Santa Claus

(Satan's Clause)
[size=-1]You better watch out, you better not cry
Better not pout, I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town[/size]

[size=-1]He's making a list and checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town[/size]

[size=-1]He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake[/size]

[size=-1]Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry
Better not pout, I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town[/size]


This common childhood song we sing during the holidays contains the exact same belief christians, muslims, hindus, etc all share... in fact it is especially a living representation of christianity.

[/size]

It's this idea that there is someone watching you all the time, knowing whether or not you've been bad or good... and if you are bad, he'll give you coal, and if you are good, he'll give you presents.
What actually happens? Mostly all kids in the end, whether bad or good, get presents.

Not very far off, or even different than the belief "God is watching you, judging you, and if you do this, you get into heaven, and if you do this (or lack belief in him) you will burn in eternal hellfire"
Same story, just more harsh punishments and empty presents.

These stories serve one thing: To make people completely obedient. To make them obedient to their mother/father (no matter how abusive they may be). To make them obedient to their King/President (as told in the bible). Religions serve to conform society into being completely obedient to the "higher authorities" no matter how illogical these higher authorities seem to be... Yes, people, religions stand to conform you all to ignorance...

And if any adult still believed in Santa Claus, they'd be shunned by society, and be considered a completely misguided idiot. (maybe this will shed some light as to why some atheists/agnostics can be openly rude and consider religious people morons)
Especially if these adults believed in Santa with the same Fanatacism and Zeal that christians/muslims do... this person would be sent to a mental institution quicker than I can say "IDIOT".

Yet all over the world people still believe in similar fairy tales, even the leaders of nations claim to believe in these fairy tales... George w Bush even claims that God "speaks" to him (so did hitler). Why would one do this? Well, like I said before... in the bible it blatantly states that one must hold respect for their King... Believing in christianity, and leading a christian nation in the name of god serves to spread the idea that one MUST respect their "king". Now that the masses hold a blind, robotic/sheep-like respect for their king, the king is free to use his power to slaughter people across the world, the king is free to go to war against all logic.

Would you vote for a president still lost in the ridiculous fairy tales of santa claus? Who'd obviously thought he'd been a good boy his whole millionaire life because he's gotten presents every year?

Indeed, this song is definitely Satan's Clause... as by believing in Satan's Clause, you will be completely obedient to MURDERERS and be conformed to ignorance like the rest of society... What better shape or form for satan to manifest himself, than as the "Good" guy...when it could be further from the truth.... and it's been working today, look at everyone around you... Satan rules the majority of this earth. All that is left for you is regret, empty faith, shattered dreams, and a life of faith all for nothing.

 

*nods*

Well stated. Did you write that yourself, or is that from someplace?

 

i wrote it, just ideas that popped into my head this morn.

 

They're good ideas. Satan Clause, heheh ... a bit whimsical, yet serious at the same time. =)

 

hey, that was very well-written.... thanks for the read; i think you nailed it.

 

You're a genious, Mui.

 

I'm an atheist, but I do not believe that religion is in any way the opiate of the masses, a mental illness, a hinderence to scientific progress, or anything like that.

The idea that religion was invented and is sustained purely as a means of control is, in my opinion, naive and childish, not to mention that there isn't a shred of historical data that would suggest that such is the case. Call me naive, but I have a hard time believing that a person would sucker people into believing something he knows to be false in order to gain financially. It doesn't sound very rewarding, especially if you're some obscure cult leader who only brings in the vegetables grown on his commune. If that was the plan, then it certainly didn't work out too well for Jesus.

The idea, as I have come to understand it, dates back to ancient Greece but was either abandoned or lost and was not revived until the late 18th or 19th century. I guess it was first revived in France when the writings of Sextus Empiricus were rediscovered, but it didn't really kick in until it became fashionable to be an aristocrat again; I'm talking about dandies like Oscar Wilde. Nietzsche and Rousseau were very popular during this time, and both are famous for taking metaphors and tidied-up, ideological versions of history way too far way too far (social contract theory and Nietzsche's racism; case in point). The idea that the first religious leaders were clever tribal leaders who made-up stories about men in the sky was too hard for them to resist. (Note that Rousseau and Nietzsche, both geniuses, probably never actually bought into all of this stuff but only used it as a metaphor to convey their bigger picture. It's people, far from geniuses, who have misinterpretted their work by taking it too literally.) Figures from the Romantic period had a tendency to take things to far anyway. Take Darwin (big fan of eugenics), Robspierre (definitely took the whole "state of nature" thing way too far), Kant (kept going with the Copernican Revolution analogy for a good 400 pages in the Critique), and, of course, Marx. And of course it was not so much the fault of any of these people, Robspierre excluded, that their ideas were abused but the fault of the people who executed those ideas. Ideas in themselves never hurt anyone.

Is religion a mental illness? Freud thought so. But Freud also thought that I want to kill my dad and fuck my mother, so maybe he's not the best person to ask. Mui also seems to think so. He says that a grown man who believes in Santa Claus would be shunned by society, probably locked up with the other degenerates and crazies. Mui says that that's the way it is with people who believe in Santa, so what's the big difference between them and religious people? Well, there is a difference in that it would be just plain stupid for an adult to believe in Santa and not so stupid (though I think, no more false) to believe in God. Anyone whose been in this world long enough knows that many people have been to the North Pole and that Santa's Workshop is no where to be found. Also, we are certain that physical, biological animals called "elves" do not exist. If you asked a religious person why God has not been seen, that person could say that God is not a physical, tangible thing. The man who believes in Santa could not.

But I get the analogy. In principle, there is no difference between believing in God and believing in Santa. I don't contest it. What I do contest is the idea that a man who believes in Santa is necessarily insane or that he would be shunned from society. First, how often do you talk about Santa in every day conversation? I know I don't very often at all; maybe once a year around Christmas time. So I don't see how the man who believes in Santa could be ostricized from the community if he rarely brings up the subject. If he frequently brings up the subject, even when the conversation is completely unrelated to Santa Claus, then perhaps, upon being inspected by a doctor, could be called crazy. If that is not the case, then at worst he is very much in touch with his inner child. Likewise, when I'm talking with religious friends, religion very rarely enters into the conversation. And when it does, they do not behave irrationally. Certainly not irrationally enough to be comitted. And certainly no more irrationally than I act when talking about some subjects.

So when can a person be considered mentally ill, and when are we justified in locking them away? As I have said, an idea in itself hurts no one. So to lock a person up for simply believing something is wrong. When the act frequently and obsessively, clearly demonstrating no self-control, on dillusions, then I feel that they may pose a threat to other people, and may be justifiably locked up.

Religion does not hinder scientific progress, not seriously anyway. Science can do just fine on its own and doesn't need everyone to be an atheist to get things done. The USSR, in which atheism was the only acceptable religion, bred some of the most incompetent geneticists of all time. At worst, the Catholic Church delayed the Copernican Revolution by less than 100 years. Of course, the fact that the Copernican system was actually less accurate than the Ptolemaic system in predicting the positions of the planets, because Copernicus never thought of the idea of eliptical orbits, didn't help either. In the USSR, millions starved as a consequence of bad science. Galileo was a Benedictine monk, I think; Newton was a Franciscan. The idea that religion and science are at constant odds with each other is nonsense.

 

Thanks for the reply Common Sense, let me try to bring some understanding between the both of us on what my point in this thread was about.

Mental illness, no... its not that... hinderence to scientific progress, possibly.. I say possibly because if someone is an extremely religious zealot, the kind that hates science, they will not do anything in the realm of scientific research... but if this person wasnt religious, his mind state, world view, might be that in which he'd want to conduct scientific research... by having all these religious people, instead of logical scientific people, it does not set OTHERS back who are after science, but it does limit the possibilities of what COULD be found in the scientific world if we would collectively ignore religious bullshit... we'd simply have more people interested in science, more people researching... and in that sense, religion does hinder science...Also, churches throughout history have condemned scientific findings and said they were wrong, only later to adjust their beliefs to fit science... this hurts science because while scientists are out trying to prove something they already know is true, they could be researching further into it, or something else completely.

Opiate of the masses? Not really, sorta...religion is no drug, if it were, it'd be the shit. It's a way of getting people to be happy in a time of where they might not normally be happy, in that sense, it is opiate-like.

Now, no where did I say that Jesus was the man trying to profit from religion. But you simply cannot say that there is no historical data that suggests one would use religion as a means to achieve power, or control others... There is tons of historical data that in fact proves this. Churches, in their tax evasive state, benefit financially from forcing illogical beliefs into their head. Hitler benefited by having religious people in his country... if the people in that country were not religious, there would have been no way he could have gained such power... In america, George Bush wouldn't be where he is right now if it werent for the religious right. It's not hard to realize, that leaders of nations have abused peoples religion to gain power... you say its naive and childish, but I see it as being as clear as the sky... what historical data, or idea do you have that would suggest that this is NOT the case... what proof do you have that no one has ever used religion to control others.... There's nothing beneficial from it? What are you talking about... the religion industry is a multi billion dollar industry... the catholic church has more wealth than america... I just ask for what proof you have that would NOT suggest this... do you honestly believe that hitler was a devout christian? Or that george bush speaks of the gospel and jesus, not for political power? I really, really, don't see that... as God was really brought up a lot during the rise of Hitler/George bush... and i havent even began to mention the kings in the medieval times... if no one stood to profit from religion, there'd be no reason "heretics" were hunted down in the early times and either killed, or tried as witches... the church knew that those who knew the truth were a direct threat to their empires succes, to their religious wealth, so they knew they had to eliminate this threat... basically to eliminate the truth.

True, ideas in themselves don't hurt anyone... but they do influence peoples opinions... if one claims to share the same ideas as another, than they will without a doubt have more power among those which agree with them.
In a nation where the majority are christians, being christian yourself is a way to take power and lead the majority of the country... this is why an atheist will NEVER be in control of america, or other christian/muslim nations... if religion really never was used for power and control, than there'd be no reason why all the leaders would be christian.

religion isnt a mental illness, its a tool to control people... yes, i believe this, intensely... and as far as the santa guy being locked up in a mental institution... i said if he had the same zeal/fanatacism as christians do... if he stood on the corner of the street preaching santa and to be a good boy or else run the risk of getting coal, than yea, he'd be locked up.
How can you say its just as false, yet not as stupid... believing in god is like believing in santa, except the story is wrong..
For instance, we KNOW now that it is not possible to fit 2 of every animal on an arc, just as we know elves dont exist and make toys in the north poll.. both religious stories, and santa stories, are completely illogical, and make no sense in the realm of science.
I dont really see the difference in them, other than that religious people claim you can't see god... it's just a layer of protection to defend their own illogical beliefs from logic.

If a man existed, an adult, that openly believed in santa claus, and often told others about his beliefs, he would be seen by these people as crazy... whether or not hes admitted to an institution, doesnt really matter... the fact is that most people, if they knew about him, would see him as a crazy bastard.

Dont get me wrong, im not trying to argue that we should lock away all the crazy christians... that wouldnt solve anything... i was simply comparing the two fairy tales with eachother, because they share similarities.

not all, but some religious people refuse to accept modern science... Darwinism is a perfect example of something that has so much proof to it, yet it is still being considered theory because religious people refuse to believe in it... This does set back science in a way.
And the USSR's science wasnt responsible for the starvation that went on, fact it was Stalin who forced the crop collection in the USSR which ended up starving the masses, wasnt a result of their religion or science... the people in the ussr were always poor, never really could afford many things... but you cant say that the USSR never had any success scientifically, they launched the Sputnik after all..

Im interested into hearing your reasoning as to why you think religion ISNT being used to control people.

 

I might argue with you on that. While the concept of a "god" may not have been invented and sustained purely as a means of control, the concept of "God" with a capital G may very well have been invented so that the weak who were oppressed by the Greek gods (who demanded that you go out and be god-like and live life to the fullets), a type of psychological warfare in a sense, where "if you keep acting this way, the real God will come down and smite you and you'll burn in hell forever." It's a pretty terrifying thought; why would a place like hell actually exist, and people be banished there for all eternity?

 

"When christmas comes they by the youth a fancy toy gun. Oh you can't blame the youth." Peter Tosh

 

Mui:

I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here. Yes, I guess people who could have been scientists never end up being scientists. I guess some people even decide not to be scientists because of their religious beliefs. Probably very few people have ever actually done this. Certainly not enough to severely cripple science, or even hurt it very much at all. If a creationist in college disagreed with the theory of evolution, he could just change his major from biology to geology, or something like that. But nevertheless, it is conceivable that someone, somewhere is not a great scientist right now because of his religious beliefs. But so what? Not everyone has to be a scientist. It wouldn't even be desirable to have everyone be a scientist. If a person wants to pursue his faith over scientific research, then that's his business. Neither you or I should be able to tell him any different. But what exactly do you suggest we do instead? Have the government prevent brilliant kids from being exposed to religion? That doesn't jive with me. How would we justify it? Because their minds should be used for the greater good whether they want to or not? That doesn't jive with me, either.

Questioning science doesn't hurt science. Quite the opposite. The only way to do bad science is to say something is without a doubt true when it really may reasonably be false. I gave an example in my last post. Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system was actually less accurate in accounting for the positions of the planets than Ptoleme's system. Copernicus could have believed himself to be right all he wanted, but if I was a scientist back then, I'd have said he was wrong, too - because, for all his elaborate equations, he couldn't make it work. So, I don't see how scientists can know things to be true without doing experiments first. No good scientist would claim to know something that is pure hypothesis. A really good scientist should even suspend judgement when dealing with the veracity of theories.

Actually, you did. "These stories serve one thing: To make people completely obedient." Jesus seems to fit into this category, since he talked a lot about God and gave many ethical commandments. But we get caught up in ourselves when writing polemics, so it's not a big deal. You can see how I would misinterpret, though.

Is that really the best you can do? Charities don't pay taxes. Why should churches?

That's purely speculative and probably false. Atheism has been fairly popular in Germany for a long time. And I don't see why Hitler would appeal to white, German Christians and not white, German atheists. It also occurs to me that many Christians, in Germany and elsewhere, hated Hitler passionately.

Probably. But that's not the point. The point is that George Bush didn't become a Methodist so that he could win the presidency and that he believes in Methodism.

If it doesn't happen, then how can I have evidence of it? I'm not even arguing that it never happens, just that it rarely happens and even more rarely in mainstream religions. I don't doubt that some megalomaniac founded a cult so that people would worship him. But even such an example hardly proves the case all, or some, or even a few religions use faith as a means of control. Let me just add before I do take on the burden of proof that you haven't produced any evidence yet, either.

Well, priests have to take a vow of poverty before entering the priesthood. If I was younger and I wanted to make a lot of money, I'd get an engineering degree, not join the priesthood. With an engineering degree you're pretty much guaranteed a more than comfortable lifestyle; no celebacy vow, either. It seems very unrealistic to join the priesthood as a kid with the full expectation of becoming Pope, a Cardinal, or even an archbishop.

No, he frequently said that he wasn't.

I think he's definitely appealing to Christian voters, but that's only because he's a Christian and Christian voters may want a Christian president. If he was an atheist, he'd probably try to leave God out of things as much as possible.

God's brought up a lot in every election, everywhere. Bill Clinton said "God bless America" at the end of every speech. So does Bush.

Well, why don't we? No doubt the kings of medieval Europe were deeply concerned with political power. They were not as concerned, however, with religious power. Furthermore, it was very difficult for them to get religious power; they were not a part of the Church hierarchy and the Pope always stood in their way. I forget which Holy Roman Emperor it was, but he was forced to kneel in the snow for days begging frogiveness from the Pope. Henry VIII is an interesting case; he was certainly very concerned with power, but the rest of the to-be Anglican Church were genuinely concerned with the abuse of Papal authority. But at any rate, Henry wanted an hier, not to conrol the masses.

Well, if call saving a person's immortal soul "profit," then yes - because that's exactly what the Inquisition thought it was doing. But if you mean "profit" in a financial way, I don't see how they gained.

What are you talking about? What truth? It seems to me that witches and heretics were usually uneducated peasants, certainlly far less educated than the Inquisitors who were trying them. How could a disorganised bunch of cults topple Christendom?

Opinions don't hurt people either. Neither does casting a ballot. If the majority of my country wants to led by a Christian, a Muslim, or a Hare Krishna, who am I to tell them otherwise? It's hardly control; it's democracy. And, fortunately, in many countries it is checked with a separation of church and state.

Well not in my town he wouldn't, but it's small. People usually only get locked up for hurting people or destroying property. There are plenty of crazy, old people in my neighbourhood but none have been institutionalised or shunned because they're not dangerous.

Because some mistakes are easier to make than others.

I think they knew that just as well as we do now when Genesis was written. But most Christians don't take that literally. Regarding the ones who do, I am very sure that they are wrong. But so what? They can believe whatever they like, and thinking that a huge arc existed 4000 years ago or whatever doesn't have a serious impact on ordinary life. Besides, believing in God and taking the Bible literally are two very different things, and to me it that there is far more justification for believing in God than there is for believing in Noah's Arc or Santa.

Darwinism is still a theory because it has not met the standards of scientific fact yet, which are justifiably very strict. It has nothing to do with Creationists. If you ask me, evolution probably does not happen in the way Darwin described it. It seems to me that human society does not and probably never has abided by the law of survival of the fittest. Also, I was having a conversation the other day with one of my friends, who told me that some varieties of bacteria have evolved through cooperation rather than competition. That got me thinking that it seems very strange that the cells in an organism should work together, while organisms are in constant competition. It also occurs to me that some creationist zoologist (yes, there are such people) has probably been saying this for years, only to be drowned out by more dogmatic scientists. I'm no scientist, but the objection seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm not talking about the collectivization of farms. I'm talking about Lysenko and his pseudo-science which jived very well with Marxism and was adopted by Stalin as the only permissible theory of genetics in the USSR. As it turned out, Lysenko was very wrong and any elementary school student who has done a science fair project involving plants could tell you the same. Stalin bullshitted how much the crops yielded because Lysenko's nonsense just went so well with Marxist dogma, and millions starved. Stalin was very concerned with "progess" and was more than willing to compromise good science, which is very slow, to keep progress happening quickly. It seems to me that whenever a lot of "progress" happens real fast, a lot of people die.

Hikaru:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "God with a capital G." If you mean the Judeo-Christian God, the Jews were hardly in competition with the ancient Greeks. If you mean the Christian God according to Jesus, he wasn't in contact with the Greeks, either. My best guess is that you mean the God decided upon at the Council of Nicea. I really don't know much about it. I know there's a lot of literature out interesting in reviving gnosticism (not agnosticism, which is doing just fine), but I pay no more attention to it than I do the writings of occult spiritual leaders or conspiracy theorists; it sounds like a little of both to me.

 

well ive just seem posibly the longest reply ever

 

Good point. Science has come a long way, a long long way...

Another good point... you are right about the science thing.

The religious stories themselves I was more talking about than jesus. Not just the bible but a lot of religious holybooks. I believe jesus was just a good man who was all about the revolution. I believe when he spoke of god he spoke of him completely relatively, hypothetically, poetically?

Ok than, a simple example of how "Churches, in their tax evasive state, benefit financially from forcing illogical beliefs into their head. "
By becoming christian, joining their church, they get donation money.
Churches are a very profiting scheme... they advertise themselves like corporations. The more people they get to believe in them, the more money they make. Simple as that. And I actually have a personal belief, completely hypothetical, that some churches use that money to carry out their own prophecies.

Atheists still did not retain the majority. Everyone hated Hitler, he rose in power because of propaganda and ignorance, much like George Bush. But not all christians hated him at the time.

Still, he promotes christianity all the time, every chance he gets... they make televised events about it... the media outlets advertise the president and christianity simulatenously. Whether or not he believes it, (as many people would believe that he doesnt actually believe in christianity or is a real christian), he uses it for his advantage. And that is my point.

Here is simple proof that religion = controlling peoples minds.
Especially mainstream religions. Every mainstream religion has a book that tells them what to believe, how to act, where to stand on certain issues. In its pure essence, it is a form of control.

an example I'de make is someone who grew up around church and joined priesthood, at a later time he thought differently about it yet continued to be a priest and rise in the line. (not a bad option, financially)

Isnt that essentially using your religion to profit from it?

Exactly.

Still, you pick the selective Kings who the church were after... They werent all on the popes bad side. And whether or not the church supported their king, they would still call themselves christians, no matter what. And why wouldn't they? In the bible, it blatantly tells everyone to obey their king.
There have been so many kings, and the fact that one of them was so shunned by the papacy doesnt disprove that the Kings used religion to control the masses.

More people join their church = more people making donations.

You assume that all heretics were cultists, when in fact that was just the image the church tried to portrey of them... nothing but crazy cultist, witches... in fact lots of these people were simply atheists like us. Christians have a history of slaughtering our kind.

When religion is handed to you from your strict parents, it's sometimes hard for people to let it go. The way religion spreads, the tactics the presidents and churches use to advertise themselves... dont even get me started on missionaries going into "godless" territory, destroying culture and spreading christianity. With so many fraudulant elections around the world I hardly believe that we can be so sure that this is "democracy in action"... We dont live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

That is bullshit though, there is no true separation of church and state.
We have the words "In god we trust" on our national currency...

You make good points, not like that everywhere.

There is no justification because neither of those things are true, yet it is true that it would be slightly harder to believe in the arc, because it is simply rediculous, goes against the laws of physics. Yet there still is no justification for a god, all people say is "because its true" or "have faith" which is simply another language for saying "believing in something that seems illogical"

Evolutionism has been changed and is different than Darwinism, I was tought more modern evolutionism than what darwin exactly said... but nevertheless he is the father of evolution... his theories have been changed... and I really think that modern evolutionism hits the nail on the head... sure there is probably more room for change, but ultimately the main idea of it is in fact definitely true.

That is not a result of communism or atheism though... its just a result of corrupt, ignorant people.
Stalin was concerned about power.
He used atheism, communism like the christian nations used christianity to help him in his crusade for power.

Thanks for the reply.

 

acctually, technically, i think the "theory of evolution" is still a hypothesis....im not sure why, but thats what i heard...maybe cause you cant experiment with it or something, or maybe it was it wasnt widly enough accepted as is in the scientific communitiy...w/e

 

I had to comment on this. =)

There is a certain philosopher by the name of Michael Ruse who expanded on the sociobiological theory of morality to create a sort of "ethical skeptic" stance. According to this theory, the story goes like this:

We know that often times, organisms do not find themselves needing to struggle against other organisms for survival. We also know that many organisms cooperate together (as you pointed out with the bacteria), to take down bigger prey. It seems an organism would prefer to share just a piece of cake and throw in his efforts to get the cake for the group, than to risk the whole cake or none at all; consider the wild dog, which hunts in packs. There's less food to go around, but the food income is highly consistant and has a smaller chance of failing.

It seems that co-operation plays an important role ... and the organisms that co-operate well live to reproduce. Thus, co-operation became an important strategy, which, like in the cake example, ensures a longer life to reproduce.

It would seem that through evolution, we evolved to be a sort of "altruistic" species and grand co-operator. As a result, our heads are naturally filled with thoughts of and desires for co-operation; it makes sense that Nature would implant this "ethical sense" that unites all of humanity into our brains, so that we have a greater chance of reproducing (and look where we are today!). It varies from person to person, but is ultimately there in everyone. It is not so strong as to bind us to acting moral, but only to suggest to us to co-operate and be friendly.

That's the sociobiological stance. The "ethical skeptic" would further argue that, because "morality" as we have come to term it has evolved from the "survival of the fittest" nature of the world, only as a tool for reproduction, then our thoughts of morality do not offer any conclusive or necessarily correct data on what is actually "right" and "wrong," because we are all perpetually fooled by Nature. Not to say that some kind of moral foundation does not exist at all, but it likely wouldn't be what we think it is.

The reason why it does not offer any conclusive or correct ideas is because it is "survival of the fittest," not "survival of the best." The best organisms are many times found in the most dire of places, and they die along with the weak, because the environment plays a very major role in determining how "fit" an organism is to survive. So it does not necessarily hint that an organism that has an advantage is better or worse.

In other words, there is both empirical evidence and a theory that suggests that "morality is nothing more than an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes for reproductive ends." - Ruse

Personally, I agree with this stance; it makes sense. I just wanted to point out that morality, in fact, is most likely a produce of "survival of the fittest," as is cooperation.

By "God with a capital G," I am referring to the Judeo-Christian God, who is often referred to in the native language by "Yahweh" or "YHVH," something to that effect.

By "Greeks" I mean "Ancient Greeks," the ones that existed far before the Roman empire and before the Bible was written, and whose paganist ideas about gods faded heavily right about the time that Christianity began to arise popularly.

This theory isn't my own suggestion, it's widely disputed by many philosophers. Nietzsche even wrote a book explaining how this was the case. I don't completely agree with this idea, but it seems to make some sense, so I don't disagree with it either.

Hey, I resent that, my replies have been much longer before! ='(

Haha.

Hitler was disfavoured by 90% of Germany when he proclaimed himself "der Führer." However, because of the strings he controlled, he used a loophole in the rules to enact measures that eliminated opposition to his "election," under measures that were supposed to be for emergencies only (Hitler convinced his puppet that it was). Then, Germans were conscripted into his army and brainwashed through programs like the Hitler Youth program, and the rest becomes history.

I agree. The Pope was not the only authority that decided that a Crusade was necessary. He was allied with countless Kings and princes and royaltyfolk from all across Europe, and there were a whole nine Crusades where Kings got together and waged war to kill all the non-believers. The territories that were conquered became property of the Kings who were "supported by divine right," which goes right along with feudalist beliefs.

What's really funny is, right next to "In God We Trust" is a little phrase in Latin that says "Novus ordo seclorum," or "new secular order," implying that the government is secular and non-religiously biased, not to mention "Annuit Coeptis" (pretend the o and e are joined as a Latin "oe" letter). Translated with leeway, "annuit" refers to a favourable position or condonement of something, and "coeptis" refers to an endeavor or undertaking. It can be translted to read something like "Our endeavors are favoured [by God]." The "God" part is omitted, and it would be generally understood that the subject would be God.

 

Eva used to sing that every night before i went to sleep.......

 

Fuck, I'm not patient enough to read all those replies... Though I did read through the whole base of this topic, and I have to say I agree...
You're ideas were extremely insightful and I give you props for that... I've never looked at it that way before [the Santa Clause song, that is]...

I haven't done much research on most Christian religions but I was actually raised in a catholic family, required to go to church every sunday and religion classes every monday night... I never got anything from it all; even when I was young it all seemed absurd and hypocritical to me... But anyway, that's off topic a bit... The point I was about to make was, I actually just had a conversation about something similar to this yesterday with my Catholic mother... The idea of if you do good, you go to heaven...and how I think it's complete bullshit. I felt the need to point out to my mother, that the Catholic religion actually stemmed from the idea that you had to actually PAY your way into heaven by giving the Catholic church so much of your income every month or so... She seemed a bit taken aback by the fact that I knew this, and quickly rebuttled with the fact that the religion has changed and is no longer that way... I tend to disagree. It may be that many churches in our generation don't require you to pay [though, most still do...] but instead they shove the idea upon society that if you "sin" you're "soul" is damned. Now.. maybe, I just can't understand this way of thinking, because I don't believe in God, an afterlife, or anything to the affect... but take for example a person who is mentally ill and goes on a killing spree...of course, killing isn't the right thing to do, and most would agree that it is wrong, but is that person going to go to hell because they were mentally ill? I believe, and I'm not sure how many of you will agree, that there is NO existence of evil, but rather the word evil is used to make excuses for the terrible choices people make... I find it hard to believe that anyone who kills a person is mentally SANE, therefore, how can being ill, be considered a sin and damn those who ARE mentally ill? ...on the same note, in the Catholic religion, it's also considered a sin to commit suicide. So with that in my mind, a person can lead a great, "morally correct" life, but because they were ill with depression or whatever else, they're damned? My grandpa killed himself when I was a child, and I find it impossible to believe that because he was severely depressed, that he damned himself by committing suicide...

Again, I've led this a bit off topic, but the general idea that I mean to get across is that, how can such a religion give a set list of rules that you must abide by to get into "heaven"... when there's ALWAYS an exception to certain situations... I can't word that in a great way, but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.

I also think the whole "rules to live by" philosophy is bull. My mom attended a catholic school from the time she was 6 until high school, and I witnessed the dramatic affects it had on her confidence and self worth. For a period of time, she felt so depressed and unworthy because she was filled with this idea that everything and anything she did was morally wrong in "god's eyes"... and that she was damned. This caught my attention immediately, and it made me see just how pathetic the whole idea of the Catholic religion can really be. To make a person feel so shallow and worthless is in no way RIGHT... which proves that the religion is definitely hypocritical.

Anyway... excuse me for my rambling. I'm done now. >.<

 

Speaking on the subject of Bush...he just proves the hypocrisy of the general ideas used in christianity. According to christianity killing is wrong...and yet he creates a war where millions are killed.

pfft.

it kind of reminds me of the catholic priests who preach every sunday in church, while the night before they were out having a grand party molesting little boys *rolls eyes*

 

If you read into the bible the idea of a 'just' war can be deciphered.. any/all 'mans' questions and answers are within the bible / koran etc etc thats the point i would imagine.