The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Gnostic Bishop]

The Bible. Myth or Reality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo

As a Gnostic Christian I see literal reading of the Bible as a gross distortion of what the Bible was written to do. That being to inspire people to seek God and his best laws and rules. Literal readers just become idol worshipers and do not seek God the way Jesus instructed.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Literal reading has created and idol worshiping closed minded people who have settled for an immoral God whom we name as a demiurge as his morals, if literally true, are more satanic than God like.

Literal reading has also created a climate where scholars and experts, historians and archeologist, and all the academically well accepted information they uncover, --- is being ignored or called lies by those who are not academics of the various disciplines.

What is the point of producing good academics if literalists are going to ignore facts because of blind faith?

Remember please that if not a book of myths, then real talking serpents are somehow supposed to still exist and believers have to believe in a lot of supernatural phenomenon without any evidence whatsoever. Literalist Christians, it seems to me, have suspended rational judgement that has created in Christians a new Dark Age of thought and an Inquisitional attitude towards all other thinking. They no longer seek God and are true idol worshipers instead of the God seekers that Jesus wanted to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBxFXQy7-M


Do you think the Bible to be a book of myths or a book trying to show reality and history?

Regards
DL

[YesNo]

Literal reading has also created a climate where scholars and experts, historians and archeologist, and all the academically well accepted information they uncover, --- is being ignored or called lies by those who are not academics of the various disciplines.

What is the point of producing good academics if literalists are going to ignore facts because of blind faith?

People are free to accept what they want and ignore the rest. It doesn't matter who is trying to shove it down their throats. If academics cannot convince others with the arguments they currently use, they need to come up with better arguments.

Portraying opponents as "literalists" who are "idol worshipers" or as people who "no longer seek God" is not a rational argument.

[Gnostic Bishop]

People are free to accept what they want and ignore the rest. It doesn't matter who is trying to shove it down their throats. If academics cannot convince others with the arguments they currently use, they need to come up with better arguments.

Portraying opponents as "literalists" who are "idol worshipers" or as people who "no longer seek God" is not a rational argument.

It is a truth.

As to your --- "People are free to accept what they want and ignore the rest".

This is also true but if you ignore or do not try to correct poor or harmful thinking, then you have no moral social conscience and are not worth listening to.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2zhlDbMfDg

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI

Jesus Camp 1of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Death to Gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyuKLyGUHNE

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

[YesNo]

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.


How do you view the Khmer Rouge and what happened in Cambodia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKy9Ab7twUA

[Clopin]

Not to mention Stalin and Mao.

[cacian]

not to be rude or anything but with regard to harmful thinking and moral judgement why does everything has to come from a book?
why cant an individual use their common sense to know what is decent and what is not? about time they practiced their own moral thinking/
a bible is the classic moral high ground to telling people how to conduct their lives
it is the same as law and corporal punishment
they are both the same their intent is to control the individual asset into reducing it to nothing.
a book of law is the same as the bible they both recourse to punishment instead of embellishment.
i don't see the difference between going to court and swearing by the bible and going to church and praying to a god
they are both inclusive and so it makes one think.
what would a judge do with the bible swearing bit?

[YesNo]

I've only read small parts of the Bible, but I would expect there to be sections that were just set of laws.

There are also stories in it, some of the best I hear are in Genesis and originally written by a J (Yahwist) source. I don't take these to be literally true any more than I take the stories in the Bhagavatam to be literally true, but that doesn't mean they aren't true at another level.

[Gnostic Bishop]

How do you view the Khmer Rouge and what happened in Cambodia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKy9Ab7twUA

As ancient history that hopefully will not be repeated.

Why the deflection?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

not to be rude or anything but with regard to harmful thinking and moral judgement why does everything has to come from a book?
why cant an individual use their common sense to know what is decent and what is not? about time they practiced their own moral thinking/
a bible is the classic moral high ground to telling people how to conduct their lives
it is the same as law and corporal punishment
they are both the same their intent is to control the individual asset into reducing it to nothing.
a book of law is the same as the bible they both recourse to punishment instead of embellishment.
i don't see the difference between going to court and swearing by the bible and going to church and praying to a god
they are both inclusive and so it makes one think.
what would a judge do with the bible swearing bit?

Most will accept a personal oath these days.

Thinking for ones self is good and many do so.

Sheeple though are afraid to go against the status quo or their peers. It is surprisingly hard to step up in your own community and tell the majority that they are full of it.

Sheeple do not make good goats, that is why they are sheeple.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I've only read small parts of the Bible, but I would expect there to be sections that were just set of laws.

There are also stories in it, some of the best I hear are in Genesis and originally written by a J (Yahwist) source. I don't take these to be literally true any more than I take the stories in the Bhagavatam to be literally true, but that doesn't mean they aren't true at another level.

Sure there is law in the bible.

But should you look for good law from a genocidal son murderer?

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

If the bible has any good laws then you would thing our better secular system of law would have incorporated some of it.

At the same time, the bible is a great place to find good morals but you have to read it the was we Gnostic Christians do to not call evil good the way Christians do.

Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.

“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.

I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from as many POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.

The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.

You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and revers a lot of the Christian morals.

Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.

I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, is quite immoral for thinking that torturing King David’s baby for 6 days before finally killing it is quite evil while Christians think that a good form of justice.

Regards
DL

[YesNo]

As ancient history that hopefully will not be repeated.

Why the deflection?

Regards
DL


It is not ancient history. It happened less than 50 years ago. What Constantine did through the early Christians to the various gnostic groups over 1500 years ago is ancient history.

The reason I am bringing this up is to show that making moral arguments against Christians can be turned easily back on their accusers after the events of the last two centuries.

You cited a video in one of your other threads:


My apotheosis was not to the bible God or any other creator God. They are all myths.

What I found was more down to earth.

https://vimeo.com/26318064

Nothing I believe requires the suspension of my critical thinking.

If you cannot believe what this science is showing and which I believe to be real, then nothing I can say will likely touch your curiosity.


Much of the content of that video about the sixth sense I agree with. However, I don't see how that fits into only the version of Chrisitianity you are promoting. It would seem to support panentheistic views in general which include traditional Christianity.

I suspect the personal "apotheosis" idea that you are promoting is a misunderstanding of the "cosmic consciousness" idea presented in that movie.

[Melanie]

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
I'd like to see proof of this statement from scripture….one scripture at a time please. I'll be happy to prove it wrong every time. God is and always has been a God of love. I've done this before here in other threads (search them if you'd like) and I don't mind doing it again. Some readers of the Bible, read only what they want to see. But they take it out of context…you can't do that if you want the truth. I have an appointment soon so I won't be able to send posts rapid-fire, but in time, today, I will answer every scripture…one at a time as it's a lot to cover.

YesNo...Genesis has a lot of genealogy in it which somewhat bogs down the delightful accounts of origin and eternal truths, resolving enigmas of mysteries and puzzling situations in the light of God's will. You just have to skim over all the genealogy. From creation to the introduction of sin to the tragic accumulation of man's wickedness that almost brought annihilation to the human society which I find depressing to read for long because of the fruits of sin in defeat. I prefer the New Testament beginning with the book of John (because the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similarly the same account as John)

[Jackson Richardson]

The title of this thread includes two fallacies:

ONE That the Bible is a consistent and united text. It is a library of texts: the Jewish scriptures having been accumulated over some thousand years as the canon of a people. It includes a variety of approaches to God. The Christian community accepted this canon as the context in which to describe the saving work they experienced in the death and resurrection of Christ. Over time they realised which of their own texts, as used in worship, were authoritative.

TWO That myth and reality are incompatible and the only two categories to describe experience. Modern philosophy and indeed science accept there is no way of describing reality other than in symbols. A myth can well be a symbol of something important. Liberal Christians may well say the resurrection shows that love is stronger than death, irrespective of what happened to Jesus’ body. I think it is more than just that, but is certainly means that.

[Gnostic Bishop]

It is not ancient history. It happened less than 50 years ago. What Constantine did through the early Christians to the various gnostic groups over 1500 years ago is ancient history.

The reason I am bringing this up is to show that making moral arguments against Christians can be turned easily back on their accusers after the events of the last two centuries.

Sure but then I would throw the Dark Ages and Inquisition out there and get back to whatever the real issue was.




You cited a video in one of your other threads:



Much of the content of that video about the sixth sense I agree with. However, I don't see how that fits into only the version of Chrisitianity you are promoting. It would seem to support panentheistic views in general which include traditional Christianity.

It would yes and that is what I basically sell.

I have this that shows a bit of history and the rest shows what I promote and you will see that any religion or even atheists can access their higher minds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

-----------------------

The higher mind I speak of though is not to the cosmic consciousness. That is the next step.


I suspect the personal "apotheosis" idea that you are promoting is a misunderstanding of the "cosmic consciousness" idea presented in that movie.

Correct. Apotheosis is finding yourself on Jacob's ladder and recognizing that there is something unseen out there.

My experience just showed a bit more of what that something is. It indicated that it was the final evolution of mankind's consciousness.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'd like to see proof of this statement from scripture….one scripture at a time please. I'll be happy to prove it wrong every time. God is and always has been a God of love. I've done this before here in other threads (search them if you'd like) and I don't mind doing it again. Some readers of the Bible, read only what they want to see. But they take it out of context…you can't do that if you want the truth. I have an appointment soon so I won't be able to send posts rapid-fire, but in time, today, I will answer every scripture…one at a time as it's a lot to cover.

YesNo...Genesis has a lot of genealogy in it which somewhat bogs down the delightful accounts of origin and eternal truths, resolving enigmas of mysteries and puzzling situations in the light of God's will. You just have to skim over all the genealogy. From creation to the introduction of sin to the tragic accumulation of man's wickedness that almost brought annihilation to the human society which I find depressing to read for long because of the fruits of sin in defeat. I prefer the New Testament beginning with the book of John (because the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similarly the same account as John)

" infanticidal".

I use the main three instances of this but there are more. King David's baby, the great flood and the first born of Egypt. All show God as an infanticidal demiurge.

Lets do the following.

I use the story of King David's baby that God tortured for six days before finally killing it.

Can you justify the torture and killing of that baby?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

The title of this thread includes two fallacies:

ONE That the Bible is a consistent and united text. It is a library of texts: the Jewish scriptures having been accumulated over some thousand years as the canon of a people. It includes a variety of approaches to God. The Christian community accepted this canon as the context in which to describe the saving work they experienced in the death and resurrection of Christ. Over time they realised which of their own texts, as used in worship, were authoritative.

Nowhere do I indicate that the Bible is a consistent and united text.


TWO That myth and reality are incompatible and the only two categories to describe experience. Modern philosophy and indeed science accept there is no way of describing reality other than in symbols. A myth can well be a symbol of something important. Liberal Christians may well say the resurrection shows that love is stronger than death, irrespective of what happened to Jesus’ body. I think it is more than just that, but is certainly means that.

I did not speak of the incompatibility of myth and reality. I did indicate that myth is not reality.

Reality can be described without symbols. Science does it constantly but does use symbols to clarify some of their concepts.

Seems your first statement is not true to anyone but yourself.

Regards
DL

[Jackson Richardson]

Reality cannot be described other than with language, which is a system of symbols.

[Melanie]

I use the story of King David's baby that God tortured for six days before finally killing it.
Can you justify the torture and killing of that baby?
I asked for a specific scripture and you didn't post one because there isn't one that says God tortured David's son. He didn't, of course. You must be referring to the Book of 2 Samuel where David falls into a sinful adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, then has her husband murdered (chapter 11). David confesses, and God forgives him. However, God tells David that trouble will come to his family (as a result of man's sin…not of God's doing). Trouble does come. David’s firstborn son, Amnon, rapes his half-sister, Tamar so Tamar's brother, Absalom, kills Amnon.

David confessed his sin. God, in his love, forgives all sins when we truly repent. However, sin has natural consequences, and even after he was forgiven, David reaped what he had sown. His son from the adulterous relationship with another man’s wife was taken from him (2 Samuel 12:14-24). David mourned his son's death and suffered the misery of his separation from his relationship with God (Psalms 32 and 51).

Please post a scripture reference next time so I know exactly where you're getting your notions from. Thanks.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Reality cannot be described other than with language, which is a system of symbols.

No argument.

Irrelevant to the O.P. though.

Regards
D

[Gnostic Bishop]

I asked for a specific scripture and you didn't post one because there isn't one that says God tortured David's son. He didn't, of course. You must be referring to the Book of 2 Samuel where David falls into a sinful adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, then has her husband murdered (chapter 11). David confesses, and God forgives him. However, God tells David that trouble will come to his family (as a result of man's sin…not of God's doing). Trouble does come. David’s firstborn son, Amnon, rapes his half-sister, Tamar so Tamar's brother, Absalom, kills Amnon.

David confessed his sin. God, in his love, forgives all sins when we truly repent. However, sin has natural consequences, and even after he was forgiven, David reaped what he had sown. His son from the adulterous relationship with another man’s wife was taken from him (2 Samuel 12:14-24). David mourned his son's death and suffered the misery of his separation from his relationship with God (Psalms 32 and 51).
.

If you had an argument in there to somehow justify God torturing the baby as punishment for what the father did, I missed it.

Could you rephrase for us?

Regards
DL

[Melanie]

Yup, you missed it. As I said, there isn't a scripture that says that in the Bible…be my guest, post it if there is. So, I posted what IS in the Bible and posted scriptural reference for it.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Yup, you missed it. As I said, there isn't a scripture that says that in the Bible…be my guest, post it if there is. So, I posted what IS in the Bible and posted scriptural reference for it.

Why did the baby die after God had forgiven David?

I agree that there is a consequence to sin but the baby had had sinned so why did God kill it.

His son from the adulterous relationship with another man’s wife was taken from him (2 Samuel 12:14-24).

Regards
DL

[Melanie]

I asked for a specific scripture and you didn't post one because there isn't one that says God tortured David's son. He didn't, of course. You must be referring to the Book of 2 Samuel where David falls into a sinful adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, then has her husband murdered (chapter 11). David confesses, and God forgives him. However, God tells David that trouble will come to his family (as a result of man's sin…not of God's doing). Trouble does come. David’s firstborn son, Amnon, rapes his half-sister, Tamar so Tamar's brother, Absalom, kills Amnon.

David confessed his sin. God, in his love, forgives all sins when we truly repent. However, sin has natural consequences, and even after he was forgiven, David reaped what he had sown. His son from the adulterous relationship with another man’s wife was taken from him (2 Samuel 12:14-24). David mourned his son's death and suffered the misery of his separation from his relationship with God (Psalms 32 and 51).
I've highlighted for you the part that says who killed David's son and why. And keep in mind that God doesn't view death as a bad thing…quite the contrary. It's a glorious moment when God's children come home to be with their heavenly father where there is no more suffering caused by sin.

[Iain Sparrow]

Reality cannot be described other than with language, which is a system of symbols.

Wrong.
Reality can, and is described by observation and experience, it is transcribed to language and equations.
I can describe to you the forces of gravity; I could then take you on a field trip to the edge of a cliff, and push you off. Gravity is real, not a symbol.

[Iain Sparrow]

I've highlighted for you the part that says who killed David's son and why. And keep in mind that God doesn't view death as a bad thing…quite the contrary. It's a glorious moment when God's children come home to be with their heavenly father where there is no more suffering caused by sin.

Oh my.
I live in a country where Melanie and folks like her are allowed to vote and make important decisions on how our nation conducts itself around the world... is there any wonder why things are so screwed up.

[Melanie]

Oh my. I live in a country where Melanie and folks like her are allowed to vote and make important decisions on how our nation conducts itself around the world... is there any wonder why things are so screwed up.
Are insults allowed in this forum? Not only an insult but one without substance. Care to post something with some intellect attached? I've taken note that when a believer makes a valid post of biblical clarity then the non-believers, lacking a rebuttal, think insults replacing intelligence will work for them…we're on to you.

[Pike Bishop]

Wrong.
Reality can, and is described by observation and experience, it is transcribed to language and equations.
I can describe to you the forces of gravity; I could then take you on a field trip to the edge of a cliff, and push you off. Gravity is real, not a symbol.
Wrong. Reality may exist outside of language, but it can only be described through language...not just observation and experience, which, in themselves, describe nothing.

And, try to lose the "oh my" thing. Any phrase that's both precious and pretentious should be greatly avoided...;)

[Pike Bishop]

It's a glorious moment when God's children come home to be with their heavenly father where there is no more suffering caused by sin.That's truly disturbing, Melanie. Using your logic, the Holocaust, all child murders, and lynchings were all "glorious moments," since they all brought their victims to heaven. So, I'd rethink that one.

[Pike Bishop]

Are insults allowed in this forum? Not only an insult but a mindless one...no substance. Care to post something with some intellect attached? I've taken note that when a believer makes a correct post of biblical clarity then the non-believers think insults replacing intelligence will work for them…we're on to you.
No, insults are not. You'll have to forgive Iain, he actually assaults children and brags about it, so he just doesn't know any better.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I've highlighted for you the part that says who killed David's son and why. And keep in mind that God doesn't view death as a bad thing…quite the contrary. It's a glorious moment when God's children come home to be with their heavenly father where there is no more suffering caused by sin.

Except that your bible also states that the mast majority of us end in hell.

But go ahead and ignore that fact to make your genocidal son murderer look palatable to you.

Your honesty in reading the story and trying to blame all but your God shows how hypocritical you are.

2 Sam 15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

Justify your God's torturing of a baby because of what the father did in an honest way please.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Oh my.
I live in a country where Melanie and folks like her are allowed to vote and make important decisions on how our nation conducts itself around the world... is there any wonder why things are so screwed up.

This senators last remark tells it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjR7AWSmI6o

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

That's truly disturbing, Melanie. Using your logic, the Holocaust, all child murders, and lynchings were all "glorious moments," since they all brought their victims to heaven. So, I'd rethink that one.

It has a rather chilling effect on the subject of abortion as well.

Perhaps the huge numbers of Christian abortions in the U.S. are by folks who thinks as she does and who want to insure, given the real bad % in hell, that the child will reach heaven.

Melanie should thus embrace and promote the notion of abortion as to insure that the greatest number of us end in heaven.

It's almost as if she is of two minds. She praises God for doing what she would condemn a person for doing.

This clip might be a truth that she should check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mJCCARjyNM

Regards
DL

[Melanie]

Gnostic, 2 Samuel 15 doesn't say that. Your reference material is a hoax of atheistic proportions. It's not the Bible.


Are insults allowed in this forum? Not only an insult but one without substance. Care to post something with some intellect attached? I've taken note that when a believer makes a valid post of biblical clarity then the non-believers, lacking a rebuttal, think insults replacing intelligence will work for them…we're on to you.

No, insults are not. You'll have to forgive Iain, he actually assaults children and brags about it, so he just doesn't know any better.
Yes, I thought I'd read somewhere that insults aren't allowed..it cheapens the forums. LitNet is better than that.
Regarding my comment: "It's a glorious moment when God's children come home to be with their heavenly father where there is no more suffering caused by sin."
To clarify: I didn't say "how", I said "when". I have addressed the "how" in another thread regarding why good people suffer. In the case of the Holocaust, the answer is man's sin of an enormous and tragic magnitude and sin's natural consequences. Man has clearly turned his back on God and good people will suffer. But this life is a speck compared to a glorious eternal life.

[Pike Bishop]

To clarify: I didn't say "how", I said "when". I have addressed the "how" in another thread regarding why good people suffer. In the case of the Holocaust, the answer is man's sin of an enormous and tragic magnitude and sin's natural consequences. Man has clearly turned his back on God and good people will suffer. But this life is a speck compared to a glorious eternal life.

And keep in mind that God doesn't view death as a bad thing…quite the contrary. It's a glorious moment when God's children come home to be with their heavenly father where there is no more suffering caused by sin.
No, Melanie, you're misdirecting and being elusive. You clearly claimed the baby's dying was a "glorious moment, since he would now be called to heaven. As I pointed out, using that terrible logic, you would also consider the Holocaust, all child murders, and lynchings to all be "glorious moments," since they also brought their victims to heaven.

By the way, do you think the Jews and Gays from the Holocaust would go to Heaven as well?

[Iain Sparrow]

This senators last remark tells it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjR7AWSmI6o

Regards
DL

I've watched that one before:)... it's another Christian politician cherry-picking the Bible for what suits his goals, and reelection.

[Gnostic Bishop]

[QUOTE=Melanie;1294581]Gnostic, 2 Samuel 15 doesn't say that. Your reference material is a hoax of atheistic proportions. It's not the Bible.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012&version=KJV

Speak to this please without trying to distort the story.

Regards
DL

[Melanie]

I choose not to reply to you, Pike. You twist and manipulate my words. And this isn't the only thread you've done it in. I don't have time for that. Please don't respond to my posts in the future. Thanks.

[Pike Bishop]

You can choose not to reply all you like, Melanie. I neither twisted nor manipulated any of your words in this post or any other. Everything you said is in my last post in black and white. Everyone can read it and see my reading and debunking of your troubling post were both accurate and legitimate. And I'll respond to any of your posts I like. This is a public forum and, while you can choose not to respond to others' posts, you cannot make them not respond to yours.

[Iain Sparrow]

Are insults allowed in this forum? Not only an insult but one without substance. Care to post something with some intellect attached? I've taken note that when a believer makes a valid post of biblical clarity then the non-believers, lacking a rebuttal, think insults replacing intelligence will work for them…we're on to you.

That's not exactly how us "non-believers" view it... we relate the different scientific disciplines that refute nearly every last word in the Bible, from the Evolutionary Sciences to Cosmology, from Anthropology to Archaeology, and all we get in return is convoluted nonsense about what God is *really* telling his followers, and what the Bible *really* says.
As I've asked you before, why doesn't this timeless God of yours forbid slavery?.. why does God set rules for the treatment of slaves?
And besides, no matter how insulting I might be... you still have to forgive me.
That's one of those non-negotiable things in the Bible; or else you'll end up in Hell with all of us atheists, gays, Muslims, Jews, Canadians, etc, etc.

[Gnostic Bishop]

That's not exactly how us "non-believers" view it... we relate the different scientific disciplines that refute nearly every last word in the Bible, from the Evolutionary Sciences to Cosmology, from Anthropology to Archaeology, and all we get in return is convoluted nonsense about what God is *really* telling his followers, and what the Bible *really* says.
As I've asked you before, why doesn't this timeless God of yours forbid slavery?.. why does God set rules for the treatment of slaves?
And besides, no matter how insulting I might be... you still have to forgive me.
That's one of those non-negotiable things in the Bible; or else you'll end up in Hell with all of us atheists, gays, Muslims, Jews, Canadians, etc, etc.

Hey. You go too far when including us Canadians. We are all as white and pure as the snow up here.

Where is that mod activation key. Boy are you in trouble now. :smilewinkgrin:

Regards
DL

[Jackson Richardson]

I'm gay. I've had a whole load more support in my life from the church than I have from my family. Being Christian supports me that there is more to life than being a smug and anxious breeder.

How does scientific disciplines refute "Love you neighbour as yourself" or the experience of contemplative prayer? It doen't and it can't any more than it can refute the effect of beauty or human sympathy.

Those who campaigned most vigorously against slavery were Christians who saw it against their understanding of God.

PS. David's child died following him having arranged for the husband of the child's mother to be killed. I don't want to justify the Hebrew Scriptures in all respects, only as they point to the revelation of God's nature in Christ dying and risen.

[Melanie]

It's one believer against 3 non-believers with rapid fire posts. [Edit: Sorry JohathanB, didn't see you there and it appears you're a believer too]. One to one is time consuming enough. I'm sorry but there's not enough time in the day to reply to all. I don't have time to address all. With that said, Gnostic, I appreciate your specific scripture verse posted.

You are correct, in the Old Testament times, that particular scripture does say The Lord struck the child [with an illness] as a result of his parent's adulterous sin. But sadly, though God forgave David for adultery, a price had to be paid. The guilty often cause tragic results of innocent children. This is hard to accept. Since the sickness came immediately after the words of Nathan the prophet, it was received as from the hand of God.

God is our heavenly father. We are all his children. He was showing his distaste for the sin of adultery. Their young son suffered and we may trust that God's comfort was extended to the child in the midst of suffering. At the end of his suffering, the child went to eternal glory. It was God's perfect timing for that child to come to his eternal home. And was also time to punish the the sin of adultery of his parents who suffered greatly with the loss of their son..perhaps a greater suffering than their son who now has no more suffering and only love for eternity.

God doesn't allow things to happen for just one reason. There are zillions of reasons that interconnect. They are an intricate webbed plan we'll never fathom. Therefore it's hard for me to second guess him in this scripture other than what is stated by Him.

[Pike Bishop]

I'm gay. I've had a whole load more support in my life from the church than I have from my family. Being Christian supports me that there is more to life than being a smug and anxious breeder.

Easy Jonathan, there is a lot more to us straights than being "smug and anxious breeders." I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate reverse-racism against you for being white or sexism against you for being a man; so, you should go easy on the heterophobic phrases.

[Jackson Richardson]

I've had quite enough homophobia against people like me in my life. And being treated as second rate because I wasn't breeding.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm gay. I've had a whole load more support in my life from the church than I have from my family. Being Christian supports me that there is more to life than being a smug and anxious breeder.

How does scientific disciplines refute "Love you neighbour as yourself" or the experience of contemplative prayer? It doen't and it can't any more than it can refute the effect of beauty or human sympathy.

Those who campaigned most vigorously against slavery were Christians who saw it against their understanding of God.

PS. David's child died following him having arranged for the husband of the child's mother to be killed. I don't want to justify the Hebrew Scriptures in all respects, only as they point to the revelation of God's nature in Christ dying and risen.

Indeed.

It shows a God who seems to prefer to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

That is partly why Gnostic Christians name that God a vile demiurge.

Any moral man would rejects his satanic and immoral ways.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

It's one believer against 3 non-believers with rapid fire posts. [Edit: Sorry JohathanB, didn't see you there and it appears you're a believer too]. One to one is time consuming enough. I'm sorry but there's not enough time in the day to reply to all. I don't have time to address all. With that said, Gnostic, I appreciate your specific scripture verse posted.

You are correct, in the Old Testament times, that particular scripture does say The Lord struck the child [with an illness] as a result of his parent's adulterous sin. But sadly, though God forgave David for adultery, a price had to be paid. The guilty often cause tragic results of innocent children. This is hard to accept. Since the sickness came immediately after the words of Nathan the prophet, it was received as from the hand of God.

God is our heavenly father. We are all his children. He was showing his distaste for the sin of adultery. Their young son suffered and we may trust that God's comfort was extended to the child in the midst of suffering. At the end of his suffering, the child went to eternal glory. It was God's perfect timing for that child to come to his eternal home. And was also time to punish the the sin of adultery of his parents who suffered greatly with the loss of their son..perhaps a greater suffering than their son who now has no more suffering and only love for eternity.

God doesn't allow things to happen for just one reason. There are zillions of reasons that interconnect. They are an intricate webbed plan we'll never fathom. Therefore it's hard for me to second guess him in this scripture other than what is stated by Him.

So on faith and trust you will accept a God who punishes children for what their parents do which goes directly against scriptures that say we are all responsible for our own sins.

Will your excuses be the same for all the other children and babies your God killed/murdered?

You are willing to accept satanic morals just to keep your get into heaven free card.

Repent your satanic ways woman and stop your immoral thinking.

Regards
DL

[Pike Bishop]

I've had quite enough homophobia against people like me in my life. And being treated as second rate because I wasn't breeding.
Yes and Black people have had enough racism from Whites in their life and women have suffered quite enough sexism from men. Using your logic, Blacks would be justified in their racism against you, and women would be justified in their sexism against you as well. I don't think you want to go there.

Your suffering gives you no right to be nasty towards those who have not harmed you. If you think it does, you truly have my sympathies.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I've had quite enough homophobia against people like me in my life. And being treated as second rate because I wasn't breeding.

Yet you support a homophobic and misogynous anti-love religion.

Shame on you as you perpetuate the homophobia you say you hate.

I support gays whenever I can but not those of your ilk.

Regards
DL

[Jackson Richardson]

I know what it is to be gay, and although others may have a different experience, mine has been otherwise. Fundamentalist Evangelicism may be homophobic, but Chritianity isn't. The gospels give no priority to heterosexuals. Wher Christianity differs from most religions is its insistence that God as revealed in Christ accepts us in love despite our failure to love and our inadequacy.

[Ecurb]

Who can know the mind of God?

The horrible thing (from a postulated God's perspective) about the Holocaust is the sinfulness of the perpetrators. Blaming God for allowing people to die in the Holocaust is simply silly: an omnipotent God allows everyone to die, whether in the Holocaust, the Passover, or by cancer, or from old age. Why blame Him for one, but not the other?

[Gnostic Bishop]

I know what it is to be gay, and although others may have a different experience, mine has been otherwise. Fundamentalist Evangelicism may be homophobic, but Chritianity isn't. The gospels give no priority to heterosexuals. Wher Christianity differs from most religions is its insistence that God as revealed in Christ accepts us in love despite our failure to love and our inadequacy.

Inadequacy, failure to love.

These were not present at the last gay wedding I attended.

Who told you you were inadequate and that you failed to love and why would you believe such garbage?

You may have come out my friend but you are still mentally caged by the immoral pricks who locked you up.

Time to shed all your old garbage and stand tall friend.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Who can know the mind of God?

Only God and to me that is I am and to you it should also be I am.

Please view a bit of Gnostic Christian history in this first link and some of how we think and seek the only God we can know in the last two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.



The horrible thing (from a postulated God's perspective) about the Holocaust is the sinfulness of the perpetrators. Blaming God for allowing people to die in the Holocaust is simply silly: an omnipotent God allows everyone to die, whether in the Holocaust, the Passover, or by cancer, or from old age. Why blame Him for one, but not the other?

I agree with your view but would remind you that if God has a plan the way most say, then he is responsible for all things. After all, as a creator God, everything that is emanated from him.

That aside.

Have you seen this link that shows holocaust internists depicted as putting God on trial.
Even with a guilty verdict, at the end of the movie, the Jews are still praying. They, like Gnostic Christians have always striven both for and against God.

The whole movie I enjoyed but here is the main part I want you to see.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

[YesNo]

Sure but then I would throw the Dark Ages and Inquisition out there and get back to whatever the real issue was.

Even if you add in all of these the body count from atheism, I suspect, is far higher.



It would yes and that is what I basically sell.

I have this that shows a bit of history and the rest shows what I promote and you will see that any religion or even atheists can access their higher minds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02...list=PLCBF574D

Timothy Freke does not believe that Jesus actually existed. I think Bart Ehrman is more correct historically: http://www.bartdehrman.com/books/did_jesus_exist.htm



The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRN...layer_embedded

Except that I don't trust Watts confrontational style, I have no objection to his notion of the God within. Gnostic Christians need to avoid becoming a copy of what they hate about traditional Christianity.



This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

-----------------------

The higher mind I speak of though is not to the cosmic consciousness. That is the next step.

Correct. Apotheosis is finding yourself on Jacob's ladder and recognizing that there is something unseen out there.

My experience just showed a bit more of what that something is. It indicated that it was the final evolution of mankind's consciousness.


What I need to see is that your position represents a real religious experience and not just New Age talking points to confront traditional Christianity. In other words, lay off attacking Christians. Show some positive religious message if Gnostic Christianity has any.

[mona amon]

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate reverse-racism against you for being white or sexism against you for being a man; so, you should go easy on the heterophobic phrases.

Reverse racism, heterophobic... oh please. My spell check doesn't even recognize 'Heterophobic' as a word. The concept is beyond ridiculous - no doubt invented by bullies and employed by other bullies to bash their victims even more. It is like a group of thugs beating up a lone person, and if that victim starts fighting back and maybe getting in a punch or two, complaining that the victim is guilty of violence.

[Iain Sparrow]

Reverse racism, heterophobic... oh please. My spell check doesn't even recognize 'Heterophobic' as a word. The concept is beyond ridiculous - no doubt invented by bullies and employed by other bullies to bash their victims even more. It is like a group of thugs beating up a lone person, and if that victim starts fighting back and maybe getting in a punch or two, complaining that the victim is guilty of violence.

Oh yes, 'heterophobia' is a word and it's very real... it's so hard these days being a straight white man in America; we're being oppressed, our culture is under attack from gay people and lesbian feminists.
It's like the Holocaust all over again.

[Pike Bishop]

Reverse racism, heterophobic... oh please. My spell check doesn't even recognize 'Heterophobic' as a word. The concept is beyond ridiculous - no doubt invented by bullies and employed by other bullies to bash their victims even more. It is like a group of thugs beating up a lone person, and if that victim starts fighting back and maybe getting in a punch or two, complaining that the victim is guilty of violence.

Spare me your childish condescension, Mona. If you have a problem with what I say, then say so like an adult...not like a preening, pompous child. And "breeder' is a heterophobic phrase than castigates Straight people for who they are, like the "f-word" and "d-word" castigate Gay people for who they are." Got it?

It is never ok for members of a marginalized class to lash out at, abuse, or attack a member of a non-marginalized group just because they have been marginalized. That's called human decency...which does not detract from the reality of their marginalization. In your messed up world, women could rightly abuse, mistreat, or harass men or boys because they were female, people of color could abuse or mistreat White people because they were white, and Gays could Straight-bash a straight person because they were Straight. The fact you would be fine with all that makes me glad I don't really know you.

And none of this changes the fact I still consider myself to be part of an unfairly privileged class. As a straight White male, I am well aware of my responsibility to help those unfairly marginalized. But I sure don't have to take any of their prejudiced cr-p because of it.

[mona amon]

Oh yes, 'heterophobia' is a word and it's very real... it's so hard these days being a straight white man in America; we're being oppressed, our culture is under attack from gay people and lesbian feminists.
It's like the Holocaust all over again.

:thumbsup:

[Pike Bishop]

Oh yes, 'heterophobia' is a word and it's very real... it's so hard these days being a straight white man in America; we're being oppressed, our culture is under attack from gay people and lesbian feminists.
It's like the Holocaust all over again.
Nothing I said in any way suggested white, straight men are being oppressed or are "under attack from gay people." So that was a lot of irrelevant "irony" wasted. That irrelevance whooshed right over Mona's head, though...;)

[Iain Sparrow]

Nothing I said in any way suggested white, straight men are being oppressed or are "under attack from gay people." So that was a lot of irrelevant "irony" wasted. That irrelevance whooshed right over Mona's head, though...;)

Not very much whooshes over Mona's head.
Folks in India understand British sensibilities and humor just fine... it's one of the reasons they sent them packing.

[Pike Bishop]

Well, the irrelevance of your post's irony to my post certainly did. So, awareness of British sensibilities failed her this time. And Sparrow, try to actually read my post next time.

[Iain Sparrow]

Spare me your childish condescension, Mona. If you have a problem with what I say, then say so like an adult...not like a preening, pompous child. And "breeder' is a heterophobic phrase than castigates Straight people for who they are, like the "f-word" and "d-word" castigate Gay people for who they are." Got it?

It is never ok for members of a marginalized class to lash out at, abuse, or attack a member of a non-marginalized group just because they have been marginalized. That's called human decency...which does not detract from the reality of their marginalization. In your messed up world, women could rightly abuse, mistreat, or harass men or boys because they were female, people of color could abuse or mistreat White people because they were white, and Gays could Straight-bash a straight person because they were Straight. The fact you would be fine with all that makes me glad I don't really know you.

And none of this changes the fact I still consider myself to be part of an unfairly privileged class. As a straight White male, I am well aware of my responsibility to help those unfairly marginalized. But I sure don't have to take any of their prejudiced cr-p because of it.

Utter crap.
I don't care who has it in for me or how prejudiced they are toward my conventional "straight" lifestyle; as a white man, this country and the world at large still revolve around my sex, and around my lily-white ***. A strange woman coming up behind me and goosing my behind, is much different than me doing such a thing to a strange woman. Likewise, a black person who thinks less of me because of the color of my skin, does not at all equate to white racism. In both cases I am not threatened, I am not the victim.

[Iain Sparrow]

Well, the irrelevance of your post's irony to my post certainly did. So, awareness of British sensibilities failed her this time. And Sparrow, try to actually read my post next time.

If this is the entirety of that post...

"Easy Jonathan, there is a lot more to us straights than being "smug and anxious breeders." I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate reverse-racism against you for being white or sexism against you for being a man; so, you should go easy on the heterophobic phrases."

... I read it in full.
The only time I hear or read such statements, is coming from oversensitive, easily offended angry white guys. It's all the rage nowadays, don't you know, the world is changing so quickly and us white men have had precious little time to adapt.:)

[kiki1982]

:thumbs_up:

[YesNo]

:thumbs_up:

I second the thumbs up. Iain Sparrow won that round.

[YesNo]

The title of this thread includes two fallacies:

ONE That the Bible is a consistent and united text. It is a library of texts: the Jewish scriptures having been accumulated over some thousand years as the canon of a people. It includes a variety of approaches to God. The Christian community accepted this canon as the context in which to describe the saving work they experienced in the death and resurrection of Christ. Over time they realised which of their own texts, as used in worship, were authoritative.

TWO That myth and reality are incompatible and the only two categories to describe experience. Modern philosophy and indeed science accept there is no way of describing reality other than in symbols. A myth can well be a symbol of something important. Liberal Christians may well say the resurrection shows that love is stronger than death, irrespective of what happened to Jesus’ body. I think it is more than just that, but is certainly means that.

I agree.

It doesn't seem practical to ask a global question about the whole Bible whether it is a myth or reality. One has to go to specific and critical or central messages. Consider the specific and central message that you mention: "Love is stronger than death." Now ask the question about that message: Is that myth or reality? I would say it is reality.

There are other messages of the same kind such as the message from Genesis that the universe is good. Is that message myth or reality? Again, I would say that is reality.

These messages are so central that if they said the opposite of what they are saying, I would reject the whole text.

Regarding the details of David and Bathsheba, these are not central. There are many ways to look at these details and they don't matter too much to the overall messages above. Some don't think David and Bathsheba existed, so this would be a "myth". Some think they did and these events occurred as written. Then they are reality. Some think these people actually existed, but these stories were made up to justify Solomon, Uriah's son, succeeding David. What would they be then? They would be neither myth nor reality, but one of the earliest examples of political propaganda, or "half-truths".

Does it matter to the overall messages if such texts turned out to be political falsehoods? I don't think so.

[Clopin]

Utter crap.
I don't care who has it in for me or how prejudiced they are toward my conventional "straight" lifestyle; as a white man, this country and the world at large still revolve around my sex, and around my lily-white ***. A strange woman coming up behind me and goosing my behind, is much different than me doing such a thing to a strange woman. Likewise, a black person who thinks less of me because of the color of my skin, does not at all equate to white racism. In both cases I am not threatened, I am not the victim.

Oh dear, oh dear, how stupid.

[Clopin]

I second the thumbs up. Iain Sparrow won that round.

*snort*

I don't like Pike any more than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean he is always wrong. The notion that only white people can be racist is so warped and twisted that I have trouble understanding how anyone can make statements like that with a straight face, let alone agree with them. I enjoyed Jonathan's contributions to this thread more than anyone else's, but Pike isn't exactly Hitler incarnate (this time) for pointing out that "breeder" is in actuality a slur; and while I wasn't offended I think it goes against the spirit of equality to lambast someone for making a reasonable suggestion because of the colour of his skin or sexual orientation.

[Pompey Bum]

I don't like Pike any more than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean he is always wrong. The notion that only white people can be racist is so warped and twisted that I have trouble understanding how anyone can make statements like that with a straight face, let alone agree with them. I enjoyed Jonathan's contributions to this thread more than anyone else's, but Pike isn't exactly Hitler incarnate (this time) for pointing out that "breeder" is in actuality a slur; and while I wasn't offended I think it goes against the spirit of equality to lambast someone for making a reasonable suggestion because of the colour of his skin or sexual orientation.

Well said in every way, Clopin.

And Jonathan, you are a learned man, a valued friend, and an exemplary Christian. :)

[Clopin]

:blush5: Thanks

[Ecurb]

Racism is made up of two essential components: prejudice and discrimination. They are (of course) quite different. All of us make judgments before we know everything about a situation (which constitutes "prejudice") and all of us "discriminate" (possibly when deciding whether to read Shakespeare or Dan Brown). When talking about racism or sexism, however, discrimination refers to unfairly limiting opportunities for certain groups.

Obviously, Clopin is right that members of minority groups or groups lacking power can be just as prejudiced ("racist") as the elite groups. Members can also "discriminate" (racism) against members of the elite -- but often lack the authority and power to make such discrimination oppressive. Young children can punch adults (they often do),but it doesn't hurt the adults as much as it hurts the young children when adults hit them.

So Clopin is right, and makes a reasonable point -- but it is also reasonable to distinguish between discrimination in favor of oppressed groups (affirmative action, for example) and discrimination in favor of elite groups. If an American slave despised white people, that would constitute racism (prejudice), but would surely be less contemptible than the racism comprising both racial prejudice and the institution of slavery.

One more point: many people think that discrimination results from prejudice. It sometimes does. However, prejudice also results from discrimination. Slavery was justified with theories about African inferiority. If we mistreat our acquaintance, we are quick to find fault with him (to justify our behavior) -- if our acquaintance is at fault, we might forgive him instead of mistreating him.

[mona amon]

*snort*

I don't like Pike any more than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean he is always wrong. The notion that only white people can be racist is so warped and twisted that I have trouble understanding how anyone can make statements like that with a straight face, let alone agree with them. I enjoyed Jonathan's contributions to this thread more than anyone else's, but Pike isn't exactly Hitler incarnate (this time) for pointing out that "breeder" is in actuality a slur; and while I wasn't offended I think it goes against the spirit of equality to lambast someone for making a reasonable suggestion because of the colour of his skin or sexual orientation.

Clopin, of course you are right about the "anybody can be racist or prejudiced" part, but that's not what's really going on here. Show me one person who's offended by the term "breeder" - other than someone like Pike who adopts a sanctimonious stance for the sheer pleasure of telling people off. Where there is no equality of power or numbers, there's no tit for tat, no 'reverse'. A woman slapping a man is just not the same thing as a man slapping a woman.

[Pike Bishop]

Clopin, of course you are right about the "anybody can be racist" part, but that's not what's really going on here. Show me one person who's offended by the term "breeder" - other than someone like Pike who adopts a sanctimonious stance for the sheer pleasure of telling people off. Where there is no equality of power or numbers, there's no tit for tat, no 'reverse'. A woman slapping a man is just not the same thing as a man slapping a woman.

The only people being sanctimonious here, Mona, are you and Sparrow...and you are being very sanctimonious. You prove that by again failing to show the integrity to address my posts directly, and by lecturing from your pious soapbox. And, as I said before, in your twisted "the marginalized can do anything world," women could rightly abuse, mistreat, or harass men or boys because they were female, people of color could abuse or mistreat White people because they were white, and Gays could Straight-bash a straight person because they were Straight. You have still failed to address the hostile, inequitable nature of that view. Of course, since you can't excuse it, I'm not surprised.

Here is my original post by the way. Unlike yours, it's not sanctimonious, hostile, or alarmist:

"Easy Jonathan, there is a lot more to us straights than being "smug and anxious breeders." I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate reverse-racism against you for being white or sexism against you for being a man; so, you should go easy on the heterophobic phrases."

This is simply a polite reminder to Jonathan that breeder is a derogatory term he shouldn't use in polite discussion. I would say the same thing to my Gay friends and relatives, but they are too thoughtful to use the slur in the presence of Straight people.


P.s. A woman unjustly slapping a man may not be the same thing as a man slapping a woman, but it's still not OK. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

[Iain Sparrow]

*snort*

I don't like Pike any more than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean he is always wrong. The notion that only white people can be racist is so warped and twisted that I have trouble understanding how anyone can make statements like that with a straight face, let alone agree with them. I enjoyed Jonathan's contributions to this thread more than anyone else's, but Pike isn't exactly Hitler incarnate (this time) for pointing out that "breeder" is in actuality a slur; and while I wasn't offended I think it goes against the spirit of equality to lambast someone for making a reasonable suggestion because of the colour of his skin or sexual orientation.

Either you've taken political correctness to absurd heights, or you have poor reading comprehension.
I did not say, nor is anyone here questioning the existence of 'reverse racism', some of us are saying that actually comparing it to racism towards blacks or prejudice against homosexuals is just plain silly. I'm in my 40s, white-straight-atheist, and in all those 40+ years I cannot recall one meaningful time that I have had to deal with racism or prejudice, nor have I ever felt threatened because of who I am, and the color of my skin. I doubt there is one black person, or gay person on this planet that could go their entire adult life without encountering racism and prejudice. Indeed, they usually have to deal with it on a regular basis.
For any white person to compare the scant reverse racism that exists to *real* racism and prejudice, is probably offensive to those who have had to suffer.

[Pike Bishop]

Utter crap.
I don't care who has it in for me or how prejudiced they are toward my conventional "straight" lifestyle; as a white man, this country and the world at large still revolve around my sex, and around my lily-white ***. A strange woman coming up behind me and goosing my behind, is much different than me doing such a thing to a strange woman. Likewise, a black person who thinks less of me because of the color of my skin, does not at all equate to white racism. In both cases I am not threatened, I am not the victim.

The only "utter crap" has been your posts. And you prove that by your lame arguments and need to say "utter crap. Nothing you say in your ridiculous, irrelevant post has anything to do with my posts. I never said reverse racism, reverse sexism, or phrases like breeder were the equivalent of White racism, male sexism or homophobia. i correctly said the former were also wrong; big difference. So, your entire post was pointless.

I also already said my white male position was privileged:


And none of this changes the fact I still consider myself to be part of an unfairly privileged class. As a straight White male, I am well aware of my responsibility to help those unfairly marginalized. But I sure don't have to take any of their prejudiced cr-p because of it.

So, you really have been reading my posts--and doing other things--terribly.

[Pike Bishop]

If this is the entirety of that post...The only time I hear or read such statements, is coming from oversensitive, easily offended angry white guys. It's all the rage nowadays, don't you know, the world is changing so quickly and us white men have had precious little time to adapt.:)

The only oversensitive, easily offended angry white guy here is you. You are proving that by being oversensitive to, and offended by, my post...which you have read terribly. As I showed in my last post, I never complained about the white guy's position; I just politely pointed out to a poster that the word "breeder" was an impolite slur and should be avoided. Your oversensitive, easily offended self turned that into something monumentally offensive.

And any grown white man who is so easily offended by Mexican kids, like you were, and actually assaults them and racistly tells them to "go back where they came from" is the epitome of the "oversensitive, easily offended white guy." So, wake up, Sparrow, that's you.

[Pike Bishop]

Either you've taken political correctness to absurd heights, or you have poor reading comprehension.
I did not say, nor is anyone here questioning the existence of 'reverse racism', some of us are saying that actually comparing it to racism towards blacks or prejudice against homosexuals is just plain silly. I'm in my 40s, white-straight-atheist, and in all those 40+ years I cannot recall one meaningful time that I have had to deal with racism or prejudice, nor have I ever felt threatened because of who I am, and the color of my skin. I doubt there is one black person, or gay person on this planet that could go their entire adult life without encountering racism and prejudice. Indeed, they usually have to deal with it on a regular basis.
For any white person to compare the scant reverse racism that exists to *real* racism and prejudice, is probably offensive to those who have had to suffer.

Again, the only absurd heights and poor reading comprehension is yours.

You and Mona have been dismissing reverse racism, reverse sexism, and reverse homophobia this whole thread. All I said was "breeder" is an impolite slur and should be avoided, and you and Mona turned that into some monumental crime. You even offensively and ridiculously compared that statement to claiming a "Holocaust." As I showed in my last post, I never said reverse racism, reverse sexism, or phrases like breeder were the equivalent of White racism, male sexism or homophobia. I correctly said the former were also wrong; big difference.

I also certainly never said my experience was the equivalent of the marginalized. Comparing to things is not the same as making them the equivalent of each other. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

So, get over being ridiculously offended by, and oversensitive to, my posts--which you have read terribly--and get on with your life.

[Iain Sparrow]

Clopin, of course you are right about the "anybody can be racist or prejudiced" part, but that's not what's really going on here. Show me one person who's offended by the term "breeder" - other than someone like Pike who adopts a sanctimonious stance for the sheer pleasure of telling people off. Where there is no equality of power or numbers, there's no tit for tat, no 'reverse'. A woman slapping a man is just not the same thing as a man slapping a woman.

Exactly.
In fact this thread has the dubious distinction of introducing me to the sexual slur "breeder"... henceforth, I wear the term as a badge of honor. We "breeders" need to adopt a flag and perhaps a slogan, and start a political movement and fight for our rights! Now then, the Gay Community have their rainbow flag and "we're queer, we're here, live with it"; so what's the opposite of rainbow colors?.. I just googled it, and was astonished to find that us Breeders already have a flag or as the article states "proposed flag", it's a powder blue/white/pink striped flag.
I think some folks have lost all sense of perspective and proportion.

[Pike Bishop]

Exactly.
In fact this thread has the dubious distinction of introducing me to the sexual slur "breeder"... henceforth, I wear the term as a badge of honor. We "breeders" need to adopt a flag and perhaps a slogan, and start a political movement and fight for our rights! Now then, the Gay Community have their rainbow flag and "we're queer, we're here, live with it"; so what's the opposite of rainbow colors?.. I just googled it, and was astonished to find that us Breeders already have a flag or as the article states "proposed flag", it's a powder blue/white/pink striped flag.
I think some folks have lost all sense of perspective and proportion.

You just proved that person is you with that ridiculous, overblown rant...;)

[Iain Sparrow]

Again, the only absurd heights and poor reading comprehension is yours.

You and Mona have been dismissing reverse racism, reverse sexism, and reverse homophobia this whole thread. All I said was "breeder" is an impolite slur and should be avoided, and you and Mona turned that into some monumental crime. You even offensively and ridiculously compared that statement to claiming a "Holocaust." As I showed in my last post, I never said reverse racism, reverse sexism, or phrases like breeder were the equivalent of White racism, male sexism or homophobia. I correctly said the former were also wrong; big difference.

I also certainly never said my experience was the equivalent of the marginalized. Comparing to things is not the same as making them the equivalent of each other. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

So, get over being ridiculously offended by, and oversensitive to, my posts--which you have read terribly--and get on with your life.

Really, the worse thing about you... you lack a sense of humor.
I can forgive a lot, but not that.

[Clopin]

So Clopin is right, and makes a reasonable point -- but it is also reasonable to distinguish between discrimination in favor of oppressed groups (affirmative action, for example) and discrimination in favor of elite groups.

I don't think it is reasonable to differentiate, especially when oppressed and elite are decided only by race. I dropped out of high school, work two jobs at minimum wage (the lowest anyone can legally be paid in my country) and have never received any post secondary education. I was raised by a single mother, we received welfare, I have made use of food banks, both personally and incidentally through my family, and my elementary school used to provide me with clothing. Don't mistake this as a sob story, I just want to make clear that determining a persons "privilege" on racial grounds alone is absurd. Were I black I would almost certainly be considered marginalized, but because I am white I am somehow supposed to be representative of a privileged elite? Hogwash. White privilege is meaningless next to class/wealth privilege.

Also there is no single "white" any more than there is a single "Asian" and if you want to tell me that white people in Romania, Poland and Ukraine are exceptionally privileged compared with blacks or latinos who live in America or England! I think that's laughable. There are also groups of whites like the Irish who have historically faced as much oppression and discrimination as any marginalized group could be expected to.

[Pike Bishop]

Really, the worse thing about you... you lack a sense of humor.
I can forgive a lot, but not that.

I have an excellent sense of humor; you just happen to always find yourself at the losing end of it...;)

[Gnostic Bishop]

Even if you add in all of these the body count from atheism, I suspect, is far higher.

Since most so called believers are liars, I agree.

Any who truly believed in a God would not break his commandments. Right?


Timothy Freke does not believe that Jesus actually existed. I think Bart Ehrman is more correct historically: http://www.bartdehrman.com/books/did_jesus_exist.htm

The existence of a historic Triune Jesus is only important to those who wish to immorally ride him into heaven as there scapegoat savior.

To intelligent and moral people, what we think he said is more important to us as we seek the best morals and not a free ride from a barbaric human sacrifice.



Except that I don't trust Watts confrontational style, I have no objection to his notion of the God within. Gnostic Christians need to avoid becoming a copy of what they hate about traditional Christianity.

Have no fear. We, as Universalists, cannot become the homophobic and misogynous minded people that most mainstream religions have produced.


What I need to see is that your position represents a real religious experience and not just New Age talking points to confront traditional Christianity. In other words, lay off attacking Christians. Show some positive religious message if Gnostic Christianity has any.

When I show the immorality of the Christian creed, I am automatically showing the better thinking and morality of mine.

Christians and Muslims are such easy targets and do so much harm to society that I cannot help myself.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is ignore Christianity, Islam and their immoral creeds.

Regards
DL

[Clopin]

Clopin, of course you are right about the "anybody can be racist or prejudiced" part, but that's not what's really going on here. Show me one person who's offended by the term "breeder" - other than someone like Pike who adopts a sanctimonious stance for the sheer pleasure of telling people off. Where there is no equality of power or numbers, there's no tit for tat, no 'reverse'. A woman slapping a man is just not the same thing as a man slapping a woman.

Anti white, racially motivated violence exists. Ask some of the murdered farmers in South Africa about "reverse racism" (a term I hate even more than affirmative action - there is no 'reverse racism' there is just racism).

[Gnostic Bishop]

I agree.

It doesn't seem practical to ask a global question about the whole Bible whether it is a myth or reality. One has to go to specific and critical or central messages. Consider the specific and central message that you mention: "Love is stronger than death." Now ask the question about that message: Is that myth or reality? I would say it is reality.

There are other messages of the same kind such as the message from Genesis that the universe is good. Is that message myth or reality? Again, I would say that is reality.

These messages are so central that if they said the opposite of what they are saying, I would reject the whole text.

Regarding the details of David and Bathsheba, these are not central. There are many ways to look at these details and they don't matter too much to the overall messages above. Some don't think David and Bathsheba existed, so this would be a "myth". Some think they did and these events occurred as written. Then they are reality. Some think these people actually existed, but these stories were made up to justify Solomon, Uriah's son, succeeding David. What would they be then? They would be neither myth nor reality, but one of the earliest examples of political propaganda, or "half-truths".

Does it matter to the overall messages if such texts turned out to be political falsehoods? I don't think so.

If the universe is good then why did the early Christians see creation and women as such filth?

The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

"And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."

In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."

St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Anti white, racially motivated violence exists. Ask some of the murdered farmers in South Africa about "reverse racism" (a term I hate even more than affirmative action - there is no 'reverse racism' there is just racism).

What is Affirmative Action?

Regards
DL

[Clopin]

I just heard about this new thing called a 'search engine', I think google is pretty popular, you could try that.

[Melanie]

If the universe is good then why did the early Christians see creation and women as such filth?
The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."
The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:
"And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."
The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."
In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."
St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then." RegardsDL
I can post just as many quotes from women who hate men. There will always be haters. You can choose to be a hater or a lover. No point in handpicking the haters to post unless that's your focus as well.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I just heard about this new thing called a 'search engine', I think google is pretty popular, you could try that.

Sigh.

I wanted you to compare it to you "there is no 'reverse racism' there is just racism".

Apologies for confusing you.

Is A A racism or reverse racism?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I can post just as many quotes from women who hate men. There will always be haters. You can choose to be a hater or a lover. No point in handpicking the haters to post unless that's your focus as well.

He shall rule over you.

Only the blind do not see the misogyny of Christianity.

Listen to this bishop a bit and smarten up, woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUmKEH9jnu8

I am a man and a feminist. If you are a woman and not a feminist then shame on you.

Regards
DL

[Clopin]

Sigh.

I wanted you to compare it to you "there is no 'reverse racism' there is just racism".

Apologies for confusing you.

Is A A racism or reverse racism?

Regards
DL

It's racism. There is no such thing as positive discrimination or reverse racism, these are made up terms and they are meaningless and self contradictory.

[Melanie]

Sorry Gnostic Bishop. I've never watched one of your videos and don't plan to start. I figure they're riddled with viruses ha

[Gnostic Bishop]

It's racism. There is no such thing as positive discrimination or reverse racism, these are made up terms and they are meaningless and self contradictory.

If you look up the definition of discrimination, you will see that there is positive discrimination. I will agree that we mostly use it to indicate a negative choice today.

A A can be used in a variety of ways as well and not just the racial aspect.

Again, in modern days, we mostly use it to redress a skewed racial representation in various areas.

I see A A as a tool for legislators to impose in areas of poor racial representation to gain a better mix as well as a visible judgement against those who discriminate. in such cases, it is pure racism used/designed to reverse the immoral racism that forced it's implementation.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Sorry Gnostic Bishop. I've never watched one of your videos and don't plan to start. I figure they're riddled with viruses ha

Yes. Best to stay ill informed and not have to look at your immoral homophobic and misogynous religion being criticised by one of your own Bishops.

Regards
DL

[Clopin]

If you look up the definition of discrimination, you will see that there is positive discrimination. I will agree that we mostly use it to indicate a negative choice today.

A A can be used in a variety of ways as well and not just the racial aspect.

Again, in modern days, we mostly use it to redress a skewed racial representation in various areas.

I see A A as a tool for legislators to impose in areas of poor racial representation to gain a better mix as well as a visible judgement against those who discriminate. in such cases, it is pure racism used/designed to reverse the immoral racism that forced it's implementation.

Regards
DL

What differentiates positive and negative discrimination? Please provide me with examples of both forms of discrimination in practice to illustrate the difference.

[Melanie]

Yes. Best to stay ill informed and not have to look at your immoral homophobic and misogynous religion being criticised by one of your own Bishops
What makes you think I have a Bishop? I don't even have a pastor. You don't have to attend a church to be a believer. You don't have to belong to a denomination to be a believer. You just have to own a Bible, pray for clarity and truth, then read it, and follow it. You don't need to replace God's teachings with youtube….nor do you need commentaries to understand God's Word. He can reveal his truth to you when you're filled with the Holy Spirit.

Commentaries are actually considered taboo amongst believers because only the Bible has the truth in it. Some random author can lead you astray. May I say, you're a perfect example of that.

[Gnostic Bishop]

What differentiates positive and negative discrimination? Please provide me with examples of both forms of discrimination in practice to illustrate the difference.

DISCRIMINATION

1a : the act of discriminating

b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial

---------------------

Look at the menu of your favorite restaurant. You discriminate between the choices and choose the one you want, not because of a hate for the others, but just to appease your taste today. That is a positive use of discrimination.

Tomorrow you will discriminate between what is on offer again and will choose something else for the same positive reason.

It is like the word intercourse.

Most think sex when they hear that word but it also means to just communicate.

Again, I do grant you that most think of negative discrimination and not the positive use of the word.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

What makes you think I have a Bishop? I don't even have a pastor. You don't have to attend a church to be a believer. You don't have to belong to a denomination to be a believer. You just have to own a Bible, pray for clarity and truth, then read it, and follow it. You don't need to replace God's teachings with youtube….nor do you need commentaries to understand God's Word. He can reveal his truth to you when you're filled with the Holy Spirit.

Commentaries are actually considered taboo amongst believers because only the Bible has the truth in it. Some random author can lead you astray. May I say, you're a perfect example of that.

I did lead you to admit your God was evil and vile for torturing and killing babies.

That truth should have made you question the goodness of your God but like YouTube, you will not look and see.

Seek God please and do not idol worship the vile demiurge of the bible.

Regards
DL

[Melanie]

I did lead you to admit your God was evil...
No, you didn't, and that's not the first time you have chosen to misrepresent me.

[Gnostic Bishop]

No, you didn't, and that's not the first time you have chosen to misrepresent me.

I retract then.

You do support baby torture and killing and think that it is somehow good justice.

Insanity.

Regards
DL

[Melanie]

Wrong again Robin.

[Pike Bishop]

I just have to ask, why exactly would Gnostic Christians even have bishops? True Gnostic Christians would have no need for bishops and would reject the idea of them entirely.

[Ecurb]

Just out of curiosity, Clopin, do you dislike the "term" "affirmative action" or the programs and discrimination it embodies? If it's the term, I agree that these jingoistic, propaganda-based words for some government programs are ridiculous, and, at worst, offensive. Think: "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Affirmative action falls in that category, but there's no use railing about it now; that battle has been lost.

As to your point about the economic elite, the prejudices might be almost worse in capitalist countries where wealth is equated with virtue: hard work, intelligence, etc. The standard discrimination in the European past was economic AND racial: the nobility inherited all of the land and money, the hoi polloi inherited a a less exalted position.

Obviously, Clopin, "affirmative action" programs (which discriminate against elite groups) are unfair. There's no reason a rich, black, doctor's son from the suburbs should be preferred for admission into Harvard over an inner-city, slum-dwelling white kid. It's not a perfect world, and we all take refuge in "prejudice" (using general categories instead of individual cases). You are also correct that there is no "white" race (or black race); the entire concept of race has been abandoned by biology, having been proven inaccurate by modern DNA testing. Nonetheless, race is a cultural and social phenomenon, especially in the U.S., with our sordid history of race-based slavery, and race-based legal segregation.

[Clopin]

I dislike racial discrimination and segregation so I dislike affirmative action.

I actually think race is real, I just don't think that you can lump all whites, blacks or Asians into one category and say that one group is privileged and another is disadvantaged. Blacks in America, for example, are more privileged than whites in Romania and Asians in The Phillipines while Asians in Japan are much more privileged than most Asians on the continent.

Affirmative action does not necessarily discriminate against 'elite' groups either, in what sense is a second generation Irish immigrant on welfare to be considered elite? Just because he has white skin?

[YesNo]

Have no fear. We, as Universalists, cannot become the homophobic and misogynous minded people that most mainstream religions have produced.


Sure you can.

[YesNo]

If the universe is good then why did the early Christians see creation and women as such filth?

What I am interested in knowing is whether Gnostic Christians think the universe is good or not.

[mona amon]

Anti white, racially motivated violence exists. Ask some of the murdered farmers in South Africa about "reverse racism" (a term I hate even more than affirmative action - there is no 'reverse racism' there is just racism).

Exactly! It doesn't matter which group of people is doing the attacking or discrimination, it's still just racism if it falls within our accepted definition of racism. I can only see the concept of 'reverse racism' as a discriminatory tactic to gag and silence the victims of discrimination. Actually this gagging, censoring, silencing aspect applies to any form of extreme political correctness. Making a big noise at every real or perceived offence merely trivializes the issue and is an insult to those people who actually suffer real discrimination and persecution.


If the universe is good then why did the early Christians see creation and women as such filth?

The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

"And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."

In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."

St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."

Regards
DL

In what way is all this even remotely connected to the Bible or Christianity?

[Pike Bishop]

Exactly! It doesn't matter which group of people is doing the attacking or discrimination, it's still just racism if it falls within our accepted definition of racism. I can only see the concept of 'reverse racism' as a discriminatory tactic to gag and silence the victims of discrimination. Actually this gagging, censoring, silencing aspect applies to any form of extreme political correctness. Making a big noise at every real or perceived offence merely trivializes the issue and is an insult to those people who actually suffer real discrimination and persecution.

This is funny, Mona makes the politically correct move of sanctimoniously criticizing my criticism of the term "breeder,' then hypocritically bemoans the "extreme political correctness" she, herself, practices. It is also "extreme political correctness" to equate criticizing racism practiced by minorities, and sexism practiced by women, as a "discriminatory tactic to gag and silence the victims of discrimination," when they are entirely separate things. Minorities do attack White people for being white, and women do assault and abuse men and boys; so, acknowledging those truths "gag" nobody

And Mona clearly doesn't understand what the accepted definition of racism is...and it certainly isn't hers. Racism has two accepted official definitions:

1. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2. Racial prejudice or discrimination

Neither of these definitions say anything about "Whiteness" or requiring the participation of a member of the privileged class. So, people of ethnic minorities can be racist, just like women can be sexist. Only a sanctimonious, extremely politically correct person like Mona could think otherwise.

[Iain Sparrow]

This is funny, Mona makes the politically correct move of sanctimoniously criticizing my criticism of the term "breeder,' then hypocritically bemoans the "extreme political correctness" she, herself, practices. It is also "extreme political correctness" to equate criticizing racism practiced by minorities, and sexism practiced by women, as a "discriminatory tactic to gag and silence the victims of discrimination," when they are entirely separate things. Minorities do attack White people for being white, and women do assault and abuse men and boys; so, acknowledging those truths "gag" nobody

And Mona clearly doesn't understand what the accepted definition of racism is...and it certainly isn't hers. Racism has two accepted official definitions:

1. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2. Racial prejudice or discrimination

Neither of these definitions say anything about "Whiteness" or requiring the participation of a member of the privileged class. So, people of ethnic minorities can be racist, just like women can be sexist. Only a sanctimonious, extremely politically correct person like Mona could think otherwise.


Jeeez, you're a mealy-mouthed curmudgeon.

We know and accept the definition of racism.
We do not accept, nor take seriously a straight white man living in a country where straight white men have most of the power and hold most of the purse strings, and make most of the laws, who then claims to be the victim of racism, or sexism, or whatever 'ism' you'd like to plug in. A black racist, or a sexist woman have an uphill battle if they really intend on doing some damage.
It is no coincidence that I find myself in my 40s and have yet to have my life meaningfully impacted by either a black racist or a sexist woman. Surely they exist, but to no consequence in my life or the lives of most people. They are next to powerless.

[Pike Bishop]

Jeeez, you're a mealy-mouthed curmudgeon.

We know and accept the definition of racism.
We do not accept, nor take seriously a straight white man living in a country where straight white men have most of the power and hold most of the purse strings, and make most of the laws, who then claims to be the victim of racism, or sexism, or whatever 'ism' you'd like to plug in. A black racist, or a sexist woman have an uphill battle if they really intend on doing some damage.
It is no coincidence that I find myself in my 40s and have yet to have my life meaningfully impacted by either a black racist or a sexist woman. Surely they exist, but to no consequence in my life or the lives of most people. They are next to powerless.

No. you're a mealy-mouthed clown who doesn't understand "mealy-mouthed" or "curmudgeon"...;)

Mona clearly didn't understand the term "racism" in her post to me, since she implied people couldn't be racist against white men. You continued that misunderstanding when you ridiculously compared my taking exception to the term "breeder" to Whites complaining about a "holocaust." And I never claimed to be a victim of anything. I just correctly said the term "breeder" is rude. The fact you erroneously and sanctimoniously portrayed that as "victimization" proves what a clown you are.

By the way, these words of yours from Delta's blog are the words of a true racist:

"He smiled and did nothing, gave me that "I don't speak English look". I grabbed his eldest boy and threw him out of line. I said, "who's next?". Then it got really ugly; they were Mexican and I let them know where they ought to go back to."

You actually assaulted 9-year old Mexican kids, who you actually said had a "I don't speak English look," and let them know "where they ought to go back to." Those are the actions and words of a 40-something White racist who has neither any clue about his White privilege nor any clue he's a racist who throws that privilege around.

[Logos]

GENERAL NOTE TO ALL:

It's been a long time since I've seen such immaturity in these discussion forums.

Please keep all of your petty squabbles and personal vendetta nonsense off of the discussion forums and private messages and blog posts etc.

I'm a few clicks away from adding infraction points or temporary bans to some members who have participated in this thread. Please acquaint yourselves with the Forum Rules. Again. Including #4:


4. In general, you may not use your membership privileges here via posting text or images in the forums, signature lines, tags, blog entries or blog comments, profile visitor messages, groups, photo albums, or private messages for:

a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or ad hominem (for example personally attacking or insulting other members),
b) maliciously hijacking discussion topics,
c) deliberately posting so as to circumvent the inappropriate word filters, or, not posting in the English language,
d) threatening, harassing, stalking, abusing or intimidating other members,
e) spamming -- posting commercial messages, overtly promoting personal or commercial websites or services, and/or promoting/advertising other forums,
f) flooding -- posting multiple posts or topics in a short period of time,
g) any illegal activity, and,
h) any other disruptive behaviour that negatively affects other members' fair use of this site.

If you're going to post your OPINION here you better be prepared for some contrary opinions.

If you can't discuss things without getting personal, stop posting. Please.

.

.

.