Printable View
Here's a bit of a thinkpiece for you guys.
http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/phot...79378_3448.jpg
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/phot...79379_3800.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/phot...79380_4131.jpg
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/phot...79381_4483.jpg
http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/phot...79382_4832.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/phot...79436_8182.jpg
That is all kinds of fucked up.
WHAT THE FUCK
Is that some sort of christian propaganda? For crissakes, I understand the educating children about sexual abuse, but for crissakes, the "I'm not gay" thing seems a little heady for the audience this seems geared for.
I hope that book was made as a joke. I agree with Zip.
I don't actually know the origin of the book. I received it as a forwarded email and it was posted on a facebook page. I have to believe it is for real, because I can't imagine someone going to that amount of effort for a joke.
My favorite parts:
the attempt to link homosexuality and molestation in the psyche of young children
the assertion that molestation only happens "in the absence of a father's love"
page 4 when the mother tells the kid her problems and he feels "strange"
page 7-8 there is sports poster with a football punter. Has there ever been a poster made to glorigy a punter.
page 9 the bubble with "Hey Faggot!!!!" and the claim that a teenager doesn't know what it means
last page: he needed his dad's "touch"?
Pretty misguided attempt to deal with a huge social ill all the way around. Of course, linking homosexuality with molestation as a cause is just plain dumb. That's why I suspect this is the work of christians.
My girlfriend has worked with abused children before, and she isn't that offended. Apparently, there have been cases where molested kids have been confused about their sexual orientation. However, I still see an agenda and indoctrination attempt when I look at it. Anyways, back to random pictures.
It certainly does seem to be pushing something that its not explicitly stating. My only reason not to think its a ... lets say LDS book is that they wouldn't be so subtle about it. There'd be crosses on the wall of the house and a couple bible verses in there and the ending would be in church and about loving God.
It would also be on gold plates.
Very Mxy of you Glenn.
lol, I looked for what I deemed to be the key quote in the book on Google and wha-la.
"Now, I realize that I'm not gay"
Great work, Glenn.
It is just as I thought: christians trying to take over the world. Has it not been enough for them to casue wars, kill millions, trample on medical and scientific research? MUST they come after a group of people who can actually pick out clothes that match, decorate their homes tastefully, AND fix a car?
Is this where some of our "faith based initiative" tax dollars go?
http://vista.powerblogs.com/files/sign.jpg
Its the work of one man.
Calling it the work of "christians trying to take over the world" is like calling your "Shit in the Morning" thread the work of the Nebraska public education system. Do you never tire of your one note?Quote:
Mr. Cohen has personally produced a children’s book, Alfie's Home.
I'm a Christian, so... yeah. We're not all like what Zip proclaims, of course.
Anyone who denies that christians are trying to take over the world is delusional.
Uncle Pete in the story is Peter Parker, better known as Spider-Man. He was sexually abused in his youth:
http://www.superdickery.com/images/s...on/spidey2.jpg
As an adult, he has a difficult time keeping it in his pants, probably because he wears tights most of the time.
(Seriously, yes, this is all just fucked up shit.)
sexual deviance has a strong correlation with sexual abuse as a child.
not that homosexuallity = sexual deviance, but homosxuallity who's roots are in child molestation probably has a good chance of going down that road.
in the big picture, it might not be THAT bad for people to find inner peace with religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip Goshboots
i'll see your one fanatic and raise you another:
http://www.1sted.dk/ii/ledere/hitler.jpg
(hitler almost certainly held no religious views that were based on spirituallity).
so i guess by your logic it must be the atheists who are trying to take over and ruin the world, right?
"You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[18] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[19] In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-christian tract from 362CE, Julian's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this..."[20] He was reported to say that religion should die on its own accord.
I'm not necessarily the most religious person in the world, but we do have to realize that not every Atheist is a great person him or herself ya know. In fact I've heard and seen more Atheists bitching about everything lately, but that could just be the people I live around (you know, the kids nowadays that are bandwagon Atheists and listen to Motley Crue).
As for Hitler, he preached Pagan ideas...that's all I got. :x
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you gotta paint your face blue and pray to Chthulhu in order to keep yourself from molesting kids, please do. But it's not going to get you any closer to understanding why you think the way you do.
Are you making fun of those of us who paint our face blue and worship Cthulhu?
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...mot-kraken.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by timbeau0805
Anybody who tries to make EVERY thread he's in about his personal vendetta against religion is insane. The thread isn't (well, it wasn't before your remarks) about this Z. You have plenty that are to play in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip Goshboots
By the way, nice job with "thinkpiece", x.
While you make a good point, Fool, I disagree on the grounds that religion is severely misguided with regard to its agenda toward homosexuality and what may or may not "cause" it. Religion tends to compartmentalize homosexuality so guilt ridden homosexuals (who are taught that there is something inherently wrong with them) are led to believe that they can pray the gay away.
The author of this piece, according to the great detective work of whomever found the info about him is and has been closely associated with religious groups.
^ Cogent.
Fuckin' right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...ewak/holla.jpg
P.S. LOL "cogent"
it was a coherent point by zip. i've heard the point raised that the whole "anti-gay stance" is more of a creation in the church and lacks strong foundation from the bible. i guess i could see how you could see it that way. but i disagree. i think the bible pretty clearly states homosexuallity is wrong.
i will say this though. its very telling that most of the religious folk will justify the "homoism is wrong" stance by saying that homosexuals are much more prone to a life of promiscuity, rather than creating the social bonds (ie marriage) that promote a healthy society. yet its those same people that do their best to prevent homosexuals from achieving those bonds (blocking gay marriage, de facto ostracizing them from community, etc).
even though im a defender, i do realize that there are alot of flaws among religious folk.
Honestly I don't mind the Christians at all. I'd be a lot more likely to come to their defense myself if they were just willing to change a few small things about the way in which the religion is practiced today in America.
Religion is myth. We are in an age where the religionists are trying to take over governments here and abroad. 150 lawyers in the justice department from Pat Robertson's college is frightening. Get religion the FUCK out of government, out of any policy making, and get it the fuck behind closed doors so they can all pray together and leave the rest of us alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
Then I have no problem.
Zip - religion is the backbone of our society. Most if not all of our rights are based on some form of religious view. Religion provides a sense of morality to all of our laws.
I understand your frustration with religion. But you need to understand that the handful of people that make Christianity/Judaism/Islam look bad is in the minority. Unfortunately, a lot of those people hold a lot of power (Bush/Bin Laden). They use religion as the reason to reign terror. However, there would be a different set of morals if religion was completely taken out of every government.
I could go on about this forever, but I don't have the time or the energy to type more than I just typed. Obviously this is a much bigger debate than just a few sentences.
That's certainly open to debate. Back when the various Christian churches were at the height of their power, most people had no rights at all. Our rights are a product of the weakening of religious institutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoTown
To someone who decides against religion on a philosophical basis, the only religious people worth respecting are the fundamentalists. We may fear them, but we respect them, because at least they are following their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Judaism does say that women are unclean. Christianity does say that people who don't believe in Jesus aren't going to go to heaven. Islam does say that non-believers must be conquered, killed, or converted. The liberal believer (the Reform Jew, the Christian who embraces gays, the Muslim who accepts religious pluralism) turns his back on both God and reason.Quote:
I understand your frustration with religion. But you need to understand that the handful of people that make Christianity/Judaism/Islam look bad is in the minority.
There's no doubt about that. But I think that without the influence of religion on government (and here I'm thinking mostly about Islam and Christianity, which have the most influence on governments in the world), our society would actually be more moral. A man who refrains from killing out of fear of God isn't moral, he's just a coward. Christianity and Islam are quite immoral as it pertains to certain things. To proclaim dogma over the evidence of your senses is immoral. To put someone into the legal system for victimless crimes is immoral. To interfere in the love lives of strangers is immoral. Someone who believes that God has laid down the code of behavior for the world, and to break this code is to jeopardize your chances of being judged by God, actually doesn't know anything about morality at all.Quote:
Unfortunately, a lot of those people hold a lot of power (Bush/Bin Laden). They use religion as the reason to reign terror. However, there would be a different set of morals if religion was completely taken out of every government.
Plato, quoting Socrates, once said: "I know this much through studying philosophy: that I do without being told what other men do only because they are afraid of the law." The formation of good character comes about only by the development of reason. The idea that a transcendent God is a necessary component of behavioral standards is an unconscionable error. In fact, the notion of a transcendent God actually prevents the development of a truly moral character.
I hear you, I get tired of talking about this after a little while. I'm good for short stretches, but it wears me out. No hard feelings. :)Quote:
I could go on about this forever, but I don't have the time or the energy to type more than I just typed. Obviously this is a much bigger debate than just a few sentences.
Wow, that's pretty closed off. Since you used the 3 religions of the book I am assuming you are defining each religion by a certain translation of said book (not that I'm going to argue that the correct translation would negate those statements)? You (and I'm using the plural you here since you pretty much declared all people who have turned against religion philosophically to be of one mind on the issue) hold no leave for those that consider religion to be determined by those who practice it?Quote:
To someone who decides against religion on a philosophical basis, the only religious people worth respecting are the fundamentalists. We may fear them, but we respect them, because at least they are following their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Judaism does say that women are unclean. Christianity does say that people who don't believe in Jesus aren't going to go to heaven. Islam does say that non-believers must be conquered, killed, or converted. The liberal believer (the Reform Jew, the Christian who embraces gays, the Muslim who accepts religious pluralism) turns his back on both God and reason.
Not everyone sees religion as a master to its followers.
That's a pretty bold prediction that I know Zip shares. Certainly you'd think those governments would be without the moral failings of the governments that are easily swayed by those who use religion to corrupt (By the way, it should be stated right out for the audience that you explicitly cutting out entire branchs of moral thought by excluding all ethics based on supreme authority. Not to mention you do this without even mentioning the different reason based methods for arriving at systems of morallity such as consequentialism, deontological ethics, normative ethics and the problems involved in deciding which branch to go with). However, as far as a reason to believe your (and assumedly Zip's) utopic world I think we've had that discussion and I don't recall a reason to believe the past would have been substantially more moral w/o religion.Quote:
There's no doubt about that. But I think that without the influence of religion on government (and here I'm thinking mostly about Islam and Christianity, which have the most influence on governments in the world), our society would actually be more moral. A man who refrains from killing out of fear of God isn't moral, he's just a coward. Christianity and Islam are quite immoral as it pertains to certain things. To proclaim dogma over the evidence of your senses is immoral. To put someone into the legal system for victimless crimes is immoral. To interfere in the love lives of strangers is immoral. Someone who believes that God has laid down the code of behavior for the world, and to break this code is to jeopardize your chances of being judged by God, actually doesn't know anything about morality at all.
[Edit: It occurs to me that I might be taking this wrong. That you might be saying the less broad statement that with a more clean cut between religions and the governments of today, that the current world would essentially be without the bad of religion in govenment but still with the most of the good in government. If that's the case, I can't say I dissagree on first blush. If fact, in general I'm very supportive of keeping governments out of religion and vice versa and generally distrust people and messages that try to change one via the other (even on local levels I am often put off by people who want to make "lawfullness = moral". More of a "religion = personal / government = social" approach.
"To proclaim dogmas over the evidence of the senses is immoral" only if the doggmas are immoral and the senses would lead you to morality (another of your main and largely undefended assumptions).
"To interfere in the love lives of strangers is immoral." I'll let battered women everywhere know.
"Someone who believes that God has laid down the code of behavior for the world, and to break this code is to jeopardize your chances of being judged by God, actually doesn't know anything about morality at all." This comes as a shock to me since I both believe the former and have gotten some pretty good grades studying the latter.
1) Fixed.Quote:
Plato, quoting Socrates, once said: "I know this much through studying philosophy: that I do without being told what other men do only because they are afraid of the law." The formation of good character comes about only by the development of reason. The idea that a transcendent God is a necessary component of behavioral standards is an unconscionable error. In fact, the notion of a transcendent God actually prevents the development of a truly moral character (as long as you define moral as based solely on reason).
2) Plato wrote.
3) A pitty on all those poor souls who existed prior to the developement of eastern/greek philosophy.
4)How does the quote both fit with your statement after it and not strike you as being the same sort of cowardice, which you claim is displayed by people who don't murder because they are afraid of God?
Motown:
I vehemently disagree that religion is the "backbone" of our society. That says man cannot be moral or establish morals or laws without subscribing to the belief that he will be damned forever if he is "sinful". This so called "backbone" is guilty of so much egregious crime, hate, division of people, and on and on that to define a society by religion says something pretty bad about that society.
I really believe people are "religious" because they don;t know any better. They are mostly afraid of what the afterlife may or may not be. They hedge their bets, at least publicly. The constraints of religion often put up impossible barriers and mountains of shame and guilt (often for things that can be pretty innoccuous).
As for the claim (at least my interpretation of your claim) that the few bad apples (powerful people) spoiling it for the rest, that is completely indefensible a notion. I can say that people are good because people are good. They would not harm each other anyway, God or not, and certainly not harm their loved ones or friends; people have a sense of community that is innate. In religion, there are FAR more people with power than the Pope, Bin Laden, or Jerry Falwell. There are the individual churches who pass on all the dogma, there are individuals who pass on all the dogma, and there is, most of all, this insipid belief in some Fairy in the Sky that will reward you eternally or punish you eternally based on exploits while on this planet, within the context of this life.
Fool says pity the people who lived before the Greeks! Well, pity the people who lived before Jesus walked the Earth; pity the people who weren't relatives of Noah or Abraham. Pity the children of Sosom and Gomorrah. Pity the people who believe a man was swallowed by a whale and lived.
Pity the people who lived before the Catholics abolished Purgatory. Pity the people who were alive during the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. Pity the people who are under the yolk of Islam, or will feel the wrath of a religion which says that all unbelievers or believers of another creed or set of rules sent down from the clouds should be converted, killed, or, as Swami says, will burn in hell forever.
Pity people who believe in a God that created this boogeyman who will torture them for an eternity if they are "bad", especially if "God" takes a young "bad" person from this life before he has a chance to do the christian thing and shout "Oops! I'm SORRY!" on his deathbed.
You are mixing your intentions here. You are going back and forth between using my own statement as a counter-argument to my point (and good on you for the move) and using the pattern of my words to again express your distaste for specifics about religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip Goshboots
As for the counter-argument portion, most religions already address say the people who lived before Jesus, or aren't Jews, or lived before Muhammad. I can get into that if you want but that's doggma which I know you dislike.
Perhaps Big Swam equally has a system that accounts for those outside the rational minded. I would not assume so however, as it appears he sees morality as a purely rational excercise (which isn't all that bad an idea in the first place).
How can religion "address" the people who lived before the Greeks, etc,?
What right do people have to address the eternal salvation or damnation of other people?
It IS dogma, and that's all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. That is all it ever can be because that is all people who look to the sky for salvation will ever be able to understand, or be controlled by.