Comments on The Christian Identity Movement --- do you have the sense to be afraid?

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to The Christian Identity Movement --- do you have the sense to be afraid?

drjackson -- here I am suggesting you slow down while I plunge into a

comment full of typos and incomplete notions. However I will take up the oft used challenge when you ask to provide one example of when archeology has disproven the biblical historical timeline.

First off it is a trick question as it is a one way street. The document exists while the reconciliation with the historical knowledge is ongoing. It is safe to say that if the knowledge existed and the document did not, that the document would take on an entirely different appearance. Having said this, there is a pat answer to this contention. Archeology proves the historical timelines of all existing sacred scriptures of all religions to the same degree as it does the bible. The problem with using this contention to validate other unrelated portions of the bible is that it is validation by extension. Meaningless as any form of real evidence. All it really proves is that the human authors used ther own cognative abilities and limited perceptions to describe either current historical events or events passed by word of mouth through time.

This is where you have begun to be a bit entertaining.

"Burning bush - actually happens.  There is a bush (or was at least) in the desert in the region where Moses saw this that actually has an oil on the leaves that ignites in the heat of the sun."
 
"Parting of the Red Sea - there is a sand bar that, when the tide is low and a good wind comes along, actually shows itself on which one could walk from one shore to another."

I can buy these explanations. It doesn't even matter if they are true or not because they are both far more plausible than anything written in the bible. Say for instance that both of these examples were what actually happened, they would back my perspective on the bible 100%. A drifting sandbar makes a heck of lot more sense than a legendary man using a magic stick to open the sea as does the natural anomoly of the burning bush. What we then become subjected to in the bible is primitive man's complete lack of comprehension of these natural phenomona, a willingness by him to ascribe the unexplained as being the work of God, while utilizing his version of "artisitc license" to reconcile his agenda.   

All of this basically sums up my opinion of the bible. It's 2005, we should know by now that there was no magic stick, there was no omnipotent creator setting a bush on fire. But still we have too many people that against all reason and logic want this to be so. 
  

posted by gomedome on September 14, 2005 at 3:04 PM | link to this | reply

again you misread...

posted by drjackson on September 14, 2005 at 2:29 PM | link to this | reply

drjackson -- slow down a bit and spare me the nonsense

15,000 documents from wishful thinkers, yahoo that proves everything. Or could it simply be that as the wishful thinkers finally attached a face and a name to the legend of the messiah, that the world's all time number one celebrity has the biggest fan club? Circular logic doesn't work here either.

As for Zarathrustra, there is definately some doubt as to who he was and when he lived. It is likely that he lived approx. 3,500 years ago. It is even possible the he was much the same as that Moses character who was probably a composite and not just one person. Still, I do not make my claims based on singular bits of evidence nor would I dare to speak in the absolute terms that you routinely use. Zarathrustra may well be a legndary character or a person who assembled other people's works, we simply do not know. The bible being derived from a number of sources is an extremely valid contention, especially considering that a good portion of it is written in the third person (as a fiction writer would) and some of it has even been proven to be forgeries.

I see your agenda and prejudices clearly now, Scientists are trying to disprove your beloved creation fairy tale while Archealogists hand you bits of fact to further solidify your delusion.  Try to do better than this drivel.  

posted by gomedome on September 14, 2005 at 2:22 PM | link to this | reply

posted by drjackson on September 14, 2005 at 2:13 PM | link to this | reply

fun facts...

posted by drjackson on September 14, 2005 at 2:04 PM | link to this | reply

drjackson -- In reading the rest of your comment I have to stop you

Don't ever suggest that I have a bias or are trying to make evidence fit foregone conclusions because my bias pales in comparison to yours. You lost me when you began speaking in absolute terms. Nothing has been proven in the bible "every time". Yes carbon dating has been proven unreliable in some instances and becomes increasingly fallable when used to date objects beyond certain timespans ...so what? And yes some credence can be given to actual historic events matching the bible timeline but you are going to have to do better than these few pathetic attempts to refute my contentions. At the end of the day, you have a series of implausible tales of myth and magic supported by wishful thinking, conjecture and mankind's overwhelmingly inherent desire for it to be so.  It's safe to say that if someone tried to introduce the bible today as a brand new document of fact, without nearly 2 millenia of pre-conditioning of the human consciousness, it would be laughed out of town.  The arguments you are using are old and tired. If you want to dialogue you are simply going to have to do better than this. A lavarock from a recent eruption passing as an ancient stone is funny, people do funny things, almost as hilarious as the Shroud of Turin comedy. 

posted by gomedome on September 14, 2005 at 2:00 PM | link to this | reply

You've twisted a lot..

posted by drjackson on September 14, 2005 at 1:59 PM | link to this | reply

drjackson -- wow, you've written a blog and a half in response. It will

take a bit of time to get through your comment and I will revisit it but the first paragraph is worth answering. You must conceed one simple fact when you open up the following argument, a non believer is devoid of the need for there to be a God. All humans want to be right, which is enough to taint any individual's perspective but when you add the need to believe in God to the equation, it can come with a set of industrial strength blinders. From outright self serving "adjustments" of the truth to the sublimenal influence of using the religious texts that have permeated our consciousness as a reference datum, a believer trying to prove the validity of religious history is much more likely to construct something that is utter hogwash. Below I've replace a few words in your first paragraph.  

(Quotation changes italicized)".....I must say, I respect the fact that you are so well read.  You’ve obviously done some research on the subject.  Unfortunately, your material has been strictly from sources within or controlled by the various religious institutions that must believe a God exists, have a vested interest in the continuance of such beliefs and would go to any lengths to do so; including basing their arguments on processes and facts that have been disproved more than once...."

Tell me honestly...whom of believer or non believer is this contention more appropriate for. You believers forget one important point when you use such a flimsy attempt to discredit credible archeolagists and other non partisan researchers. A non believer does not much care if there is a God, at least not nearly to the extent or to the degree the importance of God's existence has for a believer. So who is more likely to "fudge the numbers?"  

posted by gomedome on September 14, 2005 at 11:56 AM | link to this | reply

more on history...

I must say, I respect the fact that you are so well read.  You’ve obviously done some research on the subject.  Unfortunately, your material has been strictly that of those who would like to believe God doesn’t exist and would go to any lengths to do so; including basing their arguments on processes and facts that have been disproved more than once.

 

I could spend a lifetime writing about the times that these theories have been proven wrong by archeology and historical timelines.  As a matter of fact let’s start with timelines; most of the writings that would support your position use carbon dating.  This system has been proven wrong several times.  My favorite is when a rock was taken to lab to be carbon-dated and the results came back putting the rock at about 2 million years old when in fact it was a rock from St. Helen which means it was lava no more than 15 years previous (this was done in the late 90’s and St. Helen blew in 1985 I believe).  This test was done several times until techs started refusing to date anything until they were told exactly where it came from which begs the question “Why do you need to know unless you’re going to work that into calculation?”  That of course would bias the result which is in contradiction to a proper scientific process.  Since then scientists have routinely discovered that radioactive half-life does not work the way they thought it did due to an unknown factor and does indeed make something seem older than it really is.  Now, let’s go back to the subject of what was written first.  The Old Testament is always dated according to historical timelines, placing the events described in sequence according to when, as far as archeology can discover thus far, they actually happened in history (and yes the events in the Bible can be found as actually happening in history).  However, other writings that have been claimed to predate the Bible’s Old Testament were dated strictly using carbon-dating on the documents themselves which, as stated above, is inaccurate.  So any theory based solely on that principle is reverted back to square one.  Here is some more technical information about the carbon dating process http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/Science/Is_Carbon_Dating_Accurate.shtml

And http://www.pacinst.com/youngear.htm and http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00021/messages/49.html

 

Now about “inconsistencies” found in the Bible, well, I could again go on for a lifetime about every one of the theories being proven wrong.  An example would be the one of the Bible stating that Jesus left Gerico and entered Gerico.  This was once thought to be a trump on the accuracy of Bible, left extremists loved this one.  All until an archeological team found (exactly where the Bible stated it would be) another city named Gerico.  This happens over and over again throughout history.  Some good sources to find information about such theories and the errors found in them you should read apologetics written on any given issue.

 

Again, it’s not in how God distributed the information its man is researching it and applying fallible processes to disprove it as being what it is.  It is up to man to have faith and study for himself not God to force feed us.

 

Now about the issue of religion in the government; a fact that I wish every citizen of this country would realize is that the Bible was the most used resource by the architects of the Constitution 2:1.  In addition, every state and local constitution makes specific references to God and religion and frankly the original framework of the USA put more authority in State and Local governments than federal to begin with.

 

posted by drjackson on September 14, 2005 at 10:36 AM | link to this | reply

katray -- that's good news about AA

In your son attending meetings, he is demonstrating a will to improve his situation which makes the efforts of support from family and friends seem worthwhile to them. There is some truth in what the judge claims in AA not helping everyone and not proclaiming their failures with the same enthusiasm as their successes but it would be self defeating for AA to do so. As in all behavioural reform programs, they offer hope and a plan of attack first and foremost. There is something inherently wrong with a judge even subtly influencing an individual to utilize amateur behavioural reform councilling in lue of professional help or professionally administered programs. That is after all what a priest, minister or pastor is, an amateur with a completely biased and unrealistic view on some of the issues that others would have them deal with. I use a celibate catholic priest giving marriage councilling as a perfect example.  

For what it is worth, I feel that both you and your son are on the right track. For some people, a figurative clubbing over the head is necessary to straighten their lives out. With hope, luck and effort, your son has received the final self inflicted blow. In the meantime there are two major considerations in his behavioural reform and his legal troubles. He has the burden of effort in the former, your lying low and not making waves with the legal system will serve not to complicate an already tough situation in the latter. Play the game by the rules as set by those influencing the system, it is the only pragmatic thing to do. But chronicle everything, keep notes and in a few years when the legal issues are settled .... then you can come out with both barrels blazing.     

posted by gomedome on September 14, 2005 at 9:09 AM | link to this | reply

Yes, that feeling about AA has been implied

They attempt to be subtle in their agenda, saying things like: "Oh, we think AA would be a huge waste of your time, not as many people are helped there as they like to claim. You can call on Pastor A or Preacher B whenever you're struggling, we are here for you!" My son does have enough sense to realize he needs more than this; he has started attending AA meetings, because as he says, it's his time to waste and the church doesn't have to know everything that he's doing. I'm hoping he is able to resist their manipulative influence; he has a questioning, open mind and doesn't accept things just because somebody tells him he's supposed to. His fear of jail time - to him that would mean losing everything; his good job, lovely girlfriend and home - is so strong at this point, I can't blow this violation of our rights wide open as I'm longing to do; not yet anyway. He believes what is going on is wrong and unconstitutional, but they have him over a barrel for the time being, in his view. He'd probably have an anxiety attack if he knew I was talking about it here. ;) Thanks for letting me vent Gomedome.

posted by Katray2 on September 14, 2005 at 8:16 AM | link to this | reply

katray -- that is scary stuff

From the law being administered by those who are clearly influenced by their propensity to impose their faith on others to the use of the bible as a cure all for addictions. Then as you say, there is no choice in what religion the individual facing these 2 judges can join. The underlying philosophy of AA, in that an alcoholic can never be cured but only treated, one day at a time, is a sound plan of attack in allowing a person to deal with their addiction. I've seen it many times over the years where AA has salvaged an otherwise destroyed life but let me guess, the over zealous judges have a bias against referring to alcoholism as an addiction instead of the work of Satan. That obtuse theme has surfaced right here on Blogit a few times.  The scenario you describe of government policy and the administration of the legal system being subjected to the influences of an individual's beliefs is very scary. We can only hope that your son lands on his feet after this episode in his life and the only advice I can offer is to not let any judge or outside influence affect the decision to attend AA meetings. Playing the court's game of giving the appearance of reform, as described by your legal advice, is unfortunately the way it works and cannot be dismissed but your son has the rest of his life to live. What makes a judge happy or results in a reduced sentence, does nothing to address the real needs of the individual.     

posted by gomedome on September 14, 2005 at 7:46 AM | link to this | reply

p.s. I had planned on blogging about this, but something odd

is happening with me and a couple of other bloggers - we can't post in full! A weird glitch or something. Anyway, felt nice to vent my fears and anger over this situation somewhere, lol. Hope you didn't mind.

posted by Katray2 on September 14, 2005 at 7:12 AM | link to this | reply

I am afraid

because I see government programs replaced with faith based iniatives - a deceptive term for the kind of control you are talking about...

Long story, but my son has gotten himself into some legal trouble from drinking and driving. He had an accident, damaged some property; nobody injured except him. Felony charges though, because this is his third DUI in less than 5 years. I helped him get a lawyer, a man I've known and trusted for years. He appears to now be "brain-washed" for lack of a better term and recommends enrolling in a church sponsored program to "impress" the 2 judges who will utimately decide my son's fate - jail time is a possibility. These judges are "men of God" according to the lawyer and will look favorably upon my son seeking religion as a "cure." We find out the program has no professionally trained counselors or specialists, just the Bible as their guide. My son is struggling with his addiction and seeks to join another program (in addition to the church; he is out to avoid jail) and finds out the only real program the court used in the past has been whittled down to almost nothing due to federal cutbacks. The leader of the church group is disapproving of AA and also decides what church group my son must attend. Of course no choice as far as religion is offered; it is A.) Pentecostal or B.) Southern Baptist. Yes, I am very afraid for all of us who value freedom and choice. And a true democracy; it is fading slowly but surely away...

posted by Katray2 on September 14, 2005 at 7:06 AM | link to this | reply

drjackson -- I would suggest that you actually do a study of the history of

the bible if you intend to voice opinions on the matter. It seems that you know very little of it's origins other than the official version and you are not likely to hear anything resembling it's true origins from within a religious organization. It is hardly an original work but more of a compilation of stories from many ancient cultures, given undue credence because of it's historical timing coinciding with the common use of the written word. It is fair to say that Zarathrustra authored a good portion of the bible or at the very least, much of it was based on his writings. The same can be said of writings derived from the society of the Sumerians and the chronicling of Messopotamian folklore as these sources and many others contributed to the compilation. So when you suggest that the old testament fostered many religions you are only half right. The real sources fostered many religions as compiled in the bible.

And yes there are many themes constant throughout most of the major religions. Mankind degenerates into a wicked lifestyle, prophet son of God incarnate as man comes to earth to show us the one true path to salvation and leaves us with a series of teachings to facilitate said salvation. Except it always turns out the same way. Man bastardizes these teachings, squabbles over who actually has it right, while the majority never even come close to living as these teachings describe. This pattern has perpetuated itself since man walked erect, the bible is merely an attempt to chronicle this wishful delusion, an attempt to place names with faces, to reconcile folklore with real people, places and times.  Jesus for example, was the 4,372nd messiah born under an astrological anomoly via virgin conception. The proliferation of his persona as the one true messiah has a lot more to do with mankind wanting it to be so than any kind of reality.

In all of this I have to ask when people are going to catch on? Their all powerful God cannot seem to distribute one clear message to all peoples that transcends cultural or societal barriers. Does this not make you suspicious at least? All faiths, all religions and all beliefs are regional, bound geographically and corralled by political will or lines on a map......some omnipotence.   

posted by gomedome on September 14, 2005 at 6:46 AM | link to this | reply

I apologize for the typos, I meant to run it through Word first...

But it's late and I was in a hurry.  Anyway, I hope my point still gets across.

posted by drjackson on September 14, 2005 at 12:33 AM | link to this | reply

Interesting to see the interpretation...

posted by drjackson on September 14, 2005 at 12:30 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks Gomedome.

http://www.stopmethaddiction.com/history-of-meth.htm

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

 

posted by majroj on September 13, 2005 at 8:46 PM | link to this | reply

DebbieDowner -- right on -- all of these little inconsistancies seem to get

swept under the carpet. No single religious group covers any more than 30% of the world's populace with all other denominations and faiths reaching a much smaller percentage. Are we to believe that this all powerful God that some believe in, can't distribute his word any better than that? Is he playing favourites or what? The "I am right and you are wrong" mentality that mankind has applied to religious belief has to be the folly of all time.   

posted by gomedome on September 13, 2005 at 1:04 PM | link to this | reply

Excellent post

Nice to see a voice of reason here.   Having been raised catholic and hearing that only catholics were going to heaven, I was deeply saddened because of my protestant friends.  My mother had the good sense to tell me that the church just says that so they can keep their flock.

So, in other words, they lie.  Just as many men and women of the clothe do.  I do believe there is something beyond our current state, call it god, call it the supreme universe, allah, whatever you want.  I don't believe those who claim to  have a hotline to god and I don't believe those who claim to know God's Word. 

I would hate to find out when I die that because I picked the wrong religion I was condemned to hell for all eternity.  It's just hysterical to think it and it's extremely frightening that there are so many that actually believe god works this way.  Wake up people.  Practice christianity, not dogma.

posted by DebbieDowner on September 13, 2005 at 12:15 PM | link to this | reply

drjackson -- this is hardly food for thought -- at least for me

The absolute authority of God's word? Would that be as found in the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Ghita, the Talmut or any other number of supposedly holy doctrines? Or would that be as the reader of such works interprets it? For one to acknowledge the authority of God's word one must first accept that what was edited and assembled to be called the holy bible or any of these other books, is in fact the word of God. To me it is nothing more than the agendized scribblings of man. A quick study of the history of the bible should show this to anyone who is not looking at it through the clouded lenses of wanting it to be so and full blown denial.  

posted by gomedome on September 13, 2005 at 6:21 AM | link to this | reply

Food for thought...

I find your postings fascinating, however biased they may be. You speak of truth… So shall I speak of the truth of Christianity. There is something you must know to begin a commentary on Christianity, whether you believe or not. In a correct pursuit to be a Christian one must believe in the absolute authority of the word of God. That is the basis of making any doctrinal statement concerning a specific topic. It is also the basis for any attitude or behavior adopted in the name of God. Having said that, you must also realize that due to the inherent fallible nature of man there will always be instances where the absolute authority of the Word is forgotten. This is how instances such as the ones you have pointed out occur. In order to make accurate judgments about Christianity you must first examine the topic or event. The thing to look for is if there was indeed and doctrine developed from a systematic theological approach to studying the Word. Often times you’ll see that actions promoted as a way to salvation are not backed up by a significant study of the Word. More often than not it is simply the result of a Church or political leader, claiming absolute knowledge, about the Word stating that this attitude or action is for the greater good of God’s glory. People, in their sometimes desperate need to find salvation, will blindly believe such a leader. This is where the trouble starts and such a start terrible things are sure to follow. The absolute truth of God’s Word is a beautiful, but very complicated thing. It is because of it’s complexity that is also very easily used to manipulate those who do not poses the desire to understand it themselves and put too much faith in a leader to tell them what to think or how to feel in relation to God’s Word.

posted by drjackson on September 12, 2005 at 11:10 PM | link to this | reply

majroj -- I thought the Chinese invented heroine about 300 years ago

and that crack came much later when western culture introduced a mixture of South American cocaine to Eastern hemisphere heroine...or do I have it wrong? By the way I'm going to put your user name in my link rotator script as well.  

posted by gomedome on September 12, 2005 at 9:24 PM | link to this | reply

Probably doing "speedballs" too.

Remember, they invented crank and heroin?

posted by majroj on September 12, 2005 at 9:10 PM | link to this | reply

ariel70 -- Thought you might like to know that I added your user name to

my link rotater script......right hand column of my blog.

posted by gomedome on September 12, 2005 at 1:36 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome et al

I've got to get my butt out of here and so some real work! Be back later on.

Behave youselves while I'm awayLOL

posted by ariel70 on September 12, 2005 at 6:47 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome

You can bet your life that anyting that showed Der Feuhrer in an unfavourable light was ruthlessly suppressed.

It is terrifying how such an utter maniac can exert such power, and wreak such calamities on his felow men.

 

posted by ariel70 on September 12, 2005 at 6:45 AM | link to this | reply

ariel70 -- we do know that he was less than the epitome of a member of the

"master race". Sadly, all we have is conjecture in regards to his real physical and mental afflictions, as his complete medical records were never found. This leaves historians with extrapulation based on anecdotal and heresay evidence. We do know from witnesses however that he in fact heard voices and had hallucinations, suggesting a degree of schizophrenia. It's curious that one of the central figures of 20th century history has been portrayed so innacurately at times.    

posted by gomedome on September 12, 2005 at 6:37 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome et al

Good afternoon.

The modern consensus is that Hitler suffered from, among other things, Parkinson's Disease ; which would certainly explain his uncontrollable shaking.

posted by ariel70 on September 12, 2005 at 6:19 AM | link to this | reply

majroj - I have to agree -I don't think it is accurate to say that Hitler's

philosophies were derived from any one religion, though it is easy to draw parrallels with Christianity. His insanity cannot be discounted either. Even though his medical records have never been made available, there is evidence to suggest that he had some serious mental health issues.  Hallucinating and talking to invisible entities are the most widely reported.  

posted by gomedome on September 12, 2005 at 6:16 AM | link to this | reply

I think HItler caught and brandished any rationale that furthered his mania

He also went in for\ the occult, perhaps a residuum of his youth as spiritualism was popular in Europe in the early 20th century (see Sir Arthur Conan Doyle).

Most primitive people's names for their tribes mean "The People" or something close. I think many folks are just falling back onto this phenomenon and there are "leaders" ready and willing to gather them in.

posted by majroj on September 12, 2005 at 5:31 AM | link to this | reply

Dave, Flightpath and all in here

Ariel's of to bed. Thank you all for your friendship and interest in my work

posted by ariel70 on September 11, 2005 at 2:12 PM | link to this | reply

ariel70 -- that is a fairly accurate description

One must also consider the subtleties involved here. Actions that were predicated or derived from a belief system that has parrallels or simularities to another belief system is close enough to suit the purposes of the point being made in this posting. I am not trying to identify specifically what religion instilled some of Hitler's beliefs but more zeroing in on the premise of declaring one's race or group superior as derived from a religious belief.

posted by gomedome on September 11, 2005 at 2:09 PM | link to this | reply

gomedome

Yes, of course, what you were taught was absurd.

This is only my personal opinion, hence I can quote no source for it, that Hitler had to to a certain extent make his ideology fitt in with Christianity, and in order to make it accpetable to the German people, he claimed Biblical authority for his actions.

This dovetailed neatly into the contemporay German belief in  a destiny ordained by a higher power ; which is why it was so successful, until it was too late to dissent from it.

Does this sound convincing to you? 

posted by ariel70 on September 11, 2005 at 1:22 PM | link to this | reply

ariel70 -- I can't agree entirely with what you are saying though you are

not in error. A common misconception is that Adolph Hitler had no strong religious influence when throughout his life and especially in the early history of the Nazi party, he felt he was fullfilling a biblical prophecy by repatriating the Jews to Palestine. People tend to forget that the extermination camps came later, years after the mass deportations. Typically historians tend to overlook that from these beliefs the notion of being a divine authority unto himself was derived. We have also been treated to a tainted version of historical reality as all religions have tried to distance themselves from his philosophies. I was taught as a child that he was an athiest possessed by demons...how convenient.

posted by gomedome on September 11, 2005 at 1:10 PM | link to this | reply

gomedome

My intensive reading in Nazi history tell me that far from utilising the Christian message, Hitler and his cohorts were bent on creating a new, pagan religion of the Herrenvolk lording it over the untermenschen outside Germany. They created a whole new mythology, complete with all the appropriate symbols ; of which the swastika was but one

Were they not such a powerful, and strongly right-wing force in Germany, there is no doubt that Hitler would have abolished all churches, and set out to extirpate all forms of religious worship. Only the power of the churches, allied with a strongly

Christian public opinion deterred him from doing so

posted by ariel70 on September 11, 2005 at 12:59 PM | link to this | reply