1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. textosteron
    inquisition1.jpg

    I am not a religious person, not at all, i despise organized monotheistic religions and blame them for more deaths and suffering then plague, malaria, aids, tuberculosis, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot combined.

    And, that's all fine...i mean, what can one say that hasn't been said already? Nothing!

    Still, the bizarre abuse of Christianity's central figure, Jesus, by the same daemonic, filthy rich, blood-spilling organizations is what really hits my nerve.

    This super-awesome character, regardless if he was the son of god, a prophet or just a regular guy, an oldest hippie way ahead of it's time, who stood behind his words that love and forgiveness must be above everything and gave his life for that belief surely does not deserve that!

    If he would see that instead of what has been written (do not worship idols, images, pillars, stones and so on), Christians are worshiping a trunk of wood on which he was tortured to death, and ignore everything he preached about love, forgiveness and overall positivity, he'd tell his dad that it might be a good time for another flood.

    Naaah, in fact he wouldn't, coz he was a great guy who would forgive you that too! =)

    As Gandhi said: "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ"

Comments

  1. enquirewithin
    There were lots of wacky holy men types about, as there are now- even the four accounts of his life disagree. Do you believe in virgin births and resurrections? There doesn't seem much in the stories to me. Common sense tells people to be nice to each other-- who needs a 'holy man' to tell us?
  2. textosteron
    Interesting input there! :)

    Honestly, for me, the whole "unearthly" aspect of the story is of no importance at all. I don't even care if he really existed, let alone if he changed water to wine or was conceived by the holy spirit. It's the message he carried that matters. What's most important in all that are the circumstances in which the message was delivered, common sense as we perceive it today was almost non-existent back then among general population.

    To quote myself from my "A New Renaissance?" post:

    Even with all positive changes and transformation of general population that took place in the meantime, we're still far from that enlightened state where common sense will keep us all living in harmony. But, things are slowly improving, one or two more world wars and we'll be there :)

    With all that said, it wasn't my intention to put focus on Jesus in the whole story, but on that evil machinery called Religion which keeps the misery alive and uses his name to fight the common sense for more then two millenniums now.

    Hopefully, New Renaissance is on the way! :)
  3. cemer
    renaissance is coming, one way or the other, somehow i don't think it will be what you expect.

    i envision it more like the " worship me/ us/ whatever, and despair".
  4. bluenarrative
    Balance is a good thing. The Gandhi quote (given here out of context) was a reference to the British authorities in India after the "salt strike," which quickly went from being civil disobedience to a riot. The British overreacted (but did not kill or imprison anybody) and Gandhi was bitter because an opportunity for political gain had been ruined-- not by the British, but by Gandhi's own followers. But Gandhi-- childishly, irrationally-- found it easier to blame the political set-back on the British.

    I am unaware of any historian who disputes that the ideal of universal literacy and education has been promoted by the Christian Church from its earliest days. Similarly, most historians consider the rise of modern science to be directly connected to Christianity. There were no public hospitals of any sort anywhere in the world prior to the establishment of these by Christians-- the same goes for orphanages and homes for the indigent elderly. The eradication of slavery is an explicitly Christian-motivated historical event. I could cite thousands of other examples of ideas, institutions, ideals, and historical developments that originate in Christian theology, were promoted by the Church, and have benefited all of humanity. The Church is obviously very flawed and has made grievous errors, in its time. Christian theology itself teaches that this is inevitable. But there does seem to be an elasticity to Christianity that is unique in the history of human institutions: unlike other faiths or ideologies, Christianity seems to learn from its mistakes; it continues to grow and mature; and, from inception, it has dedicated itself (witb mixed results) to improving the material conditions of all people, whether they be Christian or not. The Church is constantly evolving and changing. You can level all sorts of charges against it, but only a patently ignorant person would ever accuse it (the institution itself, not individual members or component parts/branches) of being rigid or inflexible. In this regard, compare and contrast Christianity with, say, Islam...

    You might want to spend some time with some Mennonites or with Mother Theresa's nuns or with East African Anglicans in the slums of Kapalua or Nairobi. You might want to examine the role of the Russian Orthodox Church during Stalin's reign of terror. Do you know about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Lutheran opposition to Hitler? You should be careful about making sweeping generalizations and cherry-picking your facts. There is a much more balanced way of looking at the Church than you suggest above. If you do not care for some particular facets of the Church, that's fine. But you should understand that it is, in fact, much bigger, more diverse, less "institutional," and multi-faceted than you suggest in your blog.
  5. bluenarrative
    I am also more than a bit baffled by your assertion that the Church has more blood on it's hand than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

    Hitler murdered 6 million Jews-- another 7.5 million non-Jews were murdered in his death camps on top of this. The most conservative estimate of Stalin's death-toll is about 10 million people murdered. Pol Pot murdered 5 million people. These numbers do not include countless millions who died in the wars started by these men. The total is, at least, 29 million. Can you back up your claim that Christianity has a record to compare with this? Where, exactly, do you see evidence that Christianity has ever been guilty of comparable crimes?
  6. Joe-(5-HTP)
    It's not clear whether christianity "learns from its mistakes" because it chooses to, or because it would die out as a religion if it didn't.

    It would be pretty difficult to argue that religion kills more that those fascist dictators. It is possible though, if you want to say religion somehow spreads negative psychology, influences culture negatively, etc. That isn't that indirect a notion of causation as some might think either, but it is a complex one influenced by factors other than religion.

    I don't think we have to say all these bad things about religion in order to get rid of it. I think we just have to carry on caring about truth. Since science is so important to our ability to keep people alive, provide comfort and safety and enjoyment and new experiences, we will continue to care about truth. Even people who believe in god these days don't believe like people used to. "God" now is some sort of ethereal, diaphanous and intentionally vague concept. God is really now just some sort of spiritual adviser, some vauge ideal like "infinite wisdom" or just "god is love" or something like "a higher power", "a higher consciousness" or even just like an idea like "we are all connected" or that there is something more to life, and more to what we can see. That's not God people are believing in there, that's just what the human mind does in its struggle to comprehend reality.

    That is god now. What will god be in the future? He will continue to shrink into nothingness. This is not done by atheists, it is done in the mind of the believer.

    God is dead, and we have killed him.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!