The end of Dissection

[HackerX]

its interesting how people bag out the crusades when really to me its no different to any war

The crusades was just a series of wars really. It was just a grab for land by a group of nobles in what was considered an over populated europe at the time (i.e. too many nobles and not enough land to go around). Religion as always was just the excuse.

Rose Immortal pretty much covered it, humans will always twist things to serve us.

 

[coolsnow7]

The Western church made horrible mistakes, as do all individual Christians. We are ALL guilty of sins and mistakes. If I told you I had never accused a person falsely--or even that I'd never drawn blood--I'd be lying. (I threw a rock at a kid on the playground at 5 years old...the kid was OK after the knot on his head healed, but I can say I STILL feel bad when I think about it.)

However, other religions--and atheism--are not exempt from mass killings. Recall Stalin's purges, which were not committed in the name of any god that I'm aware of.

Read here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

To that I would also add China's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

Human nature is such that we will pervert ANYTHING we can get our hands on if we can make it serve our bloody ends, be it the philosophies of religion, atheism, science, sex, ANYTHING...many things that of themselves would be just fine if we didn't twist them. Religion is chief on this list of excuses because when people try to claim they're doing something in the name of God, others are afraid to call them on the injustice of what they're doing. The concept of religion in and of itself is not invalidated--however, those who carried out those actions under false pretenses are responsible as individuals for them.

MrFast, I have some more reading material for you, if you feel like wading through it. I am posting this as a reference for what I'm about to tell you, which was that even during the age of the Crusades, Christianity was not of one mind about such acts. My source is the writings of the Greek Orthodox Church. If you recall your history, the first Great Schism occurred in 1054, about the time the first Crusade kicked off...just a touch before, or perhaps during. This was when the church of the East divided from that of the West. Those churches under the leadership of Byzantium instead of Rome took a very different stance towards those outside of outside of Christianity. They have little to no participation in the Crusades that I am aware of...and this is a SIGNIFICANT branch of the Christian faith which is often forgotten by Americans because our Orthodox population is so small in comparison to Christians descended from the Western Church (of which I count both Catholicism and Protestantism).

In the year 1568 we get this statement from Patriarch Metrophanes III of the Greek Orthodox church when he heard about the mistreatment of Jews: "Injustice ... regardless to whomever acted upon or performed against, is still injustice. The unjust person is never relieved of the responsibility of these acts under the pretext that the injustice is done against a heterodox and not to a believer. As our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels said do not oppress or accuse anyone falsely; do not make any distinction or give room to the believers to injure those of another belief."

A "heterodox" is one outside of the church, and the significant part of this quote is that you have a major leader in the Orthodox Church openly condemning violence against unbelievers and stating that the perpetrators will be equally accountable in the eyes of God just the same as if they had done it to a fellow Christian. Of course, some in the Orthodox Church did not heed this teaching...obviously SOMEONE in their church occasioned this finding in the first place, and that wasn't the last incident (the pogroms against Jews in Russia, for instance). However, I reiterate--you have church leadership delivering a condemnation of such behavior that couldn't be clearer.

So in summary, what is my point with all of this? My point is that all Christians are NOT of one mind, and that non-Christians are just as guilty of crimes against humanity. Christianity, Islam, atheism ALL have blood on their hands--do not dare condemn one and act as if no practitioners of the other are guilty.

(P.S.: My source for the material on Eastern Orthodoxy-- http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp )

A nice argument, but with a very big problem. You're suggesting (from what I understand) that Christianity was originally meant to be wonderful, and was perverted by a somewhat-bloodthirsty Church. But the idea that Christianity was originally meant to be somewhat-bloodthirsty and was perverted by wonderful people is just as valid. This seems even more reasonable considering that the Crusaders and persecutors were the majority at their respective times. You can't say that they strayed from the founding tenements of Christianity, because the original Church itself decided what those founding tenements were, and the Crusades and persecutions came out of the Church. You can't use the Bible as proof that the founding tenements condemn persecution of nonbelievers, because it in fact condones persecution in many places - that's how the persecutors justified themselves. You point out a condemnation of persecution from Church leadership as evidence that, essentially (again, from what I'm inferring about your point), persecution was not condoned in the mainstream - but how about we take the record of every Pope and Patriarch and see what their attitude towards persecution was? I'm quite sure we'll find a bit more persecution and a bit less condemnation. So what makes you decide that Christianity was ORIGINALLY all about being wonderful, and perverted to suit persecution?

And I believe Christianity is so often bagged because it is the most prominent of all religions of the world. Or perhaps, though I hope this doesn't make my argument look biased, it is also one of the more dogmatic religions of the world. Or perhaps both - its prominence brings attention to its dogmaticism.

 

[Rose Immortal]

A nice argument, but with a very big problem. You're suggesting (from what I understand) that Christianity was originally meant to be wonderful, and was perverted by a somewhat-bloodthirsty Church. But the idea that Christianity was originally meant to be somewhat-bloodthirsty and was perverted by wonderful people is just as valid. This seems even more reasonable considering that the Crusaders and persecutors were the majority at their respective times. You can't say that they strayed from the founding tenements of Christianity, because the original Church itself decided what those founding tenements were, and the Crusades and persecutions came out of the Church. You can't use the Bible as proof that the founding tenements condemn persecution of nonbelievers, because it in fact condones persecution in many places - that's how the persecutors justified themselves. You point out a condemnation of persecution from Church leadership as evidence that, essentially (again, from what I'm inferring about your point), persecution was not condoned in the mainstream - but how about we take the record of every Pope and Patriarch and see what their attitude towards persecution was? I'm quite sure we'll find a bit more persecution and a bit less condemnation. So what makes you decide that Christianity was ORIGINALLY all about being wonderful, and perverted to suit persecution?

And I believe Christianity is so often bagged because it is the most prominent of all religions of the world. Or perhaps, though I hope this doesn't make my argument look biased, it is also one of the more dogmatic religions of the world. Or perhaps both - its prominence brings attention to its dogmaticism.

Before I can have a substantive debate, could you let me know where you arrive at the idea that persecution is permissible under the New Covenant? The Old Covenant seemed to have different rules about religious violence (though I admit I'm not as clear on the Old Testament). Christianity, as implied by its very name, is intended to use the life of Christ as the ultimate example by which to live, and in that you will find that His only resistance is of a passive nature, not a violent one, and it's from this that I infer what the intended doctrine is.

Where I think the persecution problem--AND a lot of other problems--occur in people's interpretations of the Bible is the taking of verses out of context. This has been done to justify sexism, racism, AND war...but in each of those cases, I can find clear proof in the Bible itself that those things are to be considered sinful. People tend to isolate verses, though, and without bearing in mind the overarching theme of the Bible, which is a peaceful one, they think they can use it to justify whatever they want.

I realize this response is sparse, but without a clearer idea of what questions you're asking, I can't yet get more specific.

 

[proulxski]

it seems to me he was crazy...why mourn his death!? Mourning his death would show desrespect to Dime Bag...whos death I'm stil mourning! This guy is as bad as the guy who murdered Dime Bag...God rest his soul!

 

[coolsnow7]

Before I can have a substantive debate, could you let me know where you arrive at the idea that persecution is permissible under the New Covenant? The Old Covenant seemed to have different rules about religious violence (though I admit I'm not as clear on the Old Testament). Christianity, as implied by its very name, is intended to use the life of Christ as the ultimate example by which to live, and in that you will find that His only resistance is of a passive nature, not a violent one, and it's from this that I infer what the intended doctrine is.

Where I think the persecution problem--AND a lot of other problems--occur in people's interpretations of the Bible is the taking of verses out of context. This has been done to justify sexism, racism, AND war...but in each of those cases, I can find clear proof in the Bible itself that those things are to be considered sinful. People tend to isolate verses, though, and without bearing in mind the overarching theme of the Bible, which is a peaceful one, they think they can use it to justify whatever they want.

I realize this response is sparse, but without a clearer idea of what questions you're asking, I can't yet get more specific.

My question is, what evidence do you give to suggest that Christianity ideally has a more passive attitude to non-believers?

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Cool religious conversation guys... seriously.

DISSECTION!!!!

 

[dargormudshark]

First of all Dissection was split up in May, only planning to finish the Reinkaos dates. Reinkaos for those who don't know was the most recent Dissection after Jon got out of prison and it is the album that reflects the philosophy of the Misanthropic Luciferian Order.

As far as the suicide, I do respect him. I don't respect his beliefs but I respect his conviction, and if you are are a Satanist you should kill yourself at the pinnacle of your life like Jon said. I have more respect for Jon, a man who followed his convictions to the grave than someone posing to have conviction like most of the world. I respected Jon before because he was able to bring his own beliefs to aesthetic form beautifully. You may hate the lyrics for "Where Dead Angel's Lie", which is the ultimate Satanic anthem imo, but Jon achieved exactly what he wanted with that song and I respect anybody who can do that. I respect Jon the same way I respect Kerry Livgren, both complete opposites but can bring the beliefs/view of life in aesthetical format. I respect someone with certainty, even if they're wrong, more than I respect somone walking through an endless fog of compromises and watered down ideals.

 

[dargormudshark]

We are ALL guilty of sins and mistakes.

Not me, and neither are my little brother and sister that your companions in mysticism love to condemn to original sin so much.

However, other religions--and atheism--are not exempt from mass killings. Recall Stalin's purges, which were not committed in the name of any god that I'm aware of.

Yes, God was substituted by the state. Their Atheism was economical for the Powers that be. How do you make a mystical population hold State above all else, including God...you wipe out his existence. A God is supernatural, a higher existence and that is what the State is under a totalitarian rule.

To that I would also add China's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

Human nature is such that we will pervert ANYTHING we can get our hands on if we can make it serve our bloody ends, be it the philosophies of religion, atheism, science, sex, ANYTHING...many things that of themselves would be just fine if we didn't twist them. Religion is chief on this list of excuses because when people try to claim they're doing something in the name of God, others are afraid to call them on the injustice of what they're doing. The concept of religion in and of itself is not invalidated--however, those who carried out those actions under false pretenses are responsible as individuals for them.

Psychological weaknesses aren't a good thing to generalize all of humanity with, very cynical. Please dig into your views on what primary Science represents, I would love to hear that.

So in summary, what is my point with all of this? My point is that all Christians are NOT of one mind, and that non-Christians are just as guilty of crimes against humanity. Christianity, Islam, atheism ALL have blood on their hands--do not dare condemn one and act as if no practitioners of the other are guilty.

You are one to talk about condemning; your belief says every body on this board, their families, the ones they love and everybody else in the whole world are intrinsically evil. For the record as you probably know I will state this, I don't have any blood on my hands, but you just keep on with your generalizations.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Not me, and neither are my little brother and sister that your companions in mysticism love to condemn to original sin so much.

If you've had bad treatment at the hands of Christians, let me start by saying there was no excuse for it and I wish it hadn't happened. I do believe that original sin exists, and even if I had no one else's actions to compare to, I would know it from the fact that I have taken actions that I knew to be wrong, yet I did them anyway...going all the way back to when I was tiny and I took candy out of the fridge when my parents expressly told me not to. I may have been little, but I knew very well that I wasn't supposed to do it and that it was wrong--but did it anyway. Even if a person hasn't done any of the "big ones" doesn't mean that he or she has an entirely clean slate. We just aren't perfect.

However, original sin doesn't mean that one has a right to treat others poorly, which is what I'm interpreting your comment to suggest has happened to you. One who is aware of his or her own sins should be the last person to mistreat someone else.

Psychological weaknesses aren't a good thing to generalize all of humanity with, very cynical. Please dig into your views on what primary Science represents, I would love to hear that.

There's nothing pretty about psychological weaknesses, as you phrase it--however, even writers such as Richard Dawkins suggest an inherent selfishness in humanity straight from the genes.

"Cynical"? That word carries too much of a suggestion of contempt. A sober distrust is more what I would use to describe it; that doesn't mean having to treat people contemptuously. Plus, it also means taking a hard look at my own nature...I dare not think too highly of myself. That doesn't mean thinking (or acting like) there's nothing worthwhile about me, or about anybody else.

But for the rest of your question, could you define what you mean with "primary science"? I have a couple of different ideas on what it is, but before I spend a lot of time, I'd like to make sure I'm answering the right question.

You are one to talk about condemning; your belief says every body on this board, their families, the ones they love and everybody else in the whole world are intrinsically evil. For the record as you probably know I will state this, I don't have any blood on my hands, but you just keep on with your generalizations.

Not all sins involve literal bloodshed, even though those are the most visible ones. But as I've stated in various ways throughout this response, while I believe that all of us have sinned, that doesn't mean thinking we're all worthless throwaways or treating anybody like they were.

 

[Gonfeldurok]

As someone who chose not to be part of the church after years of Catholic schooling and education, let me say.

Overall, the Christian (more specifically the catholic) church is a wonderful organization who's intentions are not to mind control people, no matter how bad your sophmoric ideas that every form of organized anything is bad, may tell you.

They do great work and made mistakes. Too much bashing of religion on the internet.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

First of all Dissection was split up in May, only planning to finish the Reinkaos dates. Reinkaos for those who don't know was the most recent Dissection after Jon got out of prison and it is the album that reflects the philosophy of the Misanthropic Luciferian Order.

As far as the suicide, I do respect him. I don't respect his beliefs but I respect his conviction, and if you are are a Satanist you should kill yourself at the pinnacle of your life like Jon said. I have more respect for Jon, a man who followed his convictions to the grave than someone posing to have conviction like most of the world. I respected Jon before because he was able to bring his own beliefs to aesthetic form beautifully. You may hate the lyrics for "Where Dead Angel's Lie", which is the ultimate Satanic anthem imo, but Jon achieved exactly what he wanted with that song and I respect anybody who can do that. I respect Jon the same way I respect Kerry Livgren, both complete opposites but can bring the beliefs/view of life in aesthetical format. I respect someone with certainty, even if they're wrong, more than I respect somone walking through an endless fog of compromises and watered down ideals.

That's basically it in a nutshell. Thank you.

 

[dargormudshark]

I do believe that original sin exists, and even if I had no one else's actions to compare to, I would know it from the fact that I have taken actions that I knew to be wrong, yet I did them anyway...going all the way back to when I was tiny and I took candy out of the fridge when my parents expressly told me not to. I may have been little, but I knew very well that I wasn't supposed to do it and that it was wrong--but did it anyway.

You did it because you wanted the candy more than you cared about what your parents said, not because you can't resist temptation because of a higher force controlling your actions.

"Cynical"? That word carries too much of a suggestion of contempt. A sober distrust is more what I would use to describe it; that doesn't mean having to treat people contemptuously. Plus, it also means taking a hard look at my own nature...I dare not think too highly of myself. That doesn't mean thinking (or acting like) there's nothing worthwhile about me, or about anybody else.

Anybody who believes or says that man is born with original sin is believing in one of the highest forms of contempt for man.

But for the rest of your question, could you define what you mean with "primary science"? I have a couple of different ideas on what it is, but before I spend a lot of time, I'd like to make sure I'm answering the right question.

Well, I could've phrased that better; the fundamentals of sciencie, its purpose,etc...

 

[Beelzebub]

Anybody who believes or says that man is born with original sin is believing in one of the highest forms of contempt for man.

Looks like someone finally got around to reading Atlas Shrugged

 

[Rose Immortal]

You did it because you wanted the candy more than you cared about what your parents said, not because you can't resist temptation because of a higher force controlling your actions.

While I believe that there are forces of good and evil in this world, you actually raise an important point that needs to be made clear: we ARE accountable for our choices. Whether the suggestion comes from within or without is irrelevant; what matters is that for whatever reason, I decided instant gratification was more important than showing the proper respect to my parents. I chose and that is what Christians believe we are accountable for: our choices. While a Christian does believe that the human bent is towards evil, that doesn't mean it can't be counteracted.

Anybody who believes or says that man is born with original sin is believing in one of the highest forms of contempt for man.

As the record stands, can you present to me one case besides the depiction of Christ in the Bible (I'm taking that completely out of consideration for the purposes of this question) of a person who has never lied, cheated, stolen, hated, or lusted inappropriately?

Well, I could've phrased that better; the fundamentals of sciencie, its purpose,etc...

I see now--I was going back and forth between whether you were asking about that or about some form of science-as-religion.

Christians are split on this, but I am of the mind that science can accurately answer questions about the processes by which the physical world (without addressing any issues of morality or purpose) works. I do believe that God ordained the laws of nature and has worked through them in shaping this universe, but I see no problem with accepting that processes like evolution have been His tools to do so. I don't take issue to scientific findings. The world is round, the dinosaurs roamed the Earth until 65 million years ago, and the Big Bang happened. No problem. I would not expect a person in an ancient society to have written the creation process down literally even if presented with accurate visions of what happened (and there are some striking similarities to the Big Bang in the Judeo-Christian creation account, to my personal view).

What I find tough to swallow is when science is taken out of a purely descriptive role which enumerates natural phenomena and when it is used to infer somehow what we are to do with our discoveries about nature, or why this world exists and how we are to interact with it and with each other. To use it to assert that there is or is not a purpose in life, or to determine what is right or wrong is to stretch it past its bounds.

Is that what you were trying to get at or were you asking a different question?

 

[theVikingR]

I decided instant gratification was more important than showing the proper respect to my parents.

If everyone is a sinner, how do you know your parents' motives for not letting you eat the candy were genuine? Perhaps they were sinning by telling you not to do so and it would be sinful not to eat it.

As the record stands, can you present to me one case besides the depiction of Christ in the Bible (I'm taking that completely out of consideration for the purposes of this question) of a person who has never lied, cheated, stolen, hated, or lusted inappropriately?

I think the point is that your definition of "inappropriate" doesn't apply to dargormudshark because he doesn't believe in the absolute justice that defines what is and isn't appropriate for you.

If you don't believe in sinning, how can you be a sinner?

 

[Rose Immortal]

If everyone is a sinner, how do you know your parents' motives for not letting you eat the candy were genuine? Perhaps they were sinning by telling you not to do so and it would be sinful not to eat it.

As for that instance, I know that they just didn't want me to make myself sick by overindulging...at that time, I was too little to have that kind of foresight. It's right for parents to protect their children from things that can hurt them--I see that as no different than keeping your kids from sticking your fingers in an electrical outlet (while that's MORE of a threat to health, it's the same principle).

I think the point is that your definition of "inappropriate" doesn't apply to dargormudshark because he doesn't believe in the absolute justice that defines what is and isn't appropriate for you.

If you don't believe in sinning, how can you be a sinner?

If I don't believe hunger exists, then am I never hungry? It seems like you're suggesting total relativism, of which the question I just posed would be a consequence.

Plus, under the umbrella of "sin" falls stuff like lying, cheating, stealing, and so on. Even if you object to the word "sin" for some reason, it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of its component parts.

 

[dargormudshark]

While I believe that there are forces of good and evil in this world, you actually raise an important point that needs to be made clear: we ARE accountable for our choices. Whether the suggestion comes from within or without is irrelevant; what matters is that for whatever reason, I decided instant gratification was more important than showing the proper respect to my parents. I chose and that is what Christians believe we are accountable for: our choices. While a Christian does believe that the human bent is towards evil, that doesn't mean it can't be counteracted.

At what level of sin does it go beyond our choice to counteract with, at what point is it just irresistable due to original sin.

As the record stands, can you present to me one case besides the depiction of Christ in the Bible (I'm taking that completely out of consideration for the purposes of this question) of a person who has never lied, cheated, stolen, hated, or lusted inappropriately?

Well being that I've never been around a person 24/7 I could not tell you that in full consciousness. Even if I did know someone who wasn't weak and didn't resort to those things they would be on different grounds. Lying, Cheating, and Stealing are never justifiable and never appropriate; there is no rational justification for lying, cheating, or stealing that doesn't come at the expense of yourself or others. As far as hate and lust go, the two are only justifiable if they are rational reasons. If you love someone for the right reasons, lust would be a natural follow up...just as long as its not dangerous. If someone did something to you that they deserved hatred in return, then hatred is what they get and its appropriate. By my views on your forms of evil you could infer that I don't exactly hold Jesus Christ, or how he is depicted in the Bible as a hero, or anything close to that.

What I find tough to swallow is when science is taken out of a purely descriptive role which enumerates natural phenomena and when it is used to infer somehow what we are to do with our discoveries about nature, or why this world exists and how we are to interact with it and with each other. To use it to assert that there is or is not a purpose in life, or to determine what is right or wrong is to stretch it past its bounds.

Although I come across slightly pissed, I totally respect your right as well as all others' rights to any mystic belief; I don't respect the ideology but I respect conviction. You have to keep in mind though that God has not been proven yet, and until he has science will go on untamed, as it should. Whoever first came up with the concept of god and told it to everyone else they should have been the first ones to ask "Why?", "How?", or "When?", it wasn't their duty to take it on faith. All religions have similar fundamental basis', they either believe there is something higher than man, and that the reward for living life lies in the afterlife, although it looks more like a grave to me. For someone to take something unproved and believe in it just incase "It's better to be right about than wrong" is living their life in fear and thus de-valuing it in the process. We live in a world where reason is an absolute, so why do we take the biggest of all questions on faith? Its not the goal of science to prove their is no meaning of life, just not a dogmatic one. Did you ever think what your meaning of life would mean if reason in your world excelled from the middle of the road and became absolute, thus the destruction of faith. If science gave a full proof explanation for the creation of the universe (obviously I'm not a fan of the big-bang theory) what would your meaning be? You're only choice would be to accept reality and then build it into the way you see fit, just like all the great minds of history who were able to take us from being Cavemen to NYC (and not the cavemen living on the street in NYC )

Is that what you were trying to get at or were you asking a different question?

[/QUOTE]

Yes

 

[dargormudshark]

I think the point is that your definition of "inappropriate" doesn't apply to dargormudshark because he doesn't believe in the absolute justice that defines what is and isn't appropriate for you.

If you don't believe in sinning, how can you be a sinner?

I don't believe in original sin and I don't use the word sin when applying to doing something wrong, but I am far from an amoralist stance.

 

[dargormudshark]

Looks like someone finally got around to reading Atlas Shrugged

Looks like I finally did

 

[theVikingR]

I don't believe in original sin and I don't use the word sin when applying to doing something wrong, but I am far from an amoralist stance.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting you held such a stance, merely that Rose's belief in sin relied on another belief you didn't share.