John Kerry on religion: "Not the Way I Think Most People Want to Live"

a reply to: edmc^2

That's a cop out . . . And one that has been used since the inception of the church. Christians always want to promote what is "good" or "true" version of Jesus' message because in their minds Christianity is associated with everything good. Any hatred, prejudice, or violence that can or was tied to Christian movements is always seen as an "aberration" or "corrupt churches or version of the message" . . . followers that have lost their way. This is why there are over 40,000 distinct versions of Christianity today . . . . 40,000!

As it would be impossible to nail down all Christians with one statement based on the numerous denominations, Christians will always have the cop out of "those people don't speak for all Christians" or "that's not the true message". However, there is no public or coordinated voice to "take back the religion" from those that give it a black eye or do evil deeds in Jesus' name. After all, they are brothers in Christ and they are certainly better than the non-believers?

Unfortunately, you are who your friends are . . . If you choose to associate yourself with a label or a group, you are associating with the perception of the group. After all, if a Christian's behavior is guided by the message and fostered by those placed in authority to distribute the message, then their attitudes/behaviors/actions are a direct result of the effect of that message on the believers.

You can point to scripture contradicting the negative image of Christians, but from the earliest epistles we see the same fearful, angry, narcissistic, and victimized mentality we see in today's Christians.

Maybe it's not that the "religion" isn't representing the message, but that the message just has those negative effects on most Christians and their behavior?

There's no longer any problem with Mr. Kerry's statements after the recent SCOTUS action:

According to the SCOTUS decision in Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696 so long as a speech act (like prayer) is not "coercive or excluding" to believers or non-believers, it does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Welcome to the jungle.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: buster2010
Religion is just another tool to be used to control the masses. It is used to get the people to act in a way a small minority wants them to act while retaining power over them. Religion has been used to hold humanity back long enough and it is time we move beyond it. Just look back in history and you can easily find where religion has held back mankind's progress the dark ages being just one of many examples.

Am I correct to assume that you're talking about Religion as led by man not led by the Lord Jesus?

If so then you're post is about man-made religion not the one that Jesus started - the True Christianity, which will endure forever as it's approved by his God and Father.

I am talking about all religion including the one the mythical Jesus started. Christianity has held mankind back more than any other religion.

I do not think Jesus (who I *think* may well have lived) INTENDED actually what religion has become.
I think his motives were good and he would be disgusted about today's religion(s). This is my firm belief.

Insofar it would be worth thinking about whether it was really Jesus who "started Christianity", respective to realize there might be HUGE gaps between Jesus' teachings and the "real", institutionalized religion of Christianity.

originally posted by: adjensen
By the media? Or by people on Internet forums?

Both. And by religions, society, politicians, etc. But I DON'T CARE. I don't have any interest in people liking atheists or accepting us or whatever. I believe what I believe and I'm secure in it. I don't need to force my views on others or have anyone agree with me.

That isn't what he said.

He didn't say he was talking about religion at all, but you seem sure he was.

Islamic extremists do not follow a text "written 2,000 years ago," Christians do.

He said "a thousand, two thousand years ago". That would include the Koran.

Let me ask you this... From what he ACTUALLY said, what is it that you find distasteful or that you disagree with?


.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

He said "a thousand, two thousand years ago". That would include the Koran.

"Two thousand years ago" would not include the Qur'an, which was written less than 1,400 years ago. There is only one collection of texts from 2,000 years ago, and that is the New Testament (and, arguably, the Dead Sea Scrolls, though most of them are copies of far older texts.)

Let me ask you this... From what he ACTUALLY said, what is it that you find distasteful or that you disagree with?

The claim that "most people don't want to be religious." Most people do. As well as the implication that there is something fundamentally wrong with the New Testament, such that it needs to be discarded as a source of moral teaching in this day and age.

No, most people do not want to live in a theocracy or under Sharia Law, I don't either. But if a nations chooses to, then that's their business, not ours.

originally posted by: adjensen
The claim that "most people don't want to be religious."

You have read an INCREDIBLE amount into what he said. Read it carefully. What he said is that most people don't want to be told how to live or what to believe or that they have to live by an interpretation of old writings.

Some people believe that people ought to be able to only do what they say they ought to do, or to believe what they say they ought to believe, or live by their interpretation of something that was written down a thousand plus, two thousand years ago. That’s not the way I think most people want to live.

He said "a thousand plus, two thousand years ago", meaning over a thousand to two thousand years ago.

I notice you've put words in my mouth several times during this discussion and you're doing the same thing with him...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I suppose I don't trust Wiki and certainly not Spangler as much as you seem to.

Right, because everything is a conspiracy!

When you are deep in the conspiracy mindset, any evidence is evidence for the conspiracy. Lack of evidence? The conspirators took it! Contradictory evidence? Planted by the conspirators!

You didn't need to post all that crazy nonsense from the likes of prison planet to try and back up your Spangler misquote. It's actually explained in the wiki if you read further -

This accusation grew out of a talk that Spangler gave at Findhorn on the nature of the Jungian Shadow and its relationship to the Christ, saying that Lucifer, whose name means "Lightbringer", could be a metaphor for this Shadow, since if we can confront it and heal it, we can discover the Light of Christ within. At the end of the talk, he jokingly called this transformative encounter with one's psychological Shadow a "Luciferic Initation". When this lecture was published by Findhorn, this joke was included, though without any context to show he had been bantering with his audience, and was later seized upon by various fundamentalist writers as evidence that people in the New Age were followers of Satan or Lucifer, wholly ignoring the actual content—and context—of the lecture. Later writers elaborated upon this idea of a "Luciferic Initation", expanding it into the quote given above and falsely attributing this new quote to Spangler.

I trust Alex Jones about as far as I can throw him.


I think it's also very telling that the James Warburg quote you used has been modified just enough from the original to subtlety change it's tense and meaning.

Here is the quote you put up -

Posted by BO XIAN
19."We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950

Here is the quote on James Warburg's Wiki page -

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."[1]

Notice the difference?

We shall have world government whether or not you like it

vs

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.

The version you posted makes it sound like a threat. The wiki version of the quote, referenced to "Senate Report (Senate Foreign Relations Committee) (1950). Revision of the United Nations Charter: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Eighty-First Congress. United States Government Printing Office. p. 494." the transcript of which is available @ Wik iSource, has a completely different connotation - especially when read in context.

Instead of a threat, it's more along the lines of accepting the reality - that humans over time consolidate their power as they have done throughout history.

Here is his opening statement, unabridged in full. -

I am James P. Warburg, of Greenwich, Conn., and am appearing as an individual.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the exigencies of your crowded schedule and of the need to be brief, so as not to transgress upon your courtesy in granting me a hearing.

The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

Today we are faced with a divided world—its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain. The world's two superpowers—Russia and the United States—are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more preempts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war—a war in which the conqueror will emerge well nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished.

The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting—and, with them, the entire world—toward the abyss of atomic conflict.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Somewhat interesting . . .

It will be more interesting to see the apologists for such . . .

WHEN

they are forced to worship satan under pain of death for not doing so.

I wonder how big a change it will be.

RELIGIOUS TEXTS AND APPROXIMATE AGES OF SAME:

BUDDHIST: Tripitaka, Mahayana Sutras, (2600 years)

HINDU: Rigveda (3500 years old), Upanishads (3200 years old), Bhagavad Gita (2500 years old)

TAOISM: Tao Te Ching (2400 years old)

Clearly anyone who supports world government is not thinking clearly about what that means. Would you trust a person down the road with the keys to your house? Probably not, right? Now put that guy on the top of the pyramid with no one to oppose him. He won't ask for the keys. He will take them. And trust me, you would rather be taken dead then alive. It's the end of the road, folks.

And isn't John Kerry the same guy who made a big statement in the 60's by throwing his medals back at the White House? Then 30+ years later turns out he still has them. Not the guy I wanna listen to.

I personally think it will be interesting*, once the wall of separation between Church and State has been successfully dismantled in this country by the fundamentalist religious factions and their judicial allies that are focused on doing so ... to see the cries that arise when local governments become more numerous, in which Christians are not the majority, enforce their will on everyone.

Just remember, it's okay just to "turn your head away and not participate" during the invocation of Allah's merciful justice upon the heathen Christian dogs, or witness the sacrifice of a chicken to sanctify a Santarian or Voudon priest officiating, or various carnal expressions of Satan's well known wisdom ... just remember ... sometimes, you get more than you ask for.

(*interesting, in this context, means incredibly hilarious, cosmically just, deliciously karmic, uproariously apropos ... as the black swans swim gracefully past)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I personally think it will be interesting*, once the wall of separation between Church and State has been successfully dismantled in this country by the fundamentalist religious factions and their judicial allies that are focused on doing so ...

Actually, the separation of Church and State is a concept that has been around in God's Church since the Old Testament.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
RELIGIOUS TEXTS AND APPROXIMATE AGES OF SAME:

BUDDHIST: Tripitaka, Mahayana Sutras, (2600 years)

HINDU: Rigveda (3500 years old), Upanishads (3200 years old), Bhagavad Gita (2500 years old)

TAOISM: Tao Te Ching (2400 years old)

It doesn't matter because our oldest texts are copies of copies. They are probably even older than that, and many in the Bible are some of the oldest.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: buster2010
Religion is just another tool to be used to control the masses. It is used to get the people to act in a way a small minority wants them to act while retaining power over them. Religion has been used to hold humanity back long enough and it is time we move beyond it. Just look back in history and you can easily find where religion has held back mankind's progress the dark ages being just one of many examples.

Am I correct to assume that you're talking about Religion as led by man not led by the Lord Jesus?

If so then you're post is about man-made religion not the one that Jesus started - the True Christianity, which will endure forever as it's approved by his God and Father.

I am talking about all religion including the one the mythical Jesus started. Christianity has held mankind back more than any other religion.

I do not think Jesus (who I *think* may well have lived) INTENDED actually what religion has become.
I think his motives were good and he would be disgusted about today's religion(s). This is my firm belief.

Insofar it would be worth thinking about whether it was really Jesus who "started Christianity", respective to realize there might be HUGE gaps between Jesus' teachings and the "real", institutionalized religion of Christianity.

Yeah, and did you ever wonder if he ever said anything like that about what would happen with many of the Churches that were to rise and did rise after his death and Resurrection. Maybe the Gospel has answers. It seems like there was a common theme about that to me, why don't you decide for yourself?

Everything God said would happen either has happened (even the really specific stuff, like Israel), is happening now (like the temple being built in Israel), or will happen soon. Some of the stuff that just happened, and is happening now, he told us would happen - over 2,000 years ago. That is my opinion. I think you should look into it more, but it is your choice.

1. So, the oldest text is the most credible? Before one gets too excited about the "copies of copies" of Hebrew texts, might want to consult the Canaanite, Babylonian and Egyptian originals THOSE were copied from.

And the statement was that no other "holy books" went back 2000 years or more, which of course, is poppycock.

2. Separation of Church and State has been around since the Old Testament??? Hmm. What does one make of the Judges ruling Israel based on God's Law, and then the Kings who were only legitimate after being ordained, blessed and consecrated by the Priesthood? And, btw, what Law was exactly being enforced again? That wouldn't happen to be the Torah, as found bastardized in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, would it?

In short ... PFFT!

a reply to: DrinkMoreWater

Everything God said would happen either has happened (even the really specific stuff, like Israel), is happening now (like the temple being built in Israel), or will happen soon. Some of the stuff that just happened, and is happening now, he told us would happen - over 2,000 years ago.

Everything happens in cycles. What has happened will happen again. There is nothing new under the sun. In an infinite universe, nothing only happens once.

Christians love their drama, and love to look toward the end the of the world. They hope and pray for the destruction of civilization and the bloody battle of Armageddon.

Matthew 24
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Do you know what happened in 70AD? The Siege of Jerusalem, of the Jewish Wars. Do you know what happened in 79AD? The Destruction of Pompeii

It's time for Christians to move on. Jesus' prophecy already happened. Revelations already happened.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

According to Wiki, the David Spangler quote you are using is a fabrication...

And WHY exactly do you believe Wikipedia?

You might as well cite CNN or CBS...

Originally posted by aBlueRAY
From a psychoanalytical point of view, I have to assume deep in your heart you know wikipedia would be the number one piece of propaganda available online for the masses.

It is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence. Who Controls Wikipedia?

The problem with Wikipedia is not that it exists, but that it has become the cornerstone for researchers scanning the Internet for information and blindly copying from Wikipedia entries, wrongfully assuming that they are neutral and correct.

It has become the "Ministry of Information", the "one-stop information shop" of the Internet, but no one should fall for the "Newspeak" of a title. Wikipedia has made the task for those seeding disinformation and removing dissenting views easier, more direct and even more anonymous. °

Wikipedia Lies:Online Disinformation & Propaganda

a reply to: Gryphon66


1. You seem to be having trouble understanding my reason for posting that. You were the one talking about the age of texts.

2. Separation of Church and State was recognized by the Hebrews of the OT when living in nations of gentiles. In fact, bringing Jewish matters to pagan courts was condemned by God. Only matters involving a Hebrew and a gentile were supposed to be brought to pagan courts. That's not always how it went, though. Also, Daniel was an adviser to multiple pagan kings.

a reply to: windword

Watcher of the times, I am still awaiting the return of the Myan empire - since everything is cyclic, like say, the displacement, persecution, and reformation of Jews from and to Israel. Very specific and perfectly accurate prophecy unfolds all the time. God specifically said that we won't know the time, and generation is not referring to a generation of humans. Most of the time, hyperbole is used when God talks about time because it is not for us to know.

There is nothing new under the sun? That is from the Bible. Do you know what that actually refers to?

1. I have no difficulty understanding anything in English and a couple of other languages. The dates of the sacred texts of non-Christian religions are plain facts based on scholarship, not speculation, or special understanding, or assumptions or "probablies" based on religious belief. The texts that make up the Bible derive from material not older than 12th century BCE according to the most lenient of scholars. They are strongly influenced by and copied from older texts from the cultures surrounding the Hebrews, to wit, the Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian (Sumerian) and Egyptian cultures.

2. Right, because Jewish cultures held themselves "apart" and insisted (where they were allowed to) on using their own judicial systems, etc. which were based on the Torah. The broad statement was made that the Bible supports separation of Church and State which is patently ridiculous. Every "government" recorded in the Bible of the Hebrews was based entirely upon their relationship with their god Yahweh. Multiple references are available in the Bible for that textual fact. The fact that later in their history they were a migrant if not vagabond people and were forced in most cases to obey the laws of their hosts does not imply that their first preference was not to "serve the Lord Most High."