Bible - The Rotten Foundation Of False Religions

[Vitalij]

From the article
[color=red]BIBLE - THE ROTTEN FOUNDATION OF FALSE RELIGIONS[/color]

...The repentant sinner, having acquired the knowledge brought to him by Christ, was obliged to follow only this way, never swerving from the course, - be always and everywhere no less than Christ, what none of his "disciples" (apostles) and fellow-travellers never did. They merely and simply did not understand their Spiritual Teacher - because of their obtuseness, with total lack of moral-ethical slogs of their Faith and Dedication to Him. All Christ apostles are just funny and rueful parodies on spiritual disciples.

They distorted a teaching of their Teacher, having practically understood nothing due to their stupidity, obtuseness and greed, in any of its forms and manifestations...

...Out of all the plays going on the planet now, the mission of Christ (besides verification in practice the falsity of "The Way of the Penitent Sinner" theory) was to show that the wrong religious education preaching racial supremacy of a God's chosen nation carries the seeds of its own death, - because of the rigidity of construction in percepting the world and due to misundertsanding of the truths picked up from everywhere, but not realized the hard way, through personal experience. For all five books of Moses - is just a continuous conglomerate made up of such wisdoms, without their real comprehension, and with an addition of priests' phantasies which turned everything upside-down. For Moses himself had never reached the Enlightenment. That is why everything that was and is happening with the followers of the Bible and Christianity - is a consequence of the rotten foundation, which brought forth all the existing mischiefs of thermonuclear, ecological and social catastrophes. The Religious Path, short as it is in the Earth conditions, can not be an easy, sightseeing tour, and no one has the right to peddle Christ's ideas and ideas of other religions without their true understanding.

Vitalij
"Earth - the planet of biorobots"
http://www.godswhip.info/

[orgaelin]

I don't think the apostles were to blame. And whoever this guy, "Sat Guru Avatar Majtreya" is he is clearly unable to write in a style which is accessible to a western audience. We're used to coherent and rational sentences, and like to have outrageous claims backed up in some way, at least with an explanation if a reference can't be found.

Just a hint.

[Fjord Redd]

You could not be more right. All men are sinners. Thus the purpose of the law, the purpose of the foundation of Christianity, is to bring to light the lawlessness of man.

We as men NEED redemption. A system of belief based on a "Religious Path" will fail because people cannot be "religious." This is why Jesus said that he was the way, the truth, and the life; and also that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Why would anyone then be under the law?

You make a very true point, and one that any Christian should understand and agree with. It is what separates Christianity from most religions.

[Highwayman]

We as men need a commitment to a logical reasonable morality as expressed by Kant's Categorical imperative.

No more sin. No need for gods.

[Impenitent]

the golden rule and the golden duty?

no thanks... revaluation of values yes...

universal standard of moral truth? those with the biggest guns make the rules... morality of power...

[Highwayman]

Morality of pure reason- not power.

You cannot knock Kant's idea that we would everyone of us reach the same moral conclusion by applying pure reason to our intended actions.

If we did everything on the prerogative of it becoming a universal rule and thus would be applicable to ourselves and everybody, very few of us would have issues with each others actions... This means empowerment of the individual, instead of putting the power into a law system and the executives of that system- which is what is wrong at present: The system gets prerogative over the actual intent of the law...

[Impenitent]

yes I can knock kant's idea... not everyone reasons as he did

pure reason gets you to nihilism

the kantian 'system' is nothing but the golden rule and it didn't work for the 3000 years before kant decided to codify it, and it hasn't worked since...

power is the truth

[Highwayman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
yes I can knock kant&#39;s idea... not everyone reasons as he did

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Your thoughts on how Kant&#39;s pure reason differs from anybody else&#39;s pure reason?

[Impenitent]

ever heard of "fuzzy logic"?

two thirds of the world uses that and not aristotlian (as kant used)logic...

[Highwayman]

Any reasonable person- such as can stand trail for crimes committed- is considered capable of using logic and reason well enough to be a responsible member of society. This qualifies him to be reason-able enough to follow something like the golden rule- or the more formal categorical imperative as Kant set it out.

The Muslims are more fundamental than the Christians- yet Jesus did not say you can forget about the commandments now, so Christianity has actually adapted itself to modern society. They do not stone somebody to death for anything anymore. They accept the Earth is not the centre of the universe, etc. It just proves that religious rules are not the absolute when we think about morality.

A closed set of rules versus a system process- the system can adapt and change and keep up with reality eg abortions, divorces, cloning, euthanasia, homosexuality, etc.

[i_am_a_n00bie]

The serious problem with Kant&#39;s Categorical Imperative, is that it argues in circles. Basically, it says that you should never do something that you wouldn&#39;t do when you were sober and clear headed, some time about 11 am, after you had had your coffee. It doesn&#39;t address any of the serious ethical dilemmas.

For example, Kant claims that if we generalise claims enough, we will get rules such as "Do not lie", and "Do not steal". But what about, for example, if an axe murderer comes up to your door and asks whether you keep a spare key under the doormat. Being a moralist, you quickly employ the Categorical Imperative:

Generalisation 1: I should/shouldn&#39;t lie.

Employing this as a universal rule is a relatively simple matter, and you soon come up with the answer; "I shouldn&#39;t lie."

Generalisation 2: I should&#092;shouldn&#39;t lie unless an axe murderer is trying to come in to my house and murder me and my family, with an axe"

Unless you are a weirdo, or follow duty ethics other than that of Kant, you will probably say "I should lie."


[edit] Oh yeah, and the other thing is what happens when the Categorical Imperative contradicts itself? How about when you say "I should/shouldn&#39;t let my family be axe-murdered"? You will probably come up with a conflicting statement.

Immidiately, we are struck with a problem; it is unclear as to how far we should generalise, because different levels of generalisation give different answers.

[Zeebadee]

To paraphrase, unless you are a weirdo, or follow duty ethics other than that of Kant, you will probably say "Get lost, creep&#33;", to any stranger that walks up and asks about a spare key. Why generalize? Be specific&#33;