| Digital Art / Other / Political | ©2012-2013 ~BlameThe1st |
... Assenting to the "self-evident truth" maintained in the American Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights -- among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement of our slave population. In Park-street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popluar but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity. A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the Genius of Universal Emancipation at Baltimore, in September, 1829. My consicence in now satisfied. I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. ...The Liberator faced harsh resistance from several state legislatures and local groups: for example, North Carolina indicted Garrison for felonious acts, and the Vigilance Association of Columbia, South Carolina, offered a reward of $1,500 ($25,957.20 in 2005 dollars) to those who identified distributors of the paper.
Indeed the nations of the world did not create the land they occupy. As such, I consider them as nothing more than occupiers. They serve a purpose, but at some point they will have to go. At some point God will say: "It is self evident that you are made of fail and thusly you must go. They won't do it willingly though. That is why allegiance to political groups must be carefully measured.
The problem is that the non-violent Christians tend to be drowned out by those who advocate violence and war, which is why we have crap like the Crusades and Inquisition, and in modern times, neocon theocrats who support torture and preemptive war.
For the most part, the Quakers are a better representation of Christ's teaching of "turn the other cheek" than the current crop of conservative Christians.
As for God, comparing him to man is like comparing man to animals. Why isn't okay for animals to kill other animals, and man to kill animals, but not okay for man to kill other men? Answer: because man is of a higher intelligence than animals, and therefore, of a different moral standard than the lowly animals. The same standard applies to God.
It should also be noted that it's been God's omnipotence that has justified the Christian explanation of liberty and equality. Because God is of a greater power than man, no man can claim greater power over any other man. To do so would be to become a tyrant.
This has been the thinking of our Founding Fathers. If you check out my signature, you'll notice that the saying is based upon one used by Christians during the Revolution, and their justification for breaking from the King of England.
I know that may not convince you or other atheists, but it's the most coherent answer I can provide.
But why not simply 'un-create' those that don't meet his expectations? And what indeed of pointless suffering, especially of creatures who are said to have no soul, yet who play very little role in human lives, such as parasitic wasps that sting every part of their victim's nervous systems to painfully paralyze it, after laying their eggs in them, from which their larva will hatch to eat the victim alive, slowly and painfully. If Yahweh is somehow proven to exist, I still wouldn't be a Christian, for reasons such as those, and more.
As you say, I doubt any philosophical epiphanies will be reached on either side here; I just wanted to get your take on things like this. It's always interesting to see the different ways that others think about the world.
2: The concept of Hell as a place of eternal punishment is a pagan construct adopted by Katamari Ball style pseudo Christian religions. Death, as described in the bible, is more like a computer that has crashed and burned, but there is a back up drive in God's care where no active processing happens, but an inert storage of a person is made until later.
3: The whole issue raised in the Garden of Eden was not over a piece of fruit, but over whether humans, as opposed to God, had the right to rule. The last 6,000 years or so has been a lab experiment to determine the answer. The guilt for the deaths belongs to those who think they can rule themselves, as his original plan did not involve any death of humans.
2. Hell as we know it (i.e., as eternal torment) is firmly rooted in the parable of Lazarus and Dives, wherein Jesus himself contrasts sheol (hell) with the bosom of Abraham, clearly stating that one cannot cross over from one to the other. This is a reflection of popular Jewish notions at the time--since abandoned by most Jews--that sheol, or 'the grave' was composed of two layers: one for the righteous and the other for the wicked, where the former await paradise, and the latter face eternal torment. Christianity preserved this temporary change in Jewish eschatology, yielding the modern notion of hell. Paganism was not involved, and also: I have no idea what/who 'Katamari Ball' is...
3. All I need to know is that this fruit was supposed to be the fruit of the tree of knowledge. What knowledge that is, is immaterial. When your religion starts off blaming all the woes of the world on people choosing knowledge over ignorance, I'm done listening. I rule myself, and I accept the consequences, 'failure' or not.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]. And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Something tells me that by Jesus' time on Earth, man went too far from the original intent of punishing people who almost cause or did cause a woman to lose her baby to using the punishment for other crimes not described.
And as for your verse, I do enjoy it as, while it does not directly forbid abortion, does show that, under OT law, the fetus was viewed as on the same level as a full-grown human being.
As for war and peace, I'm neither a War Hawk or Peace Dove and frankly neither should be the presidents. The Presidential Seal shows the best path for the President - The Bald Eagle holds in one claw the Olive Branch of Peace and in the other claw, the Arrows of War. A president should be the same way while having the insight, knowledge, and wisdom to know when to use which without reservation.