I think, to some extent, that simply stating that one becomes a religious nut, or nut anything for that matter, occurs when one is willing to die for it is actually a bit oversimplified. A courageous American soldier is not a nut for being willing to die for his country. Jesus Christ was not a nut for having been willing to die for the sins of His followers and for His religion (and He WAS willing, because I'm certain He knew the consequences for His actions considering the time—He'd have otherwise been less outspoken).
I think the point that one becomes a nut is when one's belief begins to cloud one's best abilty to make sound and rational decision. Hitler was verifiable nut because his beliefs led him to conclude that there were lesser human beings in the ranks, and the world needed to be 'cleansed.' To a degree this is the same logic fueling Al-Qaeda. We are, in their eyes, infidels, unclean, unholy, and therefore we need to be ridded from the world. That makes them a nut.
If a Christian (and I'm not one BTW) decides that he is willing to give up his life for his religion in defense of the common better good, and to arrest the further development of a common threat of evil or bad, he is not a nut at all.
Uh-oh! Guess that makes me a religious nut. Actually, interesting you brought up those particular words because that's how Robert Englund described me in an interview he gave.: "...a fundamentalist, born-again Christian..." Well, guess it's a label I'll live with.
Thank you qwark. Good point. And I say the same to you: "As long as you remain harmless and don't proselytize (your belief/nonbelief nature), I have no problem with what you think. As you say, you have to live with it..." As long as there are no direct attacks on me, insults, name-calling, demeaning statements, verbal bashing for what I believe, I can interact in harmony with all. When one is personally attacked, one gets defensive.
I say in general: My faith works for me. If that's what it takes for me to be a better person, let me be.
Yep.... we opposites must have boundaries or it ends up in personal verbal attacks. I think it's cool to question each other, but in a mature way...not bashing. Meaning no subliminal, passive aggressive statements. You know what I mean. I see it all the time on BOTH sides. I try to remain objective in my answers though it does sting sometimes.
No. Judging is only based on actions that hurt, harm or help others. A person can judge someone based on those and not be morally wrong. It's only a perspective/perception view. Technically, it's not really a moral right or wrong, because no physical action was taken against. Just a view was created.
Judging others, based on anything other than their actions is futile.
Suppose you see a beautiful woman. Wait--I'm assuming you're a man, right?
If you are, suppose you see a beautiful woman. You're in admiration not just of her beauty, but you'd like to have her physically. You have a choice, right then, to turn your mind and your eyes to something/someone else that doesn't entice you. If you don't you'll allow conception of that lust, and you'll begin to dwell on it, maybe even act upon it by approaching her for the wrong reasons...
Suppose you see a charming man. You're in admiration not just of his charm, but you want to get married to him. But you know that as a divorcee, you have no right to remarry - this is a condemnable sin that Jesus makes no bones about. You have a choice, right then, to turn your mind and your eyes to something/someone else that doesn't entice you. If you don't you'll allow conception of that lust, and you'll begin to dwell on it, maybe even act upon it by marrying him for the wrong reasons...
Crucify you? Come now, Brenda. I'm just pointing out another example of unrepentant sin. You do a fantastic job of pointing out homosexuality over and over and over again. Doesn't seem fair to harp on one form of unrepentant sin and the punishment that awaits while not pointing out a glaringly obvious form, right?
Besides, it's not as if I'm saying any of this behind your back. You reading and responding to it makes that abundantly clear.
I am still keen to know where I am on the scale. I guess you guys are well up there, but I thought the only truly unforgivable sin was not believing. She keeps dodging the women preacher thing, but now I know she is divorced, well.... I am not going to let that slide.
If you're serious, Mark, it's my understanding that there really is no "scale" for sin as you so eloquently put it. All sin is abomination and God cannot look upon it (hence the need for agents like messiah and angels). Also, there is NO sin in non-belief. It is worse to be a hypocritical believer than to not believe at all. According to my understanding (which is, admittedly, only human and flawed, I'm sure) now is NOT the time when all things have been revealed and so belief is not necessary at this time. It's also my understanding that we're ALL going to hell, regardless of sin, because "hell" means "grave."
Well I understand that, Mark...but how can you blaspheme against something you don't know, believe in, or understand? You might say empty words about the Holy Spirit, but you're incapable of truly blaspheming it simply because you've not experienced it.
God isn't stupid; He understands how difficult it is to believe. That passage is talking specifically to the kind of person who proclaims their belief, then turns their back on the Holy Spirit--that's the true blasphemy. All the passages in the Bible are not meant for everyone. This is the difference between "meat" and "milk".
God doesn't exist. That which you have sadly mistaken for a god is something else completely.
You are deluded and this "well you would not understand because you have never experienced god" statement - albeit in this case with different intention - is the root cause of the animosity towards "religious nuts."
Well, you can call it sad and delusional all you want. We've been here before. I'm not trying to force anything on you...you asked a good question and there's my answer. I can't prove that God exists (nor do I want to), and you can convince me he doesn't (and someone with your intelligence probably knows that). I don't really care if you believe in God or not, but it would be nice if you could be respectful enough of my person and my personal beliefs not to be insulting. I feel like I've been pretty respectful of you, even though we disagree.
Actually...The "meat" and "milk" part wasn't directed to you personally at all. Neither the milk OR the meat is for you, because you are not a believer (and that's fine, which is what I was trying to say before).
The point I was trying to make is that the doctrine regarding blasphemy (which is considered "meat") is for one set of people being spoken to in the Bible. Other things (milk) are for another set of people who follow the Bible. Neither of them pertains to you.
I think Mark understands quite a lot; he's a very smart "evolved ape" LOL (That's a JOKE BTW, Mark--you know I don't believe in such silliness as one species spontaneously becoming another ). I believe he just enjoys being argumentative, along with the fact that he absolutely despises religion...which I can understand.
Hey! I thought you agreed to stop calling me "sweetie pie" if I stopped calling you "Dude"!
I can see how saying "You WOULD NOT (or COULD NOT) understand" would be insulting...however, saying "You don't currently understand" might be different. I don't understand how economics works right now...but I COULD...you know? One is just a statement of current fact; the other is a statement about one's intelligence and ability. I get that.
If understanding evolution takes so long...how is it YOU understand it...How old are you anyway?? OMG are YOU GOD? No wonder you're so adamant...You're trying to find the faithful.
ETA: Actually...economics might be a bad example. I'm not sure ANYONE understands it, or is capable of it. Maybe I should have said quantum physics or something.
Brian David Mitchell : abducted Elizabeth Smart in Utah and held her captive for months as his 'wife'.
Jim Jones : responsible for the suicide deaths of his entire 'flock' in Guyana by using manipulation and brainwashing.
Tony Alamo (aka, Bernie Hoffman): convicted of trafficking minors across the state line for sexual relations. Arrested for this and physical abuse of members of his 'cult'. In prison forever.
These 3 examples are either mentally ill with psychosis or grandiose delusions. I have no compassion on them for what they did. A combination of mental illness and hyper religion can be deadly placing a potential 'victim' in bondage. Defining when a person actually "crossed the line" into a 'religious nut' is fine. These examples are what I consider religious nuts.
Hyper religion is sometimes present when a mentally ill person is in a manic state. They have an over-inflated sense of "religious grandiosity" believing they may be 'the annointed one' or 'the messiah'. They may pray inconveniently, constantly, inappropriately in public while using extreme expression through body language. They have a preoccupation with grandiose delusions of a religious nature. Way out of context. For example. I had a client recently who was 'hyper religious'. She was in her room, sitting on her bed with her hands pressed together in prayer constantly, even durring my assessment. Standing up, pressing her hands against the wall looking up. Continually making references to God, the Lord when it was un-necessary, out of context in the conversation. It's not hard to recognize when somebody is actually over the line. This was one sick woman.
donotfear says: A combination of mental illness and hyper religion.... (causes a religious nut to place) ...a potential 'victim' in bondage. (paraphrased just a little - see above for original, full quote)
That sounds like religion in general. And sooner or later it's deadly.
As are you. Actually, it seems like you are the most religious person on this forum. How does that work out? I dunno. I miss the good ole days when all things said were taken lightly with a good laugh.
Thought I would come back after two months and see if anything has changed. Apparently not but heck, since I am here with nothing better to do today. I thought I would drop a line and see how quickly you would respond.
I was pretty disappointed, it took you about 2 minutes.
All religions are nuts! I don't have a problem with those who don't try to "save me from hell". I never argue with the religious amongst my family and friends. They understand clearly that I think their belief is bunk, and that if they start ramming it down my throat, I will suggest it is time to see a doctor.
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid...
I have seen a lot of what I would call religious extremism on hubpages since joining around a month or two ago. Creationists, evangelists, fanatics; mainly these guys seem to be christian. Many are not what I would call...
if someone talks to someone about sex, and it's unwanted, it's considered harassment. The other day, i was sitting in Starbucks and this man (for the second or third time) demanded to converse on the basis that I was in...
I suppose it was an inevitable reaction to Stephen Hawking’s new Book ‘The Grand Design’ where he concluded that There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe.To me, it is equally...