The True Face of Pure Evil
The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by
inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions
will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by
conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this
country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area
the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to
or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and
the Party which is its home and sponsor.
That’s just dead on, even though Leonard Peikoff is wrong that this implies that I have any moral obligation to vote, and/or to vote as he would have me to vote. But I’m interested in the core issue here: "What does determine the survival of this
country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy." Indeed, and I will remind you that we are governed by a nutbar and others who actually believe that "Jesus is coming again; Praise God." They believe he will come in a Rapture, and that millions of them will disappear into thin air, leaving the rest of us (billions) to die and suffer eternal torment. Such eternal judgment, torture, torment and death is their most sacred and profound hope beyond their own privileged salvation. It is the core of their sense of justice, which reduces to: believe in my assertion of truth, or face eternal, unending torment. I originally wrote that "it’s every bit as whacked and nutty as anything L. Ron Hubbard ever came up with," but in reality, it’s pure evil in a genocidal sort of way.
I estimate that Fundamentalist, Born-Again Christianity indeed posses the most dangerous potential in the world, far surpassing the threat posed by Islamic Fundamentalism or Hillary Clinton. Why? Because the United States has the power to easily destroy the entire world, for one. Unlike the Muslim world, Born-Agains are only recently coming to reject science and high technology out-of-hand as anti-God, now that science is increasingly accessible to average people who heretofore have been easy to keep dumb and stupid by the country preacher and his sycophants. But technologically, the cat is already out of the bag. The world can now be annihilated by means of technology already know, understood, and available — available to religious morons like George Bush. They are primitives in mind, but not in matter. That’s a dangerous combination, particularly when such destructive power is already at hand. From that second link, just above:
Religious fundamentalism in Israel, the Roman Empire, China, and the Islamic world had very destructive results. Israel BCE was consumed with religious zealotry and alienated itself from its surrounding Greek and Roman civilizations. Israel’s zeal for God got its reward in 70 CE. The Romans annihilated Israel.
The Roman Empire’s unlikely demise came three centuries later. Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, blames Rome’s fall in part on the ascendancy of Christianity.
Buddhist fundamentalism in China resulted in centuries of chaos until the 9th Century when the Song renaissance restored the Chinese civilization.
Islam’s early success was spectacular. It produced many intellectuals and scientists until fundamentalism gained the upper hand in the late 11th Century leading to a millennium of backwardness, which still afflicts the Islamic world.
All of these past fundamentalist movements derailed scientific inquiry before the technology to destroy the world became discovered and available. It goes on:
In February the New Scientist reported a survey in which fully half the scientists working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said they had been pushed to change or withdraw scientific findings for political reasons.
Fundamentalism’s anti-science attitude pervades society. The science journal Physical Review reported in May 2004 that scientific papers published by west European authors exceeded those by U.S. authors in 2003. In 1983, there were three American authors for every one west European.
The percentage of patents granted to American scientists has been falling since 1980, from 60.2 percent of the world’s total to 51.8 percent.
In 1989, America trained the same number of science and engineering PhDs as Britain, Germany and France combined. In 2004, the United States is five percent behind. European scientists now outnumber American scientists in citations awarded.
America is behind in cloning and stem cell research, now led by South Korean, Italian and British scientists. American fundamentalists seek to outlaw stem cell research on the arbitrary and totally unproven premise that "life begins at conception," a recent concept contrary to the teaching of St. Augustine and the allegedly infallible Roman papacy for some 1,500 years.
Fundamentalists use religious pretexts against scientific and cultural objections. A religious sounding "bumper sticker"-like rationality is usually sufficient to corral the pliant followers. Fundamentalism’s dictates on issues are arbitrary and cleverly manipulated to appeal to the emotions of voters. Whether the issue is evolution, gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia or the environment, the strategy is the same.
President Bush’s recent endorsement of teaching "Intelligent Design" perpetuates this same denial of science. ID proponents have never had an article on ID published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. They do not conduct experiments that would prove or falsify their hypothesis. Their religious conjecture under the guise of science makes no useful predictions, nor can they model it mathematically. There are no research labs doing ID science because "Intelligent design" is not science, it is religion!
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" is a profound quote by philosopher George Santayana. We used to be fearful that Communism might bring America down. History and current trends show the fruit of Christian fundamentalism. It is a far more insidious enemy seducing its gullible adherents with idle threats and false promises. Religious fundamentalists’ objectives have never changed; they seek vindication for their rejection and want America’s obeisance. Under George Bush, it looks like history is repeating itself. They will gladly lead our nation down fundamentalism’s proven path of destruction, all in the name of their God!
Fundamentalist, Born-Again Christianity is the most dangerous evil we face as human beings, and I wouldn’t say that unless I had personal experience over many years. They believe that unless you are "saved," you will literally live an eternity in literal torment in a literal place. I have know personally Born-Agains who would be most happy to
push the button — with the sole proviso that everyone killed would
fist have an opportunity to "accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior." No, I’m not making it up. Yep, basically: monkeys screeching in the jungle.
It’s instructive to note that the Soviets likely never seriously contemplated nuking the world as a means of saving it, but I’ll bet you can think of people, jingoist Fundamentalist Christians, who enthusiastically subscribe to the notion: kill ’em all; and let God sort it out. It’s because the Soviet Union was so clearly and utterly evil that this distinction isn’t something that ought to be dismissed lightly.
If you wish to understand the creeping influence of Fundamental Christianity, poised to make of once gleaming America a backwards, anti-intellectual, anti-science quasi-theocracy that operates as an oppressive police state ready to lock up misbehavers at the slightest pretense, then start right here. We’re well on our way.
- Over 9 million people are held in penal institutions throughout the
world, mostly as pre-trial detainees (remand prisoners) or having been
convicted and sentenced. About half of these are in the United States
(2.03m), Russia (0.86m) or China (1.51m plus pre-trial detainees and
prisoners in ‘administrative detention’). - The United States has the highest prison population rate in the
world, some 701 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by
Russia (606), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(both 522), the Cayman Islands (501), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459),
Bermuda (447), Suriname (437), Dominica (420) and Ukraine (415). - However, more than three fifths of countries (60.5%) have rates
below 150 per 100,000. (The United Kingdom’s rate of 141 per 100,000 of
the national population places it above the midpoint in the World List;
it is the highest among countries of the European Union.)
Just so I’m not misunderstood, everybody gets to be as stupid as they want to be. I judge religion and the religious as intellectually lacking. Frankly: stupid morons, and I’ll never back away from that pronouncement for anyone. But if they want to go through life as the modern equivalent of savages hiding from the revealing gaze of the full moon, then who am I to argue? My advice is to never give anyone any political power — i.e., the sanction to initiate coercion — but if you must, as least don’t give it to the monkeys screeching in the jungle.
(link to Peikoff: Venlet)
Update: Billy adds this, in addition to his comments.
"The Cold War" is not "over", socialism is not "dead", and the Democrats will be an unprecedented disaster.
In this I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt that the republicans are much the same. It’s just socialism with God’s blessing. Look: that’s where we’re headed, either way, "if we’re lucky," by which I mean something a lot worse doesn’t happen first. Why not just let’s get it over with? End the slow torture, and just maybe if this downtrend ever finds a bottom, it’ll be easier to work it from there.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
31 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
David:
To clarify, I do not believe that all Christians are evil. Far from it. There are some I love and cherish. But I think the ideology is at its core evil — not because of the good things some people do in spite of it, but because it is an ideology of ultimate judgment, torture and death for those who don't ultimately believe. Some may deny that's its core ideology, but they're wrong. it is what it is.
Individuals are free to cherry pick, of course, but they're not really the dangerous ones. It is the fundamentalists — those who essentially don't cherry pick. The very fact that there is such a thing as fundamentalism is the fact that makes the argument of its core (i.e., fundamental) evilness.
I realize I offend when I label large swaths of people morons and idiots, but I do nothing I don't do to myself every day. I recently made a huge moronic and stupid mistake and it cost me a lot of money. My fault was in ignoring plain facts of reality I was plainly aware of. That's moronic. The difference is that I like nothing more than to identify my own stupidity. That's the only path to correcting it.
"In all things, look first to the Lord!"
Look, I don't talk to monkeys screeching in the jungle. Unless you can grant the primacy of reality, as opposed to the primacy of your imaginary friend, we've nothing to talk about.
Bible quotes. What self delusion.
Your post is just dead WRONG! The attacks on faith and Religious freedom are the problem, and you're part of it.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not separation of church and state.
America was founded as a Christian nation despite what liberals say to the contrary.
Read the early writing of the founding fathers! Not just Jefferson who was a lone minority and mistakely thought he new everything.
Libs hate religion 'cuz they can't face their immortality, and that is the gist of why they search in vain for man-made utopia, sucking up satan's lies of this world, instead of seeking God.
In all things, look first to the Lord!
Christians are NOT affraid of science at all, if it is done with morality and values. The majority of Christians embrace science as a gift from God.
Christitans are however concerned that science wants to bannish God by replacing faith with man-made THEORIES of how everything was created. Cloning is very dangerous and will lead from unseen consequences to disaster.
Libs love to live in make believe and then wonder why their lives are so screwed up while they promote all that is evil, including this blog post.
If libs and atheists understood the Bible, they'd realize what they're doing, but they don't know because they believe more in their own opinions, man and science than the truth. As surely as Science is a tool for advancement, if pushed too far, it will surely backfire on mankind. All one has to do is look at WMD's to see that.
As it says in the good book, "many who believe they are smart will be made dumb in the last days."
Matt 23:23
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others.
24
Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!
25
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.
26
Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.
27
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth.
28
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.
24:4
Jesus said to them in reply, "See that no one deceives you.
Wow. That was a scathing article on Christianity. I found it fascinating, though I am a Christian. You have some deep objections to the Christian faith, and some of them are valid. It is true that some Christians have a certain disregard for human life, and a certain lack of love for their fellow man. It is also true that some Christians are afraid of advancement in scientific and intellectual realms, but I think you take it too far when you extend what is a definite problem within Christianity to being the entire state of Christianity.
I would say this on two grounds. First, many Christians do care deeply about those they believe will suffer "eternal torment" and believe that God cares deeply about these individuals as well. Secondly, the accusation that Christians are opposed to scientific understanding is stereotypical rather than absolutely true. It is true that many Christians are afraid of scientific progress – and this is something inside of Christianity which is being fought against. There are significant efforts from within Christianity to encourage individuals to use their minds and not allow religion to be simply a matter of ignorant emotion, and it is not this for many of us.
Many of us honestly grapple with the results of modern scientific discoveries as well as with learning how we should apply ourselves in being a part of humankind.
Look forward to reading more of your posts.
David.
I say Peikoff is dead wrong, Rich.
Consider that without the state, Christianity could be just as nutty as it wanted to be, and it wouldn't matter to you and me. Now, of course, you could never get him to even stipulate to this premise.
That's why he calls it a moral imperative to vote.
That, right there, should start the alarm bells.
"What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy."
We're not talking about "fundamental philosophy", Rich. We're talking about a particular branch of philosophy — politics — and its immediate practical implications: this election.
Oh, I agree about the voting part, and John Venlet addressed that.
I think Peikoff is right when he says: "What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy." Do you disagree?
I tend to say something along these lines a lot, but let me say it a bit differently now. I think the large issue here is metaphysical, not epistemological, not ethical, and not political. I think most modern humans tend to "get by" epistemologically and ethically, which is to say they're not completely inept with the use of reason and adherence to their commandments. But their politics have more to do with their metaphysical view, particularly for religious fundamentalists.
The problem is the first axiom, and religious folks begin with a metaphysical premise (existence was created by God) that just has no basis, and then go on to reason reasonably well from there (i.e., given the premise). Their entire existential view is based upon a flat-out assertion, which, of course, allows them unlimited and unchecked ability to assert virtually anything.
And, of course they are using the state as their proxy, just like everyone else. But isn't that argument kind of like the gun-control argument, the idea that you can keep bad people in check by just cutting off the supply of guns? Bad people use guns, so guns are the problem. Evil people use the state, so the state is the problem.
But just as with guns, the cat is already out of the bag. You don’t need a state anymore to annihilate humanity with nukes or bio weapons, and that’s going to become increasingly the case.
We will ultimately reach a place, unless totalitarian lockdown is established first, where some individuals not associated with any state will have the ability to annihilate millions or billions on a whim. And I maintain that our only hope of survival in that scenario is philosophy, and if that’s the case, then you can’t begin with a flat-out assertion.
People who believe in a literal heaven and hell, in a literal eternal life in paradise vs. eternal torture and torment in hell, and that Jesus is coming again to take his believers home and to judge and damn the other billions to eternal torture…these people are capable of believing anything whatsoever. And since they “culturize” all these fundamental belief systems, they have literally set humanity on a path of self destruction. Someday, someone with the power to do so is going to decide that the world is beyond salvation, and that the best thing to do is hasten the end (which they already believe is coming). Kill ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out.
Freedom is utterly incompatible with a flawed metaphysics, and this goes far, far beyond political concretes, which is why I think Peikoff hits on something crucially important. The reason we are increasingly seeing this agitation and antagonism is because this incompatibility is increasingly asserting itself. Frankly, between the cradle-to-grave Euros and the Bible-or-Koran (no difference) Thumpers, I’ll take my chances with the Euros.
That’s my chosen go-cart to hell, Billy.
Sabotta:
As usual, you're full of shit when it has anything to do with estimating my reaction to things. No explanation needed. You're just too full of shit to merit one.
To whoever posted this:
"Yes, we need to be wary of those extreem Christians…like the Amish. They are so dangerous!!! The secular communists and Islamists are nothing to worry about. BUT WE MUST STOP THE AMISH."
Really exposes your inability to comprehend simple words and explanations. As the religious go, the Amish are about ideal. They keep their imaginary friends to themselves and disdain political action of any kind (like me). I can live in peace with people like that.
"We're talking about a particular branch of philosophy — politics — and its immediate practical implications: this election."
You might be, and Peikoff might be, but I'm not. This election, like all the others, will come, go, and the practicalities will get marginally worse, regardless of who wins and who loses.
Whether commies or born-agains are running it, it'll get worse. Really, in practical terms, I just don't think there's enough distinction to elevate your preference to the level of a moral issue, with the single exception I identified. I think the born-agains are more dangerous: short, medium, and long term. I may be wrong. I dunno, what's worse: killing in the name of the social greater good, or in the name of your imaginary friend? Does the former perhaps have some hope of being jolted back by the force of reality, while the latter is boundless? I tend to think so.
What I do know is that I've lived amongst the Japanese, the Euros, and born-again Americans. The born-agains come in 999 on a list of 3, as people I'd wish to live amongst.
It's really ironic. America was originally colonized, in large part, over religious freedom; yet I increasingly think it was the fanatical who left Europe, 'cause there certainly isn't anything even close to the theocratic pressure and influence in politics over there that we have here.
We have a guy in the White House who professes to believe in an imaginary friend, literally. A friend who talks to him and who listens to him, and is coming again to take him away to live an eternity in paradise.
My choice boils down to people who claim my life is societies to exploit and dispose of vs. people who claim my life belongs to their imaginary friend. So what it really boils down to is the choice between people I have some small hope of being able to reason with vs. people where reason is utterly impossible by the very nature of their existential view.
I just think it's the lesser of bad choices, nothing more. And, not that I'm voting or encouraging others to do so, either.
"You don't know me from the wind
you never will, you never did"
How could I, or anyone for that matter, ever know your imaginary friend, John?
"aided not least by the kind of blind malicious hatred so consistently displayed here."
You're full of shit, Sabotta. My hatred is always impeccably and righteously placed. You believe I hate religious people, but it's not true. I hate SWAT teams.
The fantasy (or drugged stupor — I don't know which) world in which you live clouds your ability to draw critical and important distinctions.
To you, and people like you, history is one big story about how religious fantasy has shaped man into greatness, only to be torn asunder by the Godless materialists.
I'll just point out, that it was the religious who, for the most part, have written down the history.
There's no way of knowing, for sure, but I personally estimate that humanity would be light years ahead had it learned to dispense with taking fantasy as literal from the beginning.
I've far less problem with religion, per se, John, as I have with literal interpretations, which, if you have been paying attention, is what my crusade is always about.
Ottmann:
Seen it a million times. Lived it. I've got one thing for your imaginary friend: a big middle finger.
Well that's just dishonest, John. I don't know about you, but if I google something and the page I get contains rational fact and argument, then I could care less that the site its contained within is a maggot-infested rotting corpse.
Are you telling me that facts are relative?
If this were 1922, you'd be defending secular Bolshevism against superstitious Christian capitalism. You'd be applauding every Patriarch shot, every church turned into a warehouse – because it'd be all so progressive and rational.
Yes, we need to be wary of those extreem Christians…like the Amish. They are so dangerous!!! The secular communists and Islamists are nothing to worry about. BUT WE MUST STOP THE AMISH.
Fundamentalism in any form is inherently dangerous, be it Christians, Muslims or Atheists. I would say that in the same way the churches that you and I grew up in are fundamentalist in their views, and believe me I despise them more than you, trust me on that, I would go into the abuse that I endured but not the right place. I can be just as productive, just a relevant, contributing just as much to society as anyone else with an atheistic view.
My basic philosophy:
Do I believe in God? Yes I do, for no other reason than, I guess, it makes me feel good.
Do I believe in a literal Heaven or Hell? No, I don’t.
Do I look at the bible as the inerrant Word of God? Until someone can prove to me that God himself wrote it, no I don’t.
Do I think the bible is a historically important work? Absolutely
I don’t believe that any government entity has the right to tell me who I can and can’t marry, you and I both served in the Military, at the time, we were committed to the protection of our freedom, how can anyone who says they believe in freedom, then say a person shouldn’t be able marry the person they choose, is inconceivable to me.
I don’t believe in banning abortion, although I’d be devastated if one of my daughters had one, I don’t like the practice, I think it’s irresponsible, I think it personifies a great deal of what’s wrong with today’s society, it still should be left to the individual. (Meaning I have my belief structure, that doesn’t equal yours being wrong)
I see the need for their to be police departments and law enforcement, right now in Houston we are averaging 1 murder per day, thank you New Orleans, these wouldn’t go away if their wasn’t a police force. However, they are used WAY to often, with WAY to may resources used to investigate a football betting pool, than solving and catching those who committed the above mentioned murders.
Continuing that thought I don’t believe you have the freedom to take my life or anyone else’s, and if you do you forfeit the right to your own existence, One of the few things the State of Texas is doing right, the average stay on Death row in the US is about 22 years, it’s 8 in Texas.
I guess the point is that my belief system is simply; you have the right to believe and to practice those beliefs anyway you want to, until you attempt to by force, exclusionism or any other form of coercion prevent me from practicing my beliefs. One person’s freedom is sacred until their freedom becomes more important, or trumps my freedom.
"you fell for that "prayer study" fraud"?
What are you talking about?
Listen, I am perfectly confident that you and I would get along just finer in person, and plus, truly, any friend of Beck's has at least some of my eternal respect: and that goes far deeper that you can even imagine.
So what's the problem, Sabotta?
There is no hope whatsoever, for anybody. Looking around I can see the grim spectacle of Kim Du Toit happily volunteering for firing squad duty, of you indulging in your usual petty hatred and obsessions and calling it "philosophy", of a Diana Hsieh and a Leonard Peikoff consigning millions to the "concrete evils" of "high taxes, socialized medicine and gun control" in order to maintain their anti-religious purity, to an openly totalitarian and collectivist Democrat Party, to the anti-immigration fools and the petty lifestyle police, to a war that is being lost abroad to the joy of idiots and traitors at home…
An "invisible friend" would be nice, but I have my doubts. What there can be no doubt of is an implacable Nemesis, the Nemesis of history, that will finish us all, aided not least by the kind of blind malicious hatred so consistently displayed here.
As for what you believe or don't believe, I don't care and never have.
[edited]
Rich,
Sorry you're such a lost soul. I hope soon you'll be shown the way, the truth and the life before it is too late.
I hate to see this.
Y'all try to fight nice, wouldja?
Rich and Vox Day: Cage match.
You don't know me from the wind
you never will, you never did
I'm the little Jew
who wrote the Bible
I've seen the nations rise and fall
I've heard their stories, heard them all
but love's the only engine of survival
Your servant here, he has been told
to say it clear, to say it cold:
It's over, it ain't going
any further
And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil's riding crop
Get ready for the future:
it is murder
– Leonard Cohen, "The Future"
I'm impressed that you cite a commie website (Common Dreams.org) as a source.
See, you would have cheered on the Bolsheviks.
"Rational fact and argument"? That you can confuse hysterical psychobabble for reason or fact says a lot about your need to believe.
But then, you fell for that "prayer study" fraud. You even seemed to confuse it with science.
"Y'all try to fight nice, wouldja?" – Billy Beck
Quit taking all the fun out of it, mate. I had 40 quid on the little guy. ;]
Hrrmm. Secular Irrationality vs Religious Irrationality. What a choice.
Is there a "None of the Above" slot on this ballot?
Who's "S" and why should I care?
And why the cryptography? I mean, if we're going to be obtuse and call it Deseret instead of Utah, for crissakes, then I suppose we're fighting the Babylonians over there, eh?
Hey, come to think of it, wasn't Deseret (Utah) the place where some of the Babylonians supposedly came (way B.C.) when they got busted for building a "Tower of Kowledge." (Babel)
Just _like_ that fucker (God) to keep all the secrets to 'imself, eh?
a conservative who sets himself up to be God's Enemy will inevitably drift towards the left.
That's an important distinction, and there may be some validity to the generalization. Of course, avowing yourself an enemy to a non-existent is every bit as irrational as avowing yourself the friend of a non-existent. Choose your flavor or irrationalism: intrincisist or subjectivist. Friends of God tend to be the former – but, as I've said before, at least they recognize the possibility of absolutes, even in the absence of any valid concrete examples.
I mentioned you and the traitorous Objectivists to my good friend S. in lovely Deseret and she expressed the opinion that Hsieh and that crowd were really only against Bush's "theocracy" because they were obsessed with getting their hands on stem cells so they won't have to die or anything tacky like that. "Give us your embryos, you religious bigots."
S. also said "A conservative can be an atheist; but a conservative who sets himself up to be God's Enemy will inevitably drift towards the left."
Which explains the new Popular Front Against The Republicans.
Who's "S" and why should I care?
http://tinyurl.com/y8hqm6
"This is the last I'm going to write, since alt.gothic is completely peripheral. It is a teenager trying to masturbate by moonlight
and hence going blind twice as fast." – S.
Incidentally, S. saw someone posting from Carnegie-Mellon over at Diana Hsieh's and commented scornfully that of course a dump like Carnegie-Mellon would have an Objectivist in their philosophy department.
I should think any literate person would know that Deseret=Utah, but maybe that was wasted here.
Oh, yeah, one more thing:
"“I suppose there is more than one way to rid oneself of the pain of being a man.”
Well said, John the righteous, but I think the blowhards (and evo-bio proponents in general) will find that they’ve chucked the manhood but can’t rid themselves of the pain so easily.
As for Micha Ghertner’s questioning what alternative there is to evo-bio, for those of us who don’t fear the thought of something bigger than ourselves, the question doesn’t loom too large. What’s more, resorting to a theory of the evolution-determined nature of human behavior, in order to combat a theory of the evolution-determined nature of human societies seems… well, let’s just say I don’t think you’ve found the right tool for the job.
And on the topic of positing a God or other mumbo jumbo, I’d say it beats “the fittest survive. We know they’re the fittest because they survive. That which survives survives. Que sera sera.” " – S. Nelson, NT comments.
As a recovering fundy, I appreciate your comments. Still looking for a Fundys Anonymous in my city;) I fear any fundamentalist, Christian, Islamic, or otherwise, who feels entitled to the power of the state. Throughout history, whenever the church had the power of the state, they killed people.
I'm curious if you see any distinction between fundy and non-fundy Christians? Or does having an imaginary friend make all Christians morons or evil?
I personally see fundamentalism as the problem, not Christianity in particular, because fundamentalism is the philosophy that makes issues more important than people. The issues just change from group to group.
"I'm curious if you see any distinction between fundy and non-fundy Christians? Or does having an imaginary friend make all Christians morons or evil?
I personally see fundamentalism as the problem, not Christianity in particular, because fundamentalism is the philosophy that makes issues more important than people. The issues just change from group to group."
Kelly, I'm going to dive into this in a new entry. Coming up sometime today.