WARNING WARNING - Religious Topic - WARNING WARNING

[Parkbandit]

I was reading the speech made by Senator Miller.. and came across this passage:

"He's a god-fearing man"

Is that what we should all be.. God Fearing? Fearing the wrath of God?

I thought he loved us?

Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it.

[Nieninque]

I know some people whose parents are the minister of a hard line protestant church.

They believe that God is a jealous and harsh god who punishes sinners unless they repent, so they would ascribe to the "god fearing" description.

[Tsa`ah]

I'll simply quote the BEST KEVIN SMITH MOVIE EVER with Loki's opening scene.

LOKI

Leaving 'Alice in Wonderland' aside, look closely

at 'Through the Looking Glass' - particularly 'The

Walrus and the Carpenter' poem: what's the

metaphorical meaning?



NUN

I wasn't aware there was one.



LOKI

Oh, but there is - it colorfully details the sham

that is organized religion. The Walrus - with his

girth and good-nature - obviously refers to either

the Buddha, or - with his tusks - the lovable

Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. This takes care

of the Eastern religions. The Carpenter is an

Obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was

purportedly raised the son of a carpenter. He

represents the Western religions. And in the poem,

what do they do? They dupe all the oysters into

following them. Then, when the oysters collective

guard is down, the Walrus and the Carpenter shuck

and devour the helpless creatures, en masse. I

don't know what that says to you, but to me it

says that following faiths based on these

mythological figures insures the destruction of

one's inner-being.


Organized religion destroys who we are or who we

can be by inhibiting our actions and decisions out

of fear of an intangible parent-figure who shakes

a finger at us from thousands of years ago and

says "Do it and I'll fucking spank you!"

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it. Send a letter to your president. He will enlighten you.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Send a letter to your president. He will enlighten you.

That was so wrong ... and so right.
:lol:

[Betheny]

Religion is control. Whether by fear of punishment, or desire for reward.

Simple as that.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I was reading the speech made by Senator Miller.. and came across this passage:

"He's a god-fearing man"

Is that what we should all be.. God Fearing? Fearing the wrath of God?

I thought he loved us?

Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it.

God fearing means "Look at me! I am morally superior!"

I do believe there is a god/higher power/supreme being, and I do believe s/he/it loves us. I also believe that it is not something that can be explained. Either you feel it or you don't. The beauty of it is that you don't have to reconcile yourself with my vision of god (or lack there of), only with your own.

Jorddyn

[xtc]

I am not a religious person however I have been privileged enough to meet people in the church who practice what they preach. Most of these people I have met while doing volunteer work for homeless shelters, detox centre, and a hospital. I have posed this same question to them. I can't recall the exact answer however it was something along the lines of this definition:

God-fearing
(a.) Having a reverential and loving feeling towards God; religious

http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/go/godfearing169751.html

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it. Send a letter to your president. He will enlighten you.


:rofl:

[SpunGirl]

Seen on a bumper sticker: "Religion" is a term for "cult with lots of members."

-K

[4a6c1]

For some people, faith is enough to get them through life. The religions we have today are each a result of one person or organizations of people sharing their own way of living with their cultures. Some of them caught on and expanded. Some did not.

I am of the opinion that someone sharing a way of living with the world is not wrong. Believing others or all should live the way you do *is*.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it. Send a letter to your president. He will enlighten you.

:lol2:

That made my morning

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it. Send a letter to your president. He will enlighten you.

I'm glad he is a 'god fearing' man. In fact, I think his faith and his beliefs are what make him a pretty damn good president.

[4a6c1]

I admire anyone with that much faith in one thing. I have yet to make an opinion about the President though, and whether his is a good or bad thing for the country.

[Tsa`ah]

Reagan had tremendous faith. Carter had and has tremendous faith. Both understood that the nation they led did not exactly share their theological views. Both set aside religion and spoke little about it in the public eye.

In essence, both were able to lead without tripping over or waving around faith. Both were excellent examples of what a president should be at the end of the day.

Bush, when it comes to religion, is the complete opposite.

Your religion should not affect the decisions you make for a nation as diverse as this one.

While you (Carl) may admire him for this and consider it an attribute, I detest him for it and consider it a detriment in so many ways.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it. Send a letter to your president. He will enlighten you.

I'm glad he is a 'god fearing' man. In fact, I think his faith and his beliefs are what make him a pretty damn good president.


Religion confuses me to no end... someone explain it.
Maybe you can help explain it to PB then. :) The President's faith and beliefs should be kept at home where they belong. It is a wonderful thing to stand by your convictions however when it interfers in your politics it's a problem. I don't want to be subjected to his version of "faith" as it pertains to leading this country and making important decisions. Church and state should not mix.

[Carl Spackler]

Me, I'm not a religious person. I do believe religion, for some people, is a driving, motivating force. If that is what is going to get Bush through whats going on I totally agree with it.

[DeV]

Agree with it all you want. It shouldn't mix in politics is the bottom line. Who can refute that with a valid argument? That's what gets the terrorists through carrying out missions of death--their interpertation of their "religion" and their convictions and beliefs. I'm not for it on either side.

[Carl Spackler]

Saying it gets the terrorists through holds little value. They are religious fanatics, who throughout their life, have been bred to hate the American way of life. The clerics like al-Sadr breed hate in these young men, telling them America is bad. They don't know any better because they have been taught that their whole life. Bush isn't a religious zealot, he's not standing on his soapbox saying thou must be christian. He's just a man, who happens to believe in something. He believes in god, I don't see the big deal? It's not like he's not allowed to vocalize that, everyone in America is entitled to their opinion and that is his.

[Edited on 10-22-2004 by Carl Spackler]

[DeV]

It holds little value because they are terrorists. It holds greater value in favor of Bush because he is an American President. I understand.

So is it your position that RELIGION and POLITICS DO and SHOULD mix?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
He's just a man, who happens to believe in something. He believes in god, I don't see the big deal? It's not like he's not allowed to vocalize that, everyone in America is entitled to their opinion and that is his.

[Edited on 10-22-2004 by Carl Spackler] This is where the discussion gets hairy. Where did anyone say that it is not okay that Bush believes in God? Also, where did anyone say it was a big deal that he believes in God? My point is that church and state shouldn't mix. What's yours?

[Carl Spackler]

My position is that I really don't care if they mix, He's not forcing anyway to believe in a certain faith.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
My position is that I really don't care if they mix, He's not forcing anyone to believe in a certain faith.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
My position is that I really don't care if they mix, He's not forcing anyway to believe in a certain faith. I'm undecided as to this statement being an oxy moron or not.

[Carl Spackler]

It's not an oxymoron, I don't care if politics and religion are mixed. No president is going to make someone believe in a certain faith, thats why we have checks and balances, congress, the supreme court, the people of America would never let it happen. Therefor I am of the belief that if a president wants to vocalize his faith he has every right to, because you know what, it doesn't bother me.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
It's not an oxymoron, I don't care if politics and religion are mixed. No president is going to make someone believe in a certain faith, thats why we have checks and balances, congress, the supreme court, the people of America would never let it happen. Therefor I am of the belief that if a president wants to vocalize his faith he has every right to, because you know what, it doesn't bother me.
Alrighty then. You need to familiarize yourself with the way our country works and the powers of the President.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
It's not an oxymoron, I don't care if politics and religion are mixed. No president is going to make someone believe in a certain faith, thats why we have checks and balances, congress, the supreme court, the people of America would never let it happen. Therefor I am of the belief that if a president wants to vocalize his faith he has every right to, because you know what, it doesn't bother me.
Alrighty then. You need to familiarize yourself with the way our country works and the powers of the President.

In what terms?

[DeV]

If I continue this conversation I'm afraid I might lose a brain cell.

I have nothing more to add that hasn't been previously stated.

[Carl Spackler]

Here you are telling me to familiarize myself with the powers of the President. In what way should I familiarize myself? I'm open to new ideas, so please enlighten me.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Here you are telling me to familiarize myself with the powers of the President. In what way should I familiarize myself? I'm open to new ideas, so please enlighten me. 1. Presidential usurpation of legislative power.
2. The power that has been granted to the executive branch of government.
3. Congress failing to check the expansion of presidential power.
4. The absense of the courts in restaining presidential law making.

Despite the huge increase in formal powers that the president has acquired over the years, the most fundamental power the president possesses is the power to persuade.

I see what you are saying and agree that everyone should have a right to believe in whoever they wish. I admire his ability to believe strongly and have no problem with it so as long as those beliefs don't affect his duties because not everyone believes as he does which is where you start to run into problems.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
1. Presidential usurpation of legislative power.
2. The power that has been granted to the executive branch of government.
3. Congress failing to check the expansion of presidential power.
4. The absense of the courts in restaining presidential law making.

How does this have anything to do with Bush's faith?

[Parkbandit]

It doesn't.. and neither does DarkElfVold's argument.

By the way.. the thread wasn't 'Hey.. tell me what you think about George Bush and Religion". It was a thread about the term "God - Fearing".

Thanks.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
1. Presidential usurpation of legislative power.
2. The power that has been granted to the executive branch of government.
3. Congress failing to check the expansion of presidential power.
4. The absense of the courts in restaining presidential law making.

How does this have anything to do with Bush's faith? By giving you what you asked for. See below.
Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Here you are telling me to familiarize myself with the powers of the President. In what way should I familiarize myself? I'm open to new ideas, so please enlighten me.

[Carl Spackler]

Right it was until DarkElfVold brought up writing to the president about being God-Fearing, in a half-hearted attack at W.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Carl Spackler

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
1. Presidential usurpation of legislative power.
2. The power that has been granted to the executive branch of government.
3. Congress failing to check the expansion of presidential power.
4. The absense of the courts in restaining presidential law making.

How does this have anything to do with Bush's faith? By giving you what you asked for. See below.
Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Here you are telling me to familiarize myself with the powers of the President. In what way should I familiarize myself? I'm open to new ideas, so please enlighten me.

Right, you gave me things to help me 'learn'. But this discussion was about Bush's faith, what you posted has absoultely nothing to do with that.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
It doesn't.. and neither does DarkElfVold's argument.

By the way.. the thread wasn't 'Hey.. tell me what you think about George Bush and Religion". It was a thread about the term "God - Fearing".

Thanks. I beg to differ. In fact, I replied to your original question. We've just branched out is all.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
It doesn't.. and neither does DarkElfVold's argument.

By the way.. the thread wasn't 'Hey.. tell me what you think about George Bush and Religion". It was a thread about the term "God - Fearing".

Thanks.

Speaking strictly to the topic, if I must fear the God I would worship, I am forced to rethink his/her godliness, I'm afraid.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Right, you gave me things to help me 'learn'. But this discussion was about Bush's faith, what you posted has absoultely nothing to do with that. This discussion was not about Bush's faith, originally. We made it about that. It was not about checks and balances either, you brought that to the table and I expounded on it. The post I made was in jest to PB and you shouldn't have replied to it if you didn't want to take it there.

[Victril]

The fear of God is reverence towards his righteousness. Its stated in such a way as to point out that a man should be obedient and conciderate in his relationship with God. Fear is a term that alot of people take literally, in a way that we should shrink away from God, or feel a reason to ascribe fear that we would place on things like spiders or sales represenatives. But no God mentions fear in the Bible to point out that he is like our father, and we should respect his position as a figure of authority, whilst simultaneously understanding that he has an all encompassing love for us, though not for alot of the things we do. Bout as good as i can say it at least.

[HarmNone]

Perhaps, the term should be God-respecting, then. To say God-fearing is, as I see it, counter-productive.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Right, you gave me things to help me 'learn'. But this discussion was about Bush's faith, what you posted has absoultely nothing to do with that. This discussion was not about Bush's faith, originally. We made it about that. It was not about checks and balances either, you brought that to the table and I expounded on it. The post I made was in jest to PB and you shouldn't have replied to it if you didn't want to take it there.

Ah yes, I did bring up checks and balances. And yes, I brought them up correctly. If any President ever tried to impose a single religion that everyone must follow, it would be checked. Therefore I am correct.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Perhaps, the term should be God-respecting, then. To say God-fearing is, as I see it, counter-productive.

I agree with you there.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
If any President ever tried to impose a single religion that everyone must follow, it would be checked. Therefore I am correct. :?: And that would happen why? Whoever would think such a thing is surely retarded. We are all correct in that stance simply because it would never happen.

[HarmNone]

Heh.

When the Christians and the Pagans
Start seeing eye-to-eye,
It's time to set your world to right,
Because the end is nigh.

:D

[Victril]

Well fear of God is an older term. Calling something bad when you actually mean its good in todays society is ALSO counter productive, its a reference that simply implies more than is evident to the eye.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Victril
Well fear of God is an older term. Calling something bad when you actually mean its good in todays society is ALSO counter productive, its a reference that simply implies more than is evident to the eye.

Which is precisely why you won't find me using the word "bad" when I mean good. ;)

[Victril]

heh thats Good HN, i try to be precies when i try to convey my thoughts too. Bad is bad and good is good. Lingo can be a confusing thing sometimes, and alot of it perplexs me. I'm just a dumb ol country boy from Alabamy!

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
It shouldn't mix in politics is the bottom line. Who can refute that with a valid argument?Any truly religious person doesn't quantize their religion. They are religious all the time. Being religious and being involved in politics isn't what the reaction against the Church of England was about. The problem was that the King of England was also the Pope of England. Until a President declares that the United States is a sovereign church and excommunicates the Pope, we'll be fine. Or, going the other direction, until a President declares that the United States is an atheist country, we'll be fine. What Bush wants to do is utterly irrelevant, mostly because none of us are in the position to predict such a thing.

Godfearing, along with a ton of other religious stuff, shouldn't be taken at face value. For instance, I could be described as a Bible thumper, although I have never felt the need to physically strike the Bible. Could these terms be changed to be more accurate to what first glance says they mean? Absolutely. Feel free to write Merriam Webster. Similarly, we should do away with terms such as "research" (to search again?), "carpenter" (one who carpents?), and the old "inflammable" and "flammable" paradox (even though it's not, really). :)

[HarmNone]

Heh. It never fails to amaze me the lengths to which some will go to make, prove, or enhance their position.

First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with the word "research", even if one breaks it down to its components. when researching something one is, indeed, re-searching information that has already been searched by others. The word carpenter comes from the French (charpentier, or wood smith). Flammable is the modern replacement for the old word inflammable, which was confusing to people who thought it meant nonflammable. That one is an object lesson in playing to the stupid, in my opinion. ;)

Personally, I would not call anyone a bible thumper unless I saw them pummeling a bible. Why, indeed, do we not simply say what we mean? God-fearing? I certainly hope not! :P

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
It shouldn't mix in politics is the bottom line. Who can refute that with a valid argument?Any truly religious person doesn't quantize their religion. They are religious all the time. What Bush wants to do is utterly irrelevant, mostly because none of us are in the position to predict such a thing.

Quantizing religion is one I've never considered so I'm unsure how someone would do that unless you're referring to limiting ones values as they pertain to everyday life.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
unless you're referring to limiting ones values as they pertain to everyday life. :yes: For instance, a Catholic who believes the death penalty is a morally acceptable practice, or a Catholic who goes to Church on Sundays and kills hobos on Saturdays.
Originally posted by Harmnone
which was confusing to people who thought it meant nonflammable.That's exactly my point, Harmnone. Exactly.

[Betheny]

I kill hobos on Sundays. :flames:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
What Bush wants to do is utterly irrelevant, mostly because none of us are in the position to predict such a thing.

Now that I have a clearer grasp of what you're talking about it's safe to assume your position on the matter. What Bush wants to do is irrelevant to you however it is completely relevant to me. His predictibility is going to be questioned when he speaks about his religious views openly. He's one of the most openly religious presidents in U.S. history.

I have no problem with that at all. My issue is as it pertains to the government and the decision making process of important and highly debatable issues. Not with his personal life-beliefs-or what he does in the sanctity of his home or house of worship.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Heh. It never fails to amaze me the lengths to which some will go to make, prove, or enhance their position.

First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with the word "research", even if one breaks it down to its components. when researching something one is, indeed, re-searching information that has already been searched by others. The word carpenter comes from the French (charpentier, or wood smith). Flammable is the modern replacement for the old word inflammable, which was confusing to people who thought it meant nonflammable. That one is an object lesson in playing to the stupid, in my opinion. ;)

Personally, I would not call anyone a bible thumper unless I saw them pummeling a bible. Why, indeed, do we not simply say what we mean? God-fearing? I certainly hope not! :P

So....I'm a carpenter of religion and I like to play with fire?!?

I'm confused and Harmnone hurt my brain.

:cry:

PS. I agree that religion should not be brought into politics. Unfortunately, the faithful will always be influenced by their ideas and beliefs, in all areas of life. This goes for legislators too. The special ones are those that can see outside the box. Yay for being outside the box.

Extra PS. This server is acting wonky. I've gotten 3 404 messages trying to post.

[DeV]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
PS. I agree that religion should not be brought into politics. Unfortunately, the faithful will always be influenced by their ideas and beliefs, in all areas of life. This goes for legislators too. The special ones are those that can see outside the box. Agreed.

[HarmNone]

Sorry 'bout yer brain, there, JihnasSpirit. Wanna Bailey's? That'll fix it! :D

[HarmNone]

Being influenced by one's beliefs is a given. Everyone is. However, to use one's personal beliefs to govern others should never become a given in this country. We are too diverse for that.

A true leader cannot impose his/her views on those he/she leads. Instead, the needs of the whole must come first, even if the needs of the leader must go begging. Additionally, the whole must be recognized to consist of many who do not agree with the leader, particularly when it comes to personal belief systems.

[imported_Kranar]

<< "He's a god-fearing man" >>

Fear is an archaic term used to refer to admiration and awe.

This is really a minor technicality to be confused over with respect to religion anyways.

[HarmNone]

I don't find it confusing, at all, Kranar. I simply find it misleading, and counter-productive.

[Back]

Whew, just checked which topic this was and its not the THIS religeon vs THAT religeon topic... so I can speak freely...

Friedrich Nietzsche was on to something. Sure, it was obscured by the time frame he introduced it. A tumultuous time. The 30’s? God isn’t dead. The body still rules. Without a higher power however it is left unchecked. Pure animal. He hit on the fact that there is something higher to aspire to, but in our animal forms, its going to take a lot to get there.