I have also started dusting off some of my old books because you have all worried me with statements of good vs evil right vs wrong being relative. This is a very dangerous stance to take therefore I will be addressing this in a full complete post at a later date.

HA! Hahahahahaha…. wow. I’m sure my amusement of this sort of absolutist attitude will never cease, devoid of shades and hues, clinging to black vs white. It’s just so damned adorable! Disturbing mind you, but oddly cute all at the same time.

As far as John 7:24 goes I understand your stance, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a simple contradiction. If the bible was truly consistent with itself he should have preached for them to not judge at all. Instead, he’s perturbed as to why they are judging him, not the fact that they are.

In my eyes the people above were the REAL CHRISTIANS of the time.

Yes, and I’m the only REAL Canadian. Stephen Harper is just an American in disguise.

By the way can I post links to various Christian books on here in my next post or is that not allowed? Do I have free reign so to speak on what I may post on here and the sources I used in my debate?

You can say, post, or link whatever you wish. This is an open forum. We might laugh at you depending on what you post (well, I might) but you’re free to do whatever you wish.

Regardless of any of those points, if the Nazis had actually won, then everyone would have said the Catholic Church made the smartest decision of it’s life for backing them. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter that some Christians opposed them. If you look at any government system, there’s always someone out there opposing it. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, just because these Christians opposed the Nazis doesn’t make them all that special for being Christian and opposing Nazism. That doesn’t have much to do with my points, because that’s just an obvious statement that not all Christians supported Nazism. Not all Germans supported it either and it’s even rumored that some Jews actually supported it! So in the great scheme of things it doesn’t really matter and it’s all a matter of perspective, if the Nazis had won Catholics would be singing a different tune about that history in time and it would be venerated as the greatest and smartest decision.

Not to sound rude, but seriously the “Diary of Anne Frank” is required reading out here. That’s just another obvious story. It’s just an okay story at best as well, but maybe I’ve seen it too many times for it to have anymore impact, not that there was much the first time. I have a couple of those other books already though, haven’t read them yet, but I’ll get to it eventually.

nd egotistical people usually become this way when they stop caring about life and others. (No insult intended your way Db0) I’ve run across enough people like that and as time goes on I find they lose the very passion for life and only surround themselves with trinkets and baubles thinking that’s what life is all about. What I’m ultimately trying to say is when people stop caring they begin to lose the vision of what’s important in life, and that’s all I was trying to say to Db0

I don’t get insulted by this mostly because it does not characterize me in the slightest. I have neither stopped caring about life and other nor surrounded myself with trinkets and baubles. However the fact that you have explicitly mentioned me (twice no less) shows that you have no understanding of my position on such issues.

Db0 said:
What is blowing your mind Porkchop? All I said was that I wouldn’t try to discuss in that forum even if it was open. Why? Simple prioritization. If I get into the mood to argue I might go there, or I might go to beliefnet or wherever. I’m certainly not going to waste time fighting cencorship in every random niche forum I find on a principle. I have better things to to. I support the reason why you want to change the minds of your fellow christians but please don’t act so “holier than thou” about it.

Fair enough I shall drop the subject and down the road I will continue to try and change that rule. Sorry if I came across as arrogant never meant to come across in such a way.

Minion4Hire said:
Personally, I found it a poorly chosen quote. Pilate is petty and egotistical, but to relate that passage back to someone not caring doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Maybe it was a poorly chosen quote but what’s posted is posted. I do have to add the following though. You are right in that Pilate was very petty egotistical and petty and egotistical people usually become this way when they stop caring about life and others. (No insult intended your way Db0) I’ve run across enough people like that and as time goes on I find they lose the very passion for life and only surround themselves with trinkets and baubles thinking that’s what life is all about. What I’m ultimately trying to say is when people stop caring they begin to lose the vision of what’s important in life, and that’s all I was trying to say to Db0. Censorship as I have pointed out in one of my above posts to me is a blasphemy to God and I think it is something that should be fought everywhere.

Minion4Hire said:
There’s the rub though. In porkchop’s quote, Matthew 7:1, Jesus is saying not to judge. In the quote I referenced, John 7:24, Jesus is giving guidelines for judging. This contradiction seemed to go right over porkchop’s head, however he did illustrate in his response that he understands John 7:24

Actually it didn’t’ and you have taken the bible quote out of context. Here is the whole thing.

14Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach.
15The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?”
16Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.
17If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
18He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.
19Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?”
20″You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered. “Who is trying to kill you?”
21Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all astonished.
22Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath.
23Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?
24Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.”

Basically what’s happening here is that Christ had healed on the Sabbath and because he had done this he had broken the rabbinical law of the day. The rabbinical law basically said that the Sabbath was to be kept holy and that no work was to ever be done. The law had evolved to the extreme belief that because Christ had healed on the Sabbath he had broken the rabbinical law. Christ is rebuking the crowd and telling them that their being hypocritical in if children can be circumcised on the Sabbath why couldn’t he also heal on the Sabbath? This is a key example of the ministry of Christ and the general idea is repeated throughout the gospels. Basically the stance of Christ through his ministry is that He is practicing the rabbinical law in full spirit the way it was meant to be practiced and not just legally with no real spirituality behind it. At the time of Christ the rabbinical law had developed into a huge legalistic quagmire of laws strictly adhered to and it was very much a strangling force on personal spirituality.

There is also a deeper meaning behind Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment. I said in my past post put in modern terms Christ was basically saying don’t judge a book by its cover, and he basically is. Don’t judge a book by its cover look inside and see the good that’s inside the book. There is good in everyone in this world therefore don’t judge someone by what’s on the outside look inside and see the good that’s a part of them. In the situation that’s unfolding from John 7:7-24 Christ is very much challenging the crowd to see past the legalism of the rabbinical law and look deeper into the actions that have been performed and see the good that has come from it. Hopefully this clarifies my stance.

ISos said:
Nazism wasn’t the first thing that came along to silence a population. Christianity was doing it long before Hitler came up with it, in fact, if you read Mein Kampf he modeled a lot of his ideas off of what Christainity had done in the past because he thought it was brilliant. Why am I explaining all this? Because you’re jumping to conclusions that are incorrect. You are even responding to Minion4Hire’s commentary in the same fashion as if he supports it.

That’s an interesting statement about Hitler modeling his ideas after past Christian crimes. He also wanted very much to break the church and completely overhaul the church theology. Please read this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg

By the way I’m not blind or dumb and know there was enough Christians who were card carrying Nazis of the day and I also know that enough were guilty of murder. It is very much one of the black marks of modern Christianity and the fact that the pope kept silent about it made the Catholic Church an embarrassment during the time. Rome missed its opportunity to finally demonstrate that it could walk the walk as well as talk the talk so to speak. This to me has always caused me deep sorrow. Of coarse there were those who could carry the burden and willfully accepted the duty of doing the right thing in the eyes of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust
http://www.happynews.com/news/9182006/nun-saved-jews-wwii-beatified.htm
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/catholic_stories/cs0058.html

In my eyes the people above were the REAL CHRISTIANS of the time. Here is another site which says the Pope did more then keep silent but personally I THINK ITS BULL. He could have done by far more in my opinion.

http://www.sistermargherita.com/Jewsdefend.htm

Here is another link that basically talks about what happened to some clergy and some of the Nazi infiltration of the church etc. I’m not trying to say my denomination is guiltless by posting these sites all I’m hoping with this just to show that there were some out there who didn’t care that the Nazis had power over them and that they had to overcome huge obstacles.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/piusjews.htm

Oh by the way ISos other good reads if you want to read more on WWII would be the following books.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Third-Reich-William-Shirer/dp/0671728687

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Third-Reich-Albert-Speer/dp/0684829495/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

http://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536/ref=pd_sim_b_img_2
http://www.amazon.com/Diary-Anne-Frank/dp/0330107372/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208493486&sr=1-1

Those books are all pretty good reads. A little heads up on the last book The Diaries Of Anne Frank. That book is an excellent book and offers a incredible account of the war through the eyes of a victim but it also is a VERY DEPRESSING book so be warned when reading it.

Alright, to respond to points. I know this wasn’t addressed to me but HOW can you say this: “WHAT IS TRUTHc..do you realize how morally bankrupt and empty Pilate had to be for him to even doubt the concept on what is truth?”

ARE YOU SERIOUS??? You mean to imply that Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Nietzsche, Kant, etc etc etc were all morally bankrupt and empty because they doubted the concept of “what is truth”? Does this also apply to myself and the others in this thread and elsewhere during this age who still question the very existence and nature of “truth”? Even with every holy text in the world in front of me I doubt Truth. I would still doubt truth if Jesus or God or Odin or Enki or Krishna or Satan or Cthulu or *insert religious figure here* were to become manifest in front of me right now and tell me face-to-face. Based on the semantics of your sentence, I am morally bankrupt and empty. But I am not.

As far as using my screen shot as evidence that you could “tell I don’t like Christianity”… I agree that was a somewhat valid conclusion but it further supports my position that you are not very experienced on the internets and what does and does not constitute a tone of seriousness versus tongue-in-cheek. Here’s another way to tell: images drawn on absurdly in MS Paint; not serious.

I don’t need to bring up the “do not judge”/”here’s how to judge” contradiction as minion4hire has already done this effectively. I support his conclusions.

Further, this: “If you still feel that there is no blame what so ever from any user on the ACP and that all members in here are like saints then I guess i must either be dumb as a doorpost or I have completely failed in my dialogues.”

I (we) never said that ACP members were “like saints” in this, only that as a group the ACP is not the place to place “blame” but rather on the members that say what they do. No one, not even saints, are “saintlike”. And as said above, if you believe the hodgepodge of opinions and ideas that compose last.fm and the internet at large is a “powder keg”, I’d encourage you to look outside the internet to the “real world’ and tell me how that place is any different. The “internet situation” directly reflects “reality situation”.

Finally to throw a few points into this whole ordeal: “THERE IS GOOD AND THERE IS EVIL PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!”
There is most definitely not. Dualities are not real, but creations of a belief system. The only reason “good” and “evil” exist is because you (and others) believe in it. Is it “evil” for a tiger to kill a deer for food? Of course not. Is it “evil” for a tiger to kill a human for food? Of course not. Is it “evil” for a tiger to kill another tiger? Of course not. The tiger, as well as the rest of the natural world, does not follow the imaginary human-forged boundaries of “good” and “evil”. Hurricane Katrina may have been devastating to humans but it was no more evil than a light spring shower. Outside of human perception, evil does not exist. Inside human perceptions, it continues to be… merely perception. “Good’ and “evil” are means of control and demonization, to work in favor of the victor. Were the Inquisitors “good” or “evil”? Was Mohammed “good” or “evil”? Was the Council of Nicea “good” or “evil”? Was Hitler “good” or “evil”? Napoleon? Darwin? Einstein? The physicists who constructed the first atomic bomb? Was industrialization of the western world “good” or “evil” and was the formation of a large scale global economy “good” or “evil”? How about Communism? Fascism? Capitalism? Monarchy? The stock market? Christianity? Islam? Atheism? Luciferianism? Satanism? Paganism? Murder? Mercy-killing? Prayer? Obsession? Asceticism? Homosexuality/homosexuals? S+M? Free Speech?

People try to slap black and white labels on all those things and it just isn’t possible. In the beginning even I believed in the duality of “good” and “evil”, until I started considering the actual problem at hand. The discussion does not end with “there IS good and evil”. The discussion begins there.

Further on this topic, I wrote an essay about this last semester if you would like to read; http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/anath/debunking-christianity-25-the-ignorance-of-evil/

Anyway I’m off to get some work done.

Anyway, I feel I should comment/explain my position and examples. Frankly Porkchop, it feels like you missed some of my points. For whatever reason, I think you’re too bound up in your fear/prejudice against Nazism. I’m not a pro-Nazi. Not in anyway, Hitler’s political reform was horrible. But it can be tiresome because you jump to this conclusion constantly. I’m trying to say, in as relatively a nice way as I can, that you’re turning into a broken record returning to this ideaology. Nazism wasn’t the first thing that came along to silence a population. Christianity was doing it long before Hitler came up with it, in fact, if you read Mein Kampf he modeled a lot of his ideas off of what Christainity had done in the past because he thought it was brilliant. Why am I explaining all this? Because you’re jumping to conclusions that are incorrect. You are even responding to Minion4Hire’s commentary in the same fashion as if he supports it.

My analogy of genocide and the absolute whiping out of Christian faith is a philosophical statement. You can tell me that “you’ll keep the faith” essentially all you want, but that doesn’t invalidate my comment. I never said I was going to do it, nor did I say someone absolutely SHOULD do it. All I said, was that I didn’t feel it would hurt the world anymore than anything else already has. But that is not the purpose of my statement. It was to get you to think about the concept behind our motives, meaning, there’s no point in us trying to combat ideas on a physical level. It’s been attempted. Christianity did it during the Inquisition, we still have practicing witches today. No one can silence an idea, all they can do is create martyr’s. This could’ve happened if they killed L. Ron Hubbard in response to Scientology. All I’m saying is that Christianity isn’t really all that special. This concept has been tried many times, I’m saying we should look at the past and not repeat it because it is a futile endeavor.

And I feel I must reiterate the point that the concept of good and evil is purely sociological. Frankly, you’re entirely wrong about having that divide. I DO understand you’re point of view on the subject. I know it quite well, yet despite your faith on that topic, you can still be wrong. At first I thought you were willing to engage in philosophical debate on the topic of Good & Evil, but now I realize it is a moot point because you refuse to entertain the idea that it can be philosophically classified. Minion4Hire already presented excellent points to counter that, yet you didn’t entertain to try to understand his point of view. This is unfortunate because it felt like you wanted to engage us in conversation on such topics. I wanted to discuss things more, I enjoy these conversations. I don’t know what to say on this topic, other than provide other examples, even ones you provided as being horrid, like if the entire world grew up in a population that allowed rape, we would think it is evil? I have to admit, from a philosophical perspective that if our culture developed in that path, then maybe we wouldn’t think it was evil, and maybe it wouldn’t be considered rape, rather just “sex”? I have to admit, it’s possible. However, I think our general genetic programming for (the general population at least) to seek monagamous relationships works against this, but what if we weren’t instilled with this general program? It really makes you think what could have been.

As for the education. I didn’t think I was being arrogant, I was merely attempting to provide an example that kind of fit that criteria. Actually, maybe it does sound arrogant, but it’s true. It’s hard to deny the facts of a situation. Granted schools in Europe are better, but I don’t think there are too many cashiers or janitors that I could discuss the finer points of Plato with. I know this sounds arrogant, but I do think it’s a true statement. Are there people that fit your example? Of course there are. There is going to be the random Janitor that can do multi-dimensional mathematics. The movie “Good Will Hunting” is about such a scenario! I’m not denying this, I’m just pointing out that the general population, in America and abroad, will generally fit my comment. I have to speak in generalities on such a scale because there are 6 billion people on the planet. It’s like me saying that the lower class of people in Africa won’t understand books by Michio Kaku. While this might generally be true, I’m sure there is at LEAST one! Maybe even 25 or more. But that doesn’t mean the general population is out reading books by Michio Kaku on Quantum Mechanics. I doubt that’s true of ANY country’s lower class.

I do kind of hope that clarify’s my points a little. It feels like you took the philosophy a little too literally.

As for the censorship, I do agree with you, but I don’t feel too put out by having my ideas censored by Christians. I do enjoy those who are up for a good discussion, but they have the right not to listen to me or read my words. The only time I have a problem with it is when they take it to the next step and apply regulations to me that aren’t necessarily true. Such as Christianity getting into the argument on Evolution with Creationism and saying the world is 6,000 years old. This just isn’t true. That’s when I begin to have a problem with it. The other part is when Christians apply their general rule of thumb statement that I am a sinner. They don’t know that. Just because some book written thousands of years ago implies that the general population is a sinner, that doesn’t mean I have to be. For all you know I could be the chosen of God to reveal his/she/it’s true message to the world. Frankly, you don’t know. I might be without sin, you really don’t know. There’s no empirical evidence that you can bring to the table that proves otherwise. These are really the areas that I generally have a problem with. And I’m sorry to say that you brought up the sinner one. That’s your belief, you can believe it all you want, but I have to point out that it doesn’t make it true.

porkchop1234 said:
Ok first of all the comment about truth. Of coarse Christ is truth for me I am christian after all. I gave that biblical post as a means of showing WHY I was going out of my way over the censorship issue on forums. My aim was to point out that in NOT CARING a person becomes blinded by whats in front of his eyes. Of coarse this is what it means TO ME. If you reread my post I said as follows: You really want to know why Im doing all this? then I gave my biblical quote.

Personally, I found it a poorly chosen quote. Pilate is petty and egotistical, but to relate that passage back to someone not caring doesn’t make a lot of sense. That bit is about Pilate judging Jesus. He asks him if he is king of the Jews, and then asks if Pilate himself is a Jew, as if to ask “do you reign over me as well?” simultaneously challenging and mocking his authority.

But I didn’t even focus on that. I focused on what you emphasized; what is truth? Because I think it’s a fair question. You respond with Christ, but to me it’s a nonsensical, ambiguous answer. I’ve found that a lot of religious people seem to value, nay, exude ambiguity as it results in less they need to explain, and less they need to analyze. If Christ is truth, then what is truth? Answering ‘Christ’ is mindlessly cyclical.

porkchop1234 said:
Now as for your comment of good and evil being relative I suggest you reread my post and see that I stated as follows: THERE IS GOOD AND THERE IS EVIL PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!

Umm…. no? I read your post fine the first time. My problem is that you’re wrong. Separating people and actions into over simplistic chunks might help you sleep at night, but it has nothing to do with reality. And beyond just partially good or partially bad things, there are plenty of issues which are entirely circumstantial without any kind of objective, absolutist, moral law. I highlighted some, but if you think ignoring them allows you to throw down broad, flawed statements then you’re all sorts of delusional. The black and white picture you paint does not stand to scrutiny, and as Db0 stated…

Db0 said:
Just because it’s your belief does not garner it respect. So no. Either your position can stand on it’s own merits or it deserves no respect.

QFT.

Db0 said:
Aaaactually, Christ says: Don’t judge. Period.
Which is, of course, absurd, as this is something we do all the time, even subconsciously.

There’s the rub though. In porkchop’s quote, Matthew 7:1, Jesus is saying not to judge. In the quote I referenced, John 7:24, Jesus is giving guidelines for judging. This contradiction seemed to go right over porkchop’s head, however he did illustrate in his response that he understands John 7:24. So why would Jesus say to not judge a book by its cover if he doesn’t want people judging at all? Seems a tad odd, no? There’s no need for John’s reference if Matthew’s is what Jesus wants from his flock. So is Matthew the idealist and John the realist? Or maybe Jesus can’t make up his mind. Or perhaps the Bible isn’t divinely inspired, and is instead a culmination of ideas from various different people spanning centuries of time and shouldn’t be taken as literally as it is. Not to beat around the bush or anything…

However, I do agree with you Db0; not judging is an absurd concept. Making split second judgments, identifying predators, developing stereotypes; these are all defensive and survival mechanisms. If we weren’t able to identify likely threats, we wouldn’t have survived as a species, and it’s because our ancestors possessed these skills that they were able to survive and the reason why we have those very skills today. Frankly, even though they often serve as a barrier those impulses are still quite useful in modern social interactions, although I won’t get into that here.

I’d like to go back to something porkchop said at the beginning of his last post.

porkchop1234 said:
as for Isos and your view of wiping out christianity well go ahead and try like I said before you can crush all our bones but you will never get us all. You are right though in that if someone would try to destroy the religeon it would change from what it is now. It would become STRONGER in the long run.

You’re fixated on the wrong part of the conversation, and getting a little self-righteous with it (although I suppose for a Chrisitian that’s a good thing). Isos’s assessment was correct as to the fastest way to snuff an ideology. I think everyone gets the idea that it’s not something that could be implemented. The scale is retarded. For one you would need to read people’s thoughts to prevent them from saying one thing and thinking another. But my point after that was that if an ideology like yours WAS eliminated, it could never recover because it’s not based in reality. It’s based on letters and fables from Paul two millennia ago. Get rid of that and the religion has nothing. The theory of evolution could make a fairly easy comeback given the evidence which surrounds and embodies us. Belief systems like humanism could reform similarly to how we know it given its broad scope. Christianity could NEVER reform from nothing. If it was eradicated, that would be the end of it. It survives only due to fable and lore. And a faked miracle from the Vatican every now and then, but hey, who can blame them?

The only way you could claim Christianity could be reformed independently would be if a ‘miracle’ could occur (but even then that’s only based on how people are to interpret that ‘miracle’) or due to the fact that Christianity is basically a meta-religion. None of the content in the bible is unique. It had all been done before. What was smart was bundling it all together and repackaging it. Good merchandising is good merchandising, hard to argue that. You can keep on with the melodramatic bone crushing and everything, but followers having resolve doesn’t mean that the religion has substance. The Branch Davidians exemplify this quite well.