On the subject of God-given rights?

A blog comment on a recent post titled: The ”right” to make others sin

 

Having a God to pray to for guidance and to ask to be shown our own inner faults/evil desires is in my opinion the only way to prevent this or stop it in mid process.

 

 

Can anyone see the problems with this statement?

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “On the subject of God-given rights?

  1. Well it seems to be a case of cart before the horse statement. Why do you need to be shown the very faults or or evil desires in order to stop doing those very same things? If you don’t know them, want to do them, feeling them, why do you need god to help you stop? And if you are doing them, why do you need god to find them first. It is reversed. Hugs

    Liked by 4 people

      1. Being unaware of your ‘sinning’ is to be in a state of innocence. (Or ignorance, ouch.)

        The innocent, then, cannot sin, hence have no need of (or for) repentance.

        The tool of Control requires that first you get them to sin, and to recognise sin, and to understand their sin—only then can you sell them repentance and forgiveness.

        I understand that many native peoples didn’t realise they were in a disgusting sinful state until told so by missionaries—the same missionaries, I imagine, gave the name to the “missionary position”.

        The innocent have no sin.
        With no sin, the church has no income.
        Ergo …

        Oops, I digress. Forgive me, Ark, for I have sinned …

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I think I missed the entire point of praying for others to sin….simply because I couldn’t wrap my head around it. Praying to the good god to make others sin, so they will be able to then not sin. Weird. Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Whoa…I also totally missed her insinuating that we should pray for others to sin (so their sin can then be pointed out to them). Goodness gracious, what a horrid concept. Christianity isn’t just weird, it’s CRAZY. And how comforting to know I was a devout member of it for 41 years. *gag*

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Well Jesus prayed to ‘God’. Nut he was ‘God’? Of course this is where the Trinity comes in and it turns out ‘part of God’ was praying to another ‘part of God’.

      Well it seems animal sacrifices work, indeed after the flood it was ‘the pleasing aroma’ of an animal sacrifice by Moses that led ‘God’ to vow not to flood the earth again. So what do we learn from this? I learnt ‘God’ can smell.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Peter:
        Spouse and I have an avian sacrifice in the oven at the moment and it is indeed pleasing to smell. Ol’ God was no mug—and neither were the priests who cooked His lunch, sent the aroma to God, and scoffed the ‘leftovers’ themselves lest some disbelievers defile them.

        What do we learn?
        We learn that God failed with His flood so is (apparently) going to fire us all next time.
        Give Him long enough, and appreciate His persistence—floods, famines, swarms of locusts, bloody water … something has got to work (just keep on trying, God—these days we’ve got pest control, aerosols, ships, boats, k-rations, greenhouses, fire brigades and fire extinguishers … you set ’em up, Sir, we’ll knock ’em down (although decent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are still a tough call).

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Fundy speak. That’s code for intellectual laziness. Yes, it’s a problem for a number of reasons, one being that see’s seeking guidance from a fictional god whose behaviors resemble the worst of human rulers and your average alpha male baboon.

    Btw, I read the post. SMH.

    “Unfortunately, in our quest for a secular government, secularists have succeeded in using the public schools to divorce instruction in religious belief from the education of children. That is not a healthy situation, and it is why so many of us don’t understand that God gives us our rights, not government.”

    I’m sure we all know which religion he’s referring to, and which sect — fundamentalism.

    “One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn’t require religion at all.”

    ― Arthur C. Clarke

    Liked by 6 people

      1. Oh dear. He writes:

        “My beliefs require me to spread the Gospel. Once someone has access to the Bible and knows something about what it contains, I have done all I can.”

        Yeah right. He elects politicians who promise to undermine the separation of church and state, in the name of religious freedom, thus passing the torch to public school teachers so they can teach his tribes’ version of Christianity / interpretation of the bible. This frees him up to move on and seek out other vulnerable people — hook, line and sinker.

        I do find it comical (and predictable) how he relentlessly evades your question about Yahweh.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I like the idea~! Bible study in schools. Without either the religiosi pushing their interpretations on the innocent unchallenged, or the secular likewise; just an unbiassed academic approach.

          And of course, we’d have to have the Holey Koran as well, and equal time for the Buddhists and Hindus Jains Taoists and every other bugger making a claim for the unquestioning’s buck.

          Religious studies, yes! Bring it on!

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You have a point, Argus, but he didn’t say religious studies. He said instruction in religious belief. Big difference. Also, with the idea that conservative Christians believe it’s their god-given duty AND right to “instruct” the whole world in their version of Christianity, I doubt they can remain unbiased in a public school setting.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. It would require monitoring, yes, with controlled “equal time for all”.

              I am all for letting the religious speak in equal proportions—so long as the irreligious and/or rational get likewise.

              And I think that they would weaken their ‘case’ by shooting each other down all over the place—all the rational need do would be to introduce (and emphasise) the Law Of Contradictions.

              So let them be biassed, and as loudly as they can muster (it’s called “shooting self in own foot”).

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Ironically, in the U. S., you already can teach the Bible as literature in high school. When I went through the public schools in NY, we learned about the basic beliefs of most major world religions as part of the World History curriculum. That is a perfect place to do it.

            This is very different than explicitly teaching a particular religious tradition as true, which seems to be what the original post is advocating.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. As literature of lot of the Bible is indeed beautiful. It’s what’s in it that stinks.

              The kids should be taught to appreciate literature for its beauties and analytically. (One of my very most favourites is Khayyam’s ‘Rubaiyat’ (Fitzgerald’s) — which for wisdom, guidance, and pure music I’d set against the Bible any day.)

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Well, I tend to think literature is badly taught in the U. S. I feel it should be more systematic, learning skills like close-reading (analytical) and aesthetic appreciation, but with an emphasis on historical context, literary movements, how one period influenced another or responded to another, and understanding works in its historical context. Instead the focus is on some of those skills, but its ends being more of a smorgasbord approach (i. e. random good works selected to study rather than a systematic and contextual one).

                Like

                1. It used to be poorly taught in NZ too. So I blitzed enough of the prescribed to not be noticed, then read ferociously for myself.

                  What was (and for all is know, still is) taught was the current PC thinking. Not good.

                  Like

        2. He is the personification of a Giant Nob.
          What is a little worrisome as he had a career in the military, now retired, which makes him no spring chicken, and is therefore used to not only giving orders but taking them, often without question, I imagine.
          Always a dangerous combination for one so religiously indoctrinated.

          He probably voted for Trump solely on the grounds that Trump stated he ran on a Republican ticket and it would have destroyed his notion of what is Right and Proper having a woman at the helm

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s