On Christianity
Mr Porretto posts about the golden compass, here. That discussion is spreading around the blogosphere among Christians. In discussions with Pascal we have concerned ourself wiht the Amalekites- or rather he has, for he is orders of magnitude more knowledgeable than I on the subject. He even goes so far, in comments at “The American Culture”, that he considers himself an agnostic because, as he puts it, “no religion is safe harbor” from the amalekites (archetypal enemy of the Jews- and by definition, the Christians that succeed the Jews) I have, as one might expect, a few words to say on the subject.
One of the biggest problems I have with every organized religion, is specifically that. Once a religion has become organized, it requires organization. And religion is not a safe harbor from politics or pecadillos- in fact, it’s very nature engenders the very sins it professes to disdain. And a GREAT deal of this is due to modern-day Amalekites- people to whom personal power and prestige are more important than their interest in connecting their followers and brethren to the Creator.
So here’s the thing.
Pascal has it unquestionably right. No religion is a safe harbor. And never will be. but you don’t have to reject religion to avoid the Amalekites, so to speak.
Faith in the Creator is intensely personal, and that’s the way itis supposed to be. Now, I’m not advocating you stop going to mass, or temple, or whatever- in fact, if you don’t now, you ought to start. No, what I want you to do, is praise the creator in your chosen way, whatever it might be, and realize that everything written about the creator, said about him, done in his name, was done by men. Fallible, flawed men. Men who might not get it. Men who may have missed the point utterly. Men. And the guy who is in front of the congregation, asking you for dough to buy him a new Escalade? A man. Or a woman, maybe. Don’t follow man. Follow God. In whatever way you find him- keeping in mind that the Creator, in all his forms except the sadistic invention known as Islam- is not interested in having you visit unnecesary harm on your fellow beings.
No, I’m not a preacher, and I don’t play one on TV. And I’ve met an awful lot of my fellows, and I think they all understand this: My relationship with the Creator is intensely personal, and should stay that way. Your local temple or church or chapel happens to be an excellent way to connect to your community, and you should be involved(Editor’s note: Emphasised so those with poor reading comprehension will gather the purpose)- but you should also realize that the machinations of the leaders there -unless they are directed specifically at helping others-are purely selfish and economically/politically motivated. Enjoy the message. Live the Word. Beware the messenger.
16 comments Og | Uncategorized
a million innocent Iraqis (Lancet,verified by Johns Hopkins)
killed by the invasion on false pretenses of one claiming to act as a Christian.(the neocon brand to be sure) sounds plenty savage to me.
Enjoy the message. Live the Word. Beware the messenger.
>>>
This strikes me as contradictory. In fact, I’m pretty sure of it. Earlier you said that everything written about God was written by men, and I agree. But then you imply that we should continue on going to church or temple, even though the clergymen there are suspect. Why go, then? We can connect with our community in other places and other ways that do not involve embracing Dark Ages mythology. My problem with religion is primarily intellectual. There is just no compelling reason to believe in the supernatural. It is all based on emotionalism.
If you don’t feel compelled, Bart, then feel free to disbelieve. But many of us who do believe got there by matching our comprehension of the natural law to the teachings of the greatest Figure in human history. That Figure is reported, among other things, to have predicted that He would rise from the dead — and is also reported to have done so. And, inasmuch as some of us who believe — Og, for example — are so much smarter and better than you that a Martian would take you for a representative of a lesser species, you would do well to display a bit of tolerance for our little eccentricities. Capisce?
(Why do militant anti-religionists have to pester those of us with faith? Sheesh!)
What retards.
Ken: A million? Sure about that? THe Lancet is a perfectly acceptible news source since when? As for innocent, I guess that’s just your bone-numbing ignorance talking. Come back, if you have the balls, when you can have a discussion. Meanwhile, keep hiding behind mom’s skirts, thinking she’ll keep you safe. Best brush up on the “peaceful religion” of Islam, while your at it. And pay careful attention to the fact that at the core of islam is the Koran, a tract that DEMANDS it’s followers murder or enslave all nonbelievers. Enjoy dhimmitude.
bart: yep, all emotion. Just like your beliefs. because you can’t produce a single fact that proves God does NOT exist. Atheism is more a religion than Christianity- it’s just a patently false one. As for “Why go, then” you get an F for reading comprehension. Re read, and come back and explain why you asked a question I already answered.
Well, good post Og, & more or less reflects my personal relationship with the Man.
Sittin’ today on the hill behind my house, listenin’ to the snow hit the fallen leaves in the dead quiet, how can you NOT believe?
Don’t let the retards get ya down; we’re waist deep in ’em.
yeah, Double, the Lord loves them. he made so many.
Business philosopher Jim Rohn allows how there are only really 9 or 10 REALLY nasty piece-of-work people in the world. Of course, (he says) they move around a lot. But the idea is, when you encounter one, you can say to yourself, “There’s only nine more like you in the world? I can handle that.” And get on with your life.
Hoopster…
M
LOL!
You did a nice job here Og. And you could be right. But I want to make clear that your opinion does not match mine. In many ways this also explains why we had a slightly differing assessment of what constitutes evil [insert link].
There is no doubt the others you mention are falling short of their duty once they come to think of themselves as deserving of special earthly privileges. But that is the nature of all sin, not just pride — a falling short of an ideal — to which all men may succumb. And really it is state into which all men are born — for will all will eventually decay.
Thus, I would not call this kind of sinner the equal to Amalek up to and until that sin leads him to the next step.
That next step is, my opinion, that Amalek is someone who outright hates God The Creator. Which is the equivalent of wishing the world would simply not be, wishing to destroy it.
Thus I think the concept we are meant to understand is that God will forgive normal sins. But he will not forgive an Amalek.
Unfortunately men sometimes take it upon themselves to fight Amalek. See the Books of Samuel. Study them. And you too can see this viewpoint plainly enough.
For I believe that fight is supposed to be left up to The Creator. For I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. — Exodus 17:14.
We lose (become embroiled in a fight not our own) when we think we are up to the task of taking on God’s duties.
I think the best we can do is be on the lookout for Amalekites and do our best to keep them out of our institutions, especially our religious ones, so they cannot claim more victims — the young and the gullible. And I do not see that happening.
It is written too that the devil knows how don a pleasant appearance. We will know him by his works: his devilishness will out.
That our religious institutions are mostly silent on the meaning and prediction of Exodus 17:16 (that Amalek will appear in every generation) is precisely what worries me about near all organized religion.
Oh, and you are right on a number of scores. Especially in that Amalek hates Jews and Christians, by extension, since they have the task to inspire others to come to accept God and no other.
I have to disagree to a certain extent, Pascal: We become the agents of Amalek when we choose to sin.
To the extent that we sadden Him, you are right. But that still does not make us Amalek. Your battles with what initially seemed merely useful idiots; and you’ve felt everything from victory to sadness to anger. Just as you know the difference between useful idiots and Leftist schemers, so too does God know the difference between forgivable sin and hatred of Him, only with more certitude than we can ever know.
Don’t look to pick battles with whom you think is Amalek. Just don’t remain silent of his goal.
BTW, I see Amalek and Satan as only temporary allies. Satan wants to rule men and all Creation. Amalek would destroy any remnant that is God’s just for spite. See Recardo Montalban spitting his last words in The Wrath Of Kahn
Without trying to start a new rwar here, I’d like to opine that you would have a hard time finding the kind of corrupt and/or sinful people in the leadership of the Mormon church that can (and have) been found in so many other churches.
Oh, sure, you do get someone going astray once in a while, but it’s basically at the local level and dealt with very quickly.
Part of that is the fact that we have no real paid clergy and all but about the 15 highest leaders serve for a limited time. Generally, holding the same position for over 10 years is very uncommon these days. Most of the time it’s more like 5 years or less.
You can’t campaign or apply for positions. Even if you could, it would almost guarantee you wouldn’t get it.
Just sayin’, that’s all…
I wouldn’t find that hard at all, I’ve known pretty corrupt Mormons. LDS is a LOT better at not washing their laundry in public. And the world would be more likely to embrace Mormon if it wasn’t a cult, by definition.
Any creed that requires someone’s ancesters be rebaptized has some splaining to do.
Breitbart/AFP labeled Philip Pullman a “confirmed agnostic.”
Og, or somebody, please come up with an appropriate analogy for this gross understatement. I’m still fuming.
He sounds more like a confirmed anti-theist than an agnostic.