laws supported or based on their beliefs. As well as never believe god is REALLY talking to them and telling them to do something to hurt someone. I respect that they can have their faith, but I respect my feelings to call their beliefs stupid, insane, and cruel. They don't have to understand anything, but I am not going to say only nice things because its their belief. They have every right to practice it, but that doesn't mean I can't think some of them are insane.
I've had the same questions that you have and probably most Christians have too. The difference between you and I is that i went to the trouble of looking for answers before making a comment. And I don't just mean asking the Christian who happenned to be nearest at the time - I mean looking. I may not agree with it all but I should still try to understand it properly before I do.
I am currently reading the bible and Koran myself. Its not just based on a couple christians. As I said, all my family members are christian. Most christians are nice people who truly believe the bible to be a good book. I find their belief to be utterly stupid and cruel. I suspect most don't really know much about their own religion because they have been so brainwashed that it is good and that you should believe in it. Some have not even given it much thought. I'm not pulling assumptions out of my ass, I am reading it for myself. I am using observations in my everyday life. I don't need to ask the nearest christian, to see that the belief is asinine. One would say the same the same thing if I said I had a spaghetti monster who told me the only way to be truly happy was through him. I had to praise his noodles everyday. Yeah I'm sure people would go, "Let me go research the flying spaghetti monster to see if one does exist before I say your view is insane." It would be even worse if I was putting the spaghetti monster "first" and giving 10% of my earnings to noodles our savior church. Sound insane? Yup. My right to believe it? Yup.
Kellydancer
05-03-2010, 12:33 PM
You've got it the wrong way around. Feminists denigrated that role for women because they viewed it as demeaning and dull and restrictive compared to the man's role. Christians, along with most other cultures around the world and throughout history, advocated that role for women. It seemed to make sense. Nor did the Bible, or any culture, view that role as demeaning or inferior. Some cultures viewed women as inferior, but I don't believe the Bible anywhere implies that. That's something feminists read into it based purely on the fact that they believe it is demeaning according to their own ideology.
Wow, not only are you a homophobe you hate women too! Then if you hate women why are you on a forum devoted mostly to women? So I guess women are only good for sex and having babies?
Yes in many respects being a housewife is demeaning. I am not talking women who decide to stay at home, I'm talking women who were forced to stay at home. Until the women's liberation of the 1960's most women didn't have a choice. They either became "proper" women and stayed at home or had a job where they were likely paid less than men doing the same thing. Many of the women who became housewives did not like it, and yes many of their husbands were abusive either physical or emotionally. If they had a job not only did they face sexual discrimination the probably faced harassment as well and nothing could be done about it. They were also usually forced into "womens" jobs. I have several newspapers from 1963, and in the back they listed "womens jobs" which were support jobs, models, etc, while "mens jobs" were management. I don't want to go back to a time like that. I like the fact that I can have a great job AND a family. I intend to be both in upper management and a wife and mother and see no reason that can't happen. I don't agree with all the womens movement created (I am opposed to single parenthood and lifelong welfare) but would hate not to have choices.
You are kidding yourself if you think the Christian churches think of being a housewife as being an admirable job. These churches don't think of women as anything but babymakers and servants to their husbands. I know, I had several guy friends involved in these churches.
zenrain83
05-07-2010, 07:09 PM
I think religion is a personal issue, everyone must find it for themselves. Personally i am a christian, believe in jesus, etc. I also believe that "Faith is a journey, NOT a guilt trip"
Kylea2
05-07-2010, 07:30 PM
^^^ Agreed!
BTW, I came across this little beauty the other day:
“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” (I Timothy 2:9-10) - New International Version
In some other versions the word "modest" is translated as "expensive"
This makes you ask yourself though, how many people living by the bible abide by everything in it? How many women get married in a church with a strand of pearls around their neck or a gold ring? LOTS!
We all have our sins, regardless of our faith. Generally speaking, we know what is right and what is wrong. Those brides wearing the pearls/gold/etc., do you think the pastor is going to point it out? No... because he isn't there to pass judgment on you. He's there to help if you want to confess your sins and guide you in the right direction, but ultimately he's not there to judge.
I'll tell you what I have a HUGE issue with. I've worked in some super religious day job environments, even while I was dancing, I'm talking the type that begin and end each meeting with a prayer and the entire work is religion based. I had three boss's then - all three of whom were ministers. NONE of these people were ever mean or said anything against non-Christians or people who ran their lives differently.
Generally the ones which I see who are judgmental are the ones who are non/ill or under-educated in their own religion and in general education.
Violet_Dawn
05-08-2010, 10:24 AM
That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls pissed off so any people, they clearly contained the original shit, but differed so much from what had been rammed down everyone's throats for several thousand years, it was really fucking embarrassing.
I think there is something to the Pagan view of things. Anyone out and about on a Midsummer's Eve with a full moon in the wilderness somewhere, or maybe out on the ocean will know that. Some nights the magic jumps at you through the air. And the whole of Life on this Earth is all a gigantic symbiotic system, sometimes you can feel it..
i love this...i grew up in a VERY strict Church of Christ household, and it never rang true for me. it took me a long time to figure out the difference between religion and spirituality, and I find that when i am out in nature, or really into a piece of music i am playing, or dancing my heart out (not sc dancing lol) is when i feel closest to the Holy Spirit; to me, this is neither male nor female, but warm, golden feeling that fills up your being with light and warmth.
Kylea2
05-08-2010, 10:39 AM
I missed Djoser's quote about the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, I have a short story about that to share.
I had a roommate who was an older Catholic priest on sabbatical. He was super smart! Also the type to comb through all the different versions of the bible to compare passages. He had this special bible that had multiple versions in it too. He was really high up in the church and I'd known him for years, before I started dancing. Anyhow, at one point he had traveled to the Vatican and saw the secret library and I believe he told me some of the scrolls as well. He said after seeing all of this that he lost complete faith in the Christian religion.
Now, I never asked him exactly what he read that made him lose faith, although I probably could still.
I did ask him though why he didn't leave the church if he no longer believed in Christianity. He was obviously very miserable. His answer was that he'd invested his entire life into the church, he never had a job outside the church, and he was 5 years away from retirement. He simply didn't want to lose his retirement.
At any rate, I felt like it was sort of sad to see. I can't even imagine losing faith in what I believed in after investing my entire life into it.
Generally speaking though, I believe most religions try to guide people in the right direction.
Greel
05-08-2010, 02:19 PM
There is a simple test to determine if a religion is offering an accurate concept of its god.
No true god wants a human to defend its honor.
No true god will test a human on anything.
A true god (being the source of all, no exceptions. Yeah, you heard right, satan) can be threatened by anything.
A true god already knows all, no exceptions.
Hopper
05-09-2010, 03:04 AM
Wow, not only are you a homophobe you hate women too! Then if you hate women why are you on a forum devoted mostly to women? So I guess women are only good for sex and having babies?
All I said was that feminists who demeaned the role of housewife. How does that indicate that I hate women or that I think they are only good for sex and having babies? Many women agree with what I actually did say, so the fact that this is a women's forum is irrelevant. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it. I don't know why you do.
The problem here is that feminism has become so entrenched in manstream society that it is not even thought of as feminism anymore. Nodody questions it.
"Homophobe" is the political homosexual movement's counterpart to the feminist term "sexist". It is a programmed catch-word used for smearing anyone who doesn't agree with them or their agenda without acknowledging the actual reasons for which that person disagrees with them. I didn't say a word of hate or prejudice against homosexuals and
you still called me a homophobe.
Yes in many respects being a housewife is demeaning. I am not talking women who decide to stay at home, I'm talking women who were forced to stay at home. Until the women's liberation of the 1960's most women didn't have a choice.
Then what are you disagreeing with me about? I didn't say that women should be forced to be housewives. All I said was that feminists demeaned the role of housewife.
The "choice" that most women have now is between working at home and working in a factory or an office, just like most men. Do you really think that before "liberation" most women needed to be "forced" to stay home rather than do the same types of jobs their husbands were doing?
Women back then, like many today, considered housewife to be an important, fulfilling, necessary and full-time role - not something they could fit around a demanding professional career.
In today's circumstances many women are forced to work even if they do wish to be housewives. The increase in the size of the workforce from many women entering it has bidded down wages and the increase in household incomes from both spouses working has bidded up prices. Both of these have made it necessary for women to work. Ironically, "liberation" has merely forced women out of the home.
Which is what feminists wanted. Feminists weren't trying to merely give women a free choice between housewife and jobs, they actually wanted to force all women out of the home and into the workforce. that was their ideological agendal They believed all women were imprisonned in the role of housewife and should all be set free from it - whether they wished to be or not, since many of them, being conditionned by society, would not know they were imprisionned.
They either became "proper" women and stayed at home or had a job where they were likely paid less than men doing the same thing.
What is your idea of a "proper" woman?
You don't need to explain it all with a woman-hating partriarchal conspiracy. There were reasons why employers paid women less which had nothing to do with a belief that women are inferior. They stemmed from the fact that back then most married women did stay at home - and don't try to tell me again that they were "forced" not to take menial factory jobs instead.
The married male labour market would demand higher wages because they had families to provide for and were the sole income earner. A working wife would likely not be the sole earner. Back then most single women only intended to stay in the workforce to support themselves until they got married. The employer would therefore likely pay more for a man in order to hold on to him as a longer term employee. Employers had to offer whatever wage necessary to compete with other employers for good and stable employees according to the financial needs and demands of those employees. Women back then actually liked "making babies", so they could not be relied on to stay at their jobs for long, uninterrupted periods of time. Single or married women would not be likely to apply for managerial positions, since they were obtained after many years of employment and required intensive job commitment.
Even feminists are paying lip-service to the dignity of the role of housewife today and many women are choosing it. Perhaps this is because many women in the early decades of feminism runied their lives by pursuing careers and neglecting motherhood and even marriage merely because fervent feminist propaganda influenced them tothink they should, and not because they actually wanted to. One reason feminists may be backing off is that they fear a backlash from these women if they continue a hard line.
Many of the women who became housewives did not like it, and yes many of their husbands were abusive either physical or emotionally. If they had a job not only did they face sexual discrimination the probably faced harassment as well and nothing could be done about it.
Many husbands who became wage workers probably didn't like it either but what are they and their wives supposed to do about it - swap jobs? I don't get why you are bringing abusive husbands into this, since that didn't apply to most housewives and it still happens today, and more frequently, after 45 years of "liberation".
Something could be done about discrimination and harassment: the woman could quit and find a decent employer instead. Why would she wish to work for an unfair or abusive employer? If she is a good worker - i.e. if she is actually worth the money - then a sensible employer would try to hold on to her by treating her decently. We choose our employers, don't we?
Today most women I know, single or married, working or housewives, love to do the things housewives have always done. They love to decorate their homes, they love clothes, some like dressmaking and design, they love to cook, they love children, they like to keep their homes clean. Why, then, is house-wife such a bad job for women?
They were also usually forced into "womens" jobs. I have several newspapers from 1963, and in the back they listed "womens jobs" which were support jobs, models, etc, while "mens jobs" were management. I don't want to go back to a time like that. I like the fact that I can have a great job AND a family. I intend to be both in upper management and a wife and mother and see no reason that can't happen. I don't agree with all the womens movement created (I am opposed to single parenthood and lifelong welfare) but would hate not to have choices.
Be in upper management and have a family? You know a job like that isn't a 40-hour, five day job, right?
You are kidding yourself if you think the Christian churches think of being a housewife as being an admirable job. These churches don't think of women as anything but babymakers and servants to their husbands. I know, I had several guy friends involved in these churches.
The correct term is mothers. Calling mothers "baby-makers" demeans what is a valuable and fulfulling role - in fact, a wonderful, biological and spiritual institution. Being a mother is a career, not something you do for nine months at a time with breaks in-between. If you think managing somebody else's company sales floor is more fulfilling, then it is because of your lack of imagination and sensitivity. It is no more demeaning for a church to believe mother to be the best role for most women is no more demeaning than you believing they should all be career women. You are the one demeaning housewives. The only reason you think churches are demeaning women is that you think being a housewive is demeaning to begin with.
Housewife and full-time mother is a lot less demeaning that the other types of jobs most women - and most men - are able to get today. Not everyone can be manager - not all women and not all men. We need the "little people" who get paid less and actually do things. That includes the poor drudge who you will have to pay to look after your royal-assed kids and home while you compete in the business sector 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Housewife and mother is a more important, creative and personally fulfilling position than manager of a company.
Maybe those housewives were smarter than you think, back when they weren't made to yield under continual public attack from feminists.
sxcbbw
05-09-2010, 03:13 AM
^I think you're confused about actual feminism, which respects the right of a woman to be whatever she wants to be - including housewives.
Hopper
05-09-2010, 03:14 AM
^You read all that quickly. I lived with a feminist activist for a year and she didn't leave me at all confused about any of it.
sxcbbw
05-09-2010, 03:17 AM
^You lived with someone using the word feminism as a mask for pro-female sexism. And I read extensively, so yeah, I'm pretty quick.
Feminists don't tell other men or women what roles they can or cannot take on, be it homemaker, pornstar, mechanic or florist.
Hopper
05-09-2010, 06:58 AM
^You lived with someone using the word feminism as a mask for pro-female sexism. And I read extensively, so yeah, I'm pretty quick.
Then the girl I shared a house with, all the women in her group at her uni, all the women in the "women's groups" at other unis, who they continually organised with, all of the major national feminist organisations, all the authors who these feminists wholly took their ideas from, all the way back to Betty Friedan, were using feminism as a mask. Wow, the whole feminist movement, from the top down, using feminism as a mask for something else.
Wouldn't it be more logical to say that that is what feminism is and that you are the one who is mistaken about it? I think what you are really saying is that that is not what you would like feminism to be or not what you have previously been told feminism is. But what you like and what it is are two different things.
And yes I'd agree it was pro-female sexism; though I don't believe truly representing the real interests or actual beliefs and wishes of most women. Wow, that would make me an anti-sexist.
Feminists don't tell other men or women what roles they can or cannot take on, be it homemaker, pornstar, mechanic or florist.
Maybe they can't tell us what to be but they are very vocal about what they think we should be. In the past decade or two though they have backed off on denouncing the role of housewife, one reason perhaps being that thanks to them housewives are safely a minority and economic and political conditions hinder women from becoming housewives.
sxcbbw
05-09-2010, 07:04 AM
Then the girl I shared a house with, all the women in her group at her uni, all the women in the "women's groups" at other unis, who they continually organised with, all of the major national feminist organisations, all the authors who these feminists wholly took their ideas from, all the way back to Betty Friedan, were using feminism as a mask. Wow, the whole feminist movement, from the top down, using feminism as a mask for something else.
Wouldn't it be more logical to say that that is what feminism is and that you are the one who is mistaken about it? I think what you are really saying is that that is not what you would like feminism to be or not what you have previously been told feminism is. But what you like and what it is are two different things.
And yes I'd agree it was pro-female sexism; though I don't believe truly representing the real interests or actual beliefs and wishes of most women. Wow, that would make me an anti-sexist.
Maybe they can't tell us what to be but they are very vocal about what they think we should be. In the past decade or two though they have backed off on denouncing the role of housewife, one reason perhaps being that thanks to them housewives are safely a minority and economic and political conditions hinder women from becoming housewives.
I think you'll find there are masses of third wave sex-positive feminists out there, we're just the quiet ones. We don't feel the need to kick and scream in most cases, or over nothing. We are pretty embarrassed by the "other" feminists. Just like they're embarrassed by us and think that by shaving our legs we're going to lose ourselves the vote.
Kylea2
05-09-2010, 04:30 PM
^You lived with someone using the word feminism as a mask for pro-female sexism.
Score! +1
This modern version of "feminism" bugs the hell out of me! I don't know how these women forget that originally feminist fought for the equal right to choose for themselves... not to be forced into one idea of what is "right".
Kellydancer
05-11-2010, 12:40 PM
All I said was that feminists who demeaned the role of housewife. How does that indicate that I hate women or that I think they are only good for sex and having babies? Many women agree with what I actually did say, so the fact that this is a women's forum is irrelevant. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it. I don't know why you do.
The problem here is that feminism has become so entrenched in manstream society that it is not even thought of as feminism anymore. Nodody questions it.
"Homophobe" is the political homosexual movement's counterpart to the feminist term "sexist". It is a programmed catch-word used for smearing anyone who doesn't agree with them or their agenda without acknowledging the actual reasons for which that person disagrees with them. I didn't say a word of hate or prejudice against homosexuals and
you still called me a homophobe.
Then what are you disagreeing with me about? I didn't say that women should be forced to be housewives. All I said was that feminists demeaned the role of housewife.
The "choice" that most women have now is between working at home and working in a factory or an office, just like most men. Do you really think that before "liberation" most women needed to be "forced" to stay home rather than do the same types of jobs their husbands were doing?
Women back then, like many today, considered housewife to be an important, fulfilling, necessary and full-time role - not something they could fit around a demanding professional career.
In today's circumstances many women are forced to work even if they do wish to be housewives. The increase in the size of the workforce from many women entering it has bidded down wages and the increase in household incomes from both spouses working has bidded up prices. Both of these have made it necessary for women to work. Ironically, "liberation" has merely forced women out of the home.
Which is what feminists wanted. Feminists weren't trying to merely give women a free choice between housewife and jobs, they actually wanted to force all women out of the home and into the workforce. that was their ideological agendal They believed all women were imprisonned in the role of housewife and should all be set free from it - whether they wished to be or not, since many of them, being conditionned by society, would not know they were imprisionned.
What is your idea of a "proper" woman?
You don't need to explain it all with a woman-hating partriarchal conspiracy. There were reasons why employers paid women less which had nothing to do with a belief that women are inferior. They stemmed from the fact that back then most married women did stay at home - and don't try to tell me again that they were "forced" not to take menial factory jobs instead.
The married male labour market would demand higher wages because they had families to provide for and were the sole income earner. A working wife would likely not be the sole earner. Back then most single women only intended to stay in the workforce to support themselves until they got married. The employer would therefore likely pay more for a man in order to hold on to him as a longer term employee. Employers had to offer whatever wage necessary to compete with other employers for good and stable employees according to the financial needs and demands of those employees. Women back then actually liked "making babies", so they could not be relied on to stay at their jobs for long, uninterrupted periods of time. Single or married women would not be likely to apply for managerial positions, since they were obtained after many years of employment and required intensive job commitment.
Even feminists are paying lip-service to the dignity of the role of housewife today and many women are choosing it. Perhaps this is because many women in the early decades of feminism runied their lives by pursuing careers and neglecting motherhood and even marriage merely because fervent feminist propaganda influenced them tothink they should, and not because they actually wanted to. One reason feminists may be backing off is that they fear a backlash from these women if they continue a hard line.
Many husbands who became wage workers probably didn't like it either but what are they and their wives supposed to do about it - swap jobs? I don't get why you are bringing abusive husbands into this, since that didn't apply to most housewives and it still happens today, and more frequently, after 45 years of "liberation".
Something could be done about discrimination and harassment: the woman could quit and find a decent employer instead. Why would she wish to work for an unfair or abusive employer? If she is a good worker - i.e. if she is actually worth the money - then a sensible employer would try to hold on to her by treating her decently. We choose our employers, don't we?
Today most women I know, single or married, working or housewives, love to do the things housewives have always done. They love to decorate their homes, they love clothes, some like dressmaking and design, they love to cook, they love children, they like to keep their homes clean. Why, then, is house-wife such a bad job for women?
Be in upper management and have a family? You know a job like that isn't a 40-hour, five day job, right?
The correct term is mothers. Calling mothers "baby-makers" demeans what is a valuable and fulfulling role - in fact, a wonderful, biological and spiritual institution. Being a mother is a career, not something you do for nine months at a time with breaks in-between. If you think managing somebody else's company sales floor is more fulfilling, then it is because of your lack of imagination and sensitivity. It is no more demeaning for a church to believe mother to be the best role for most women is no more demeaning than you believing they should all be career women. You are the one demeaning housewives. The only reason you think churches are demeaning women is that you think being a housewive is demeaning to begin with.
Housewife and full-time mother is a lot less demeaning that the other types of jobs most women - and most men - are able to get today. Not everyone can be manager - not all women and not all men. We need the "little people" who get paid less and actually do things. That includes the poor drudge who you will have to pay to look after your royal-assed kids and home while you compete in the business sector 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Housewife and mother is a more important, creative and personally fulfilling position than manager of a company.
Maybe those housewives were smarter than you think, back when they weren't made to yield under continual public attack from feminists.
Wow, you seem to know more about women than women ::). Read a history book and you will see that many women wanted to work, but couldn't. And yes, many housewives were abused but there was no such thing as women's shelters. Sure many women (and yes, men) want to stay at home (or work), but forcing it on them isn't cool of any sort. So what if a woman wants a career? My "proper" woman is someone who's doing what she wants, not being forced to stay at home or work. Have you even talked to a housewife from the 50's? I have and what she told me was sad. She wanted a career and went to college to be a teacher. However her parents thought she was going to school to meet a man. So she got married to a man who cheated on her and abused her and nothing she could do (this was the 50's). She later left him and got a job. Yes, there were housewives who enjoyed it, but don't kid yourself and say they all loved it when they didn't.
Do I think housewives are demeaned? Only when they are forced into the roles, like some churches do. Then yes, it's demeaning. It's very demeaning when a church tells women that if they have a career outside of her house she's not a Christian. I've seen this and yes this is demeaning. LET WOMEN CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT.
Then if women were paid less because "they'd leave the workforce" explain why women who never married were still paid less? The fact is your theory then doesn't fit, now does it? And there were many women who were the sole wage earner, so once again the theory doesn't fit.
Btw, I know many mothers who have careers and children and they are just involved as the stay at home mothers. The main difference is these women also have great husbands who are more involved with the kids than the husband's of the stay at home moms. Working has little to do with how great of a mother someone is.
Oh and I was calling you a homophobe for your other comments about gay people.
And before you call me a radical feminist, let me explain I am far from that. I do not support single parenthood, welfare, or even divorce in most cases. I do not like the radical men hating feminists. While I am pro choice, I do not support abortion as a form of birth control and would only have one if the fetus was severely disabled, a product of rape, or my health. I do not support women who use "feminism" as a way to discriminate against men.
Hopper
07-10-2010, 10:20 PM
Wow, you seem to know more about women than women .
No but I have been sharing a planet with them my whole life.
Read a history book and you will see that many women wanted to work, but couldn't.
All of the leaders of the feminist movement already had jobs, and very good ones. Did you know that Betty Friedan wasn't even a housewife? She claimed in her first book "The Feminine Mystique" that that's all she was, but she wasn't one at all. She was a writer who attended Smith college and from that time was a writer for left-wing journals up until when she wrote "The Feminine Mystique". She and her husband owned a mansion on the Hudson which was tended by a maid.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=3698
And yes, many housewives were abused but there was no such thing as women's shelters.
There were many charities - mostly church organisations, of all things - which provided welfare for the needy, including battered wives.
Sure many women (and yes, men) want to stay at home (or work), but forcing it on them isn't cool of any sort.So what if a woman wants a career? My "proper" woman is someone who's doing what she wants, not being forced to stay at home or work.
I didn't say women should be forced to be housewives. However, most women apparently do want to be housewives - at least, they want children and wish to care for those children.What percentage of women can have professional careers?
If a woman has a special talent and genuine calling in a professional field, as many do, then of course she should not be held back. I don't know of any laws against women doing so. However, if a woman is pursuing a career merely because she has read in Ms that she needs to be "fulfilled" and that caring for her family and her home is a pointless drudge, then she is not genuinely called to a profession, she has just been programmed. Many career women have reached their mid-30s or after childless and realised that they have been merely pursuing the lifestyle they were told to pursue - doing what was expected of them - and that they had missed out on being mothers, which is what by this time they have decided (or realised) they would like to be.
Leading feminist author Simone de Beauvoir said this: "No woman should be authorised to stay at home to raise her children.Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." (Saturday Review, June 1974, p. 18 ). So feminists are not trying to free women from something they don't like, they want to force them all not to do something they do like. It's not about what women like, it's about the social order feminists want to impose.
Have you even talked to a housewife from the 50's? I have and what she told me was sad. She wanted a career and went to college to be a teacher. However her parents thought she was going to school to meet a man. So she got married to a man who cheated on her and abused her and nothing she could do (this was the 50's). She later left him and got a job. Yes, there were housewives who enjoyed it, but don't kid yourself and say they all loved it when they didn't.
I didn't say they all loved it. You met a woman who made a mistake in life by listenning to parents who did not understand or were too rigid in their expectations. It's an imperfect universe. We can only discuss what should happen in it, not what always does happen. Yes I have met many women who were housewives in the 50s and I don't recall any which stood out as being at all unhappy with their lives.
Do I think housewives are demeaned? Only when they are forced into the roles, like some churches do. Then yes, it's demeaning. It's very demeaning when a church tells women that if they have a career outside of her house she's not a Christian. I've seen this and yes this is demeaning. LET WOMEN CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT.
You have been around some whacky churches. I don't know of any like that. But then I don't go out of my way to associate with nuts.
Then if women were paid less because "they'd leave the workforce" explain why women who never married were still paid less? The fact is your theory then doesn't fit, now does it? And there were many women who were the sole wage earner, so once again the theory doesn't fit.
Some women were sole wage earners, if their husbands were unable or unwilling to work or abandonned them or died - or she never married the father of her children. I don't know what every employer paid every woman. All I was pointing out was that because marriage was the norm for most men and women then, employment and wages reflected this fact. An employer will try harder to hang on to a long term employee than a short-term one and the wages employees demand will depend on their needs - in this case, supporting a family. That's not patriarchal oppression, it's economics.
Btw, I know many mothers who have careers and children and they are just involved as the stay at home mothers. The main difference is these women also have great husbands who are more involved with the kids than the husband's of the stay at home moms. Working has little to do with how great of a mother someone is.
If a woman has a calling to some profession and also wants a family (like most other women), then there is no reason why she and her husband cannot find a way. I was talking about women who have merely been influenced by feminists to beleive that they must have a career and that being a housewife and mother is boring, miserable and pointless.
Oh and I was calling you a homophobe for your other comments about gay people.
I don't know which comments you mean because none of my comments here have attacked homosexuals. Perhaps my comments in the HIV thread I started and which ran off-topic. But my comments there about homosexuals were not hateful either. Those comments were about AIDS amongst homosexuals and it's connection to their lifestyle, not about homosexuality itself.
I don't believe that homosexuality is "natural" or healthy, but that does not mean that I have some irrational, unreasonable, pathological fear or aversion to homosexuals. The term "homophobic" assumes that disagreeing with homosexuality at all is irrational or unhealthy, i.e. that there is not reason at all to disagree with it. I have yet to hear a reasonned rebuttal of the reasons I give for why I disagree with it. However, I have discussed the issue with active homosexuals I have met or known and they at least thought I was reasonable, whether or not they agreed with my views. If homosexuals can appreciate my views then perhaps you need to try a bit harder.
And before you call me a radical feminist, let me explain I am far from that. I do not support single parenthood, welfare, or even divorce in most cases. I do not like the radical men hating feminists. While I am pro choice, I do not support abortion as a form of birth control and would only have one if the fetus was severely disabled, a product of rape, or my health. I do not support women who use "feminism" as a way to discriminate against men.
Some of that is good to hear. However, you are wrong to distinguish between "radical" and "mainstream" feminism. They are both parts of the same movement and not even different factions of it. You apparently consider yourself a "mainstream" feminist. And "radical" feminism is not essentially about hating men. Vilification of men and conflict between the sexes is merely part of their strategy of manipulation of society for the purpose of achieving their political goals.
Feminism is a politically radical movement. Therefore "radical" feminism is the core of the feminist movement, not on the fringe. So-called mainstream feminism is just the friendly, popular face of feminism. Feminists know that not everyone will accept their radical views, so they present them to the mainstream in non-radical terms. In this way they get people to go along with the feminist agenda without understanding the real logic behind it. The average person doesn't think it through or investigate it, nor see any reason to.
Feminists say they merely want ethical treatment of women, which is what most decent people also want. But feminism is a movement with a radical social agenda and feminists believe that there cannot be justice for women until that agenda is fulfilled. They have a radically different ideology with a different set of ethics to the mainstream. So to get mass support, they tell everyone they just want ethical treatment of women - without telling them what they mean by ethical. The result is that today, after decades of media conditionning, most people think that feminism and ethical treatment of women is the same thing. Hence people often speak similarly to the way you did in the above post: "I'm not a radical feminist,, I'm not a man-hater - I just want ethical treatment of women".
So what we call "mainstream" feminism isn't the mainstream of the feminist movement, it is just the bogus, mainstream image of feminism. These are two very different uses of the word "mainstream" which have been confused together.
Feminism goes far beyond advocating acceptance of women in the work place. Feminists believe that the social system - namely free-enterprise capitalism - is inherently oppressive of women. It was not necessary to start an all-out sex-war just to get society to have a sensible attitude toward women's choice of work. That is something which would have sorted itself out as society progressed, in much less time than it would with the sexual division created by feminism.
Feminism is socialist. It originated as a CPUSA popular front movement in the 1940s and was promoted by socialist writers and authors for a couple of generations before Friedan popularised it in her book "The Feminine Mystique". Feminist historian Kate Wiegand has written a book about it Here is a positive review of her book at a socialist website.
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-52/
Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvior were both active Marxists all their lives. Betty was so communist that she continued to support Stalin after organised communism in the west publicly withdrew their support over his pact with Hitler early in WW2. We would have to assume that their feminist ideas fit neatly with their Marxist beliefs. Both these women are considered "mainstream" feminists. Betty's book is the one which popularised "second wave" feminism. It follows that "mainstream" feminism is really radical.
The reason you think "mainstream" feminism is reasonable (and that it's opponents are unreasonable) is that it has become accepted by the mainstream. This causes you to assume that it is a result of the normal, shared progress of ideas and values. But it is really the result of the mainstream media having conditionned us for decades with feminist messages. That is, it is because feminists share goals with the elite, who run our media.
It is obvious that the elite support socialism, since our system of government has become so socialist. The popular notion is that socialism and the wealthy elite are enemies. In reality, they share the same goals. All the talk about creating a just system and fighting for the "workers" is merely there to hide this fact and to gain mass support for the agenda.
The leading radical feminist screecher in Australia in the 60s and 70s, Anne Summers, was a decade later appointed by the Prime Minister as head of the national government's Office of the Status of Women, which was created to implement feminist goals. Anne was about the same time made editor of a her own mass-circulation feminist magazine, Ms. Magazine, by Fairfax. These are very funny ways for a patriarchal establishment to protect it's interests if those interests depend on women staying at home and making babies.
jennsweet
07-11-2010, 08:09 PM
Fuck religion.
charlie61
07-11-2010, 08:14 PM
Pragmatic atheist / apathetic agnostic here. I'm glad that I wasn't brought up brainwashed, yet sometimes I envy peoples' blind faith. For like a millisecond. Then I go back to being smug.
jennsweet
07-11-2010, 08:18 PM
^same, although i'd add that i hate when ppl PUSH their religion on me. i don't wanna hear about your brainwashing and stop washing mine!