Hulluudesta

Jokainen ääripää on kaikilta osin negatiivista. Kun luin "Hulluus / viisaus" kirjoitusta, mieleeni tuli pari esimerkkiä kristittyjen hulluudesta.

Olen itse Satanisti ja voi allekirjoittaa sen, että kristittyjen piireissä on hyvinkin korkealle koulutettuja ja todella viisaita jäseniä. Tällöin ei voida ainakaan puhua tyhmyydestä yleisesti kristittyjen piireissä, mutta mitä hulluuteen ja typeryyteen tulee, se on hyvinkin totta.

Kun kristitty menee liian pitkälle, voidaan verratessa sanoa sitä vaikka suorastaan vastenmieliseksi. Ns. kiihkouskovainen varoo koko elämänsä tekemästä syntiä, samalla pakottaen toiset samaan kastiin. Kiihkouskovainen uskoo jokaisen sanan joka raamattuun on kirjoitettu ja on valmis todistamaan sen verellä.

Mieleeni tuli tapaus 80-luvulla amerikassa, jossa äiti pääsi rangaistuksetta uskonnon varjolla pahoinpideltyään tyttärensä. Tyttärelle oli murrosiän vaiheessa alkanut kuukautiset ja äiti oli lukenut raamatusta, kuinka jumala rankaisi naista synnistä tuomitsemalla heidät vuotamaan kerran kuukaudessa verta. Äiti laski summan yhteen ja uskoi tyttärensä tehneen syntiä. Hän hakkasi tyttärensä pahoin ja telkesi hänet yksin pieneen koppiin, jossa tytär sai viettää viikon nälissään.

Tuo on hulluutta. Pahempaa löytyy.

Amerikassa on sairaala, joka on kirkon hallinnassa, tosin siellä ei paranneta lääketieteen kirjoittaneilla, vaan rukoilemisella. Jopa vaikeasti sairaat ihmiset tuodaan kyseiseen laitokseen, jossa tarvittaessa monet nunnat ja jopa papit rukoilevat sairaalle parannusta.

Sairaaalaan tuotiin 11v poika, jolla oli diabetes. Aluksi nunnia oli yksi. Hän rukoili pojan vuoteella poikaa terveeksi, mutta pojan sairaus paheni. kahden viikon jälkeen pojan kivut olivat suunnattomat ja sairasvuoteen viereen tuotiin lisää nunnia rukoilemaan pojan puolesta. Lopuksi nunnia taisi olla yksitoista, jokainen toisiaan käsistä pidellen ja rukoillen pojalle pelastusta, tuloksetta. Poika oli huutanut kivusta monta tuntia, kivun vain yltyen ja lopulta hän antoi periksi. Hän kuoli. Pojan kuolemasta nousi suunnaton kohu ja sairaalaa pakotettiin luopumaan virastaan. En muista syytä miten ihmeessä sairaala sai jatkaa toimiaan, mutta se yrittää vielä parantaa sairaita potilaita rukoilemisella, yhä edelleen toimetta.

Nyt kysynkin sinulta, tiedätkö sinä yhtä vastenmielisiä faktoja kristinuskosta. Olen kiinostunut tutkimaan mielettömyyden rajoja tässä puhtaaksi väitetyssä uskonnossa.

Lähteet: CNN networks, 4D dokumentti, Dark side of christianity,
791237
Äänestä

Muut lukivat myös

Vastaukset 79

Vanhimmat

mutta jo jonkin asteen tyhmyyden ja hulluuden epäpyhä-allianssi on se kun pahaksi maailmankatsomuksensa alitajuntaisesti huomannut hörhö, paljastaa itsepetoksensa kaikille "osoittaessaan" ja etsiessään, päinvastaisesta maailmankatsomuksesta sitä mistä omassa katsantokannassaan on kysymys.

Tosin, et ole ainoa. Tämän palstan nimi voisi olla myöskin "avohoidokit".

Tuosta tapauksesta tuli mieleen, eräs tuttavani joutui sinun herrasi alaisten kiusaamaksi.
Yllyttivät kumartamaan, kun ei suostunut, yllytti itsemurhaan (asia mihin teikäläiset lopulta, lähes aina päätynevät.) Lopulta henkiparantaja ajoi pahan pois. (teko mihin ei mielisairaalassa pystytty.)

Pahasta hyvän etsiminen on typeryyden, ja negatiivisen hulluuden huippu.

Äänestä
  • Olet itse todella hyvä esimerkki. Puhut minusta saatananpalvojana ja yleistät, että päädymme aina itsemurhiin.

    kapeakatseisuus ja vahvat ennakkoluulot ovat myös tyhmyyttä huipussaan.

    Ajattelin solvata sinua ja laittaa tähän monta oikaisua, kuten sen, että minulla ei ole herraa jne. mutta toisaalta, mitä se auttaisi? Olet kristitty, eli mielestäsi jokainen, joka ei Jeesukseen usko, palvoo saatanaa.

    Hyvät jatkot sinulle.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Olet itse todella hyvä esimerkki. Puhut minusta saatananpalvojana ja yleistät, että päädymme aina itsemurhiin.

    kapeakatseisuus ja vahvat ennakkoluulot ovat myös tyhmyyttä huipussaan.

    Ajattelin solvata sinua ja laittaa tähän monta oikaisua, kuten sen, että minulla ei ole herraa jne. mutta toisaalta, mitä se auttaisi? Olet kristitty, eli mielestäsi jokainen, joka ei Jeesukseen usko, palvoo saatanaa.

    Hyvät jatkot sinulle.

    Jostain kumman syystä et vieläkään saanut minua muuttamaan mieltäni..etenkään kun mainitsemieni epäkohtien ja tahallisten yleistyksien (sillä minä en tunnusta teikäläisissä eroa, palvojat ovat vain rehellisempiä kuin te leikki-filosofit.)
    Miten lopulta eroat minusta kun sanot:

    "Olet itse todella hyvä esimerkki. (...)
    kapeakatseisuus ja vahvat ennakkoluulot ovat myös tyhmyyttä huipussaan."

    "Ajattelin solvata sinua ja laittaa tähän monta oikaisua.."

    Voih, kyllä nyt purskahdan itkuun, kun sirkusten urkurin kokoamaan irstailuoppiin hurahtanut vatipää uhkailee.

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    Jostain kumman syystä et vieläkään saanut minua muuttamaan mieltäni..etenkään kun mainitsemieni epäkohtien ja tahallisten yleistyksien (sillä minä en tunnusta teikäläisissä eroa, palvojat ovat vain rehellisempiä kuin te leikki-filosofit.)
    Miten lopulta eroat minusta kun sanot:

    "Olet itse todella hyvä esimerkki. (...)
    kapeakatseisuus ja vahvat ennakkoluulot ovat myös tyhmyyttä huipussaan."

    "Ajattelin solvata sinua ja laittaa tähän monta oikaisua.."

    Voih, kyllä nyt purskahdan itkuun, kun sirkusten urkurin kokoamaan irstailuoppiin hurahtanut vatipää uhkailee.

    No, tarkoitukseni ei ollutkaan käännyttää tai muuttaa mielipiteitäsi.

    "Miten lopulta eroat minusta kun sanot:"

    Olen huomannut yhden huvittavan piirteen kristityissä. Jos heidän kanssaan "keskustelee", he ovat ensimmäisiä, jotka nostavat tietä pystyyn ja haukkuvat vastapuoltaan. He ovat myös niitä, joilla ennakkoluulot ovat vahvimmassa osassa. Voin taas selkeyttää, ettei sinun tarvitse jälleen kysyä, että nyt voin ottaa esimerkiksi sekoittamasi satanismin ja saatananpalvonnan. Minä itse en sano kenestäkään ennakkoluuloa, ennen kuin olen itse kysynyt asiasta. Ennakkoluulot ovat aikaisia mielipiteitä ja minun lisäkseni yleisesti ennakkoluuloja pidetään typeränä.

    "Voih, kyllä nyt purskahdan itkuun, kun sirkusten urkurin kokoamaan irstailuoppiin hurahtanut vatipää uhkailee."

    Turhat nimittelyt eivät anna sen parempaa kuvaa itsestäsi, mitä olet jo ehtinyt maalata. Etsi vasemmalta vaikkapa "nuoret" -palstan pariin ja väittele siellä. Siellä lapsellisten persoonien sietokyky on suurempi kuin täällä.

    Kun olet aikuistunut, pystyt puhumaan asiallisesti ja järkevästi, voit tulla takaisin.

    Ja niin. Jos mielesi tekee itkeä, helpota toki oloasi. Ei se puperteetti ole helppoa aikaa. Olettaen, että olet kehityksessäsi siihen asti edennyt?

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    No, tarkoitukseni ei ollutkaan käännyttää tai muuttaa mielipiteitäsi.

    "Miten lopulta eroat minusta kun sanot:"

    Olen huomannut yhden huvittavan piirteen kristityissä. Jos heidän kanssaan "keskustelee", he ovat ensimmäisiä, jotka nostavat tietä pystyyn ja haukkuvat vastapuoltaan. He ovat myös niitä, joilla ennakkoluulot ovat vahvimmassa osassa. Voin taas selkeyttää, ettei sinun tarvitse jälleen kysyä, että nyt voin ottaa esimerkiksi sekoittamasi satanismin ja saatananpalvonnan. Minä itse en sano kenestäkään ennakkoluuloa, ennen kuin olen itse kysynyt asiasta. Ennakkoluulot ovat aikaisia mielipiteitä ja minun lisäkseni yleisesti ennakkoluuloja pidetään typeränä.

    "Voih, kyllä nyt purskahdan itkuun, kun sirkusten urkurin kokoamaan irstailuoppiin hurahtanut vatipää uhkailee."

    Turhat nimittelyt eivät anna sen parempaa kuvaa itsestäsi, mitä olet jo ehtinyt maalata. Etsi vasemmalta vaikkapa "nuoret" -palstan pariin ja väittele siellä. Siellä lapsellisten persoonien sietokyky on suurempi kuin täällä.

    Kun olet aikuistunut, pystyt puhumaan asiallisesti ja järkevästi, voit tulla takaisin.

    Ja niin. Jos mielesi tekee itkeä, helpota toki oloasi. Ei se puperteetti ole helppoa aikaa. Olettaen, että olet kehityksessäsi siihen asti edennyt?

    "Olen huomannut yhden huvittavan piirteen kristityissä. Jos heidän kanssaan "keskustelee", he ovat ensimmäisiä, jotka nostavat tietä pystyyn ja haukkuvat vastapuoltaan."

    Oletko koskaan kuullut metsän vastaavan kun sinne huudetaan. Historia osoittaa että tämän maailman systeemi pelkää totuuden puhujia, kristityt ovat joutuneet sen kokemaan jo keisari 666 kautta circus maximuksen hiekalla. Tosin, leijonan hampaissa naurava ja rukoileva 15v. tyttö voitti totuuden puolelle useamman osaltaan, kuin peto sai peloteltua.
    Jos vastapuoli on jo elämänkatsomuksensa kautta asennoitunut vastustamaan sitä mitä toinen pitää hyvänä. Niin reaktio on odotettava.
    Luuletko että minä menen Muslimien tykö julistamaan inhoani Muhamedia kohtaan, ja närkästyn jos minulle suututaan?
    Sinä voit kokeilla satanistina samaa.

    "He ovat myös niitä, joilla ennakkoluulot ovat vahvimmassa osassa. Voin taas selkeyttää, ettei sinun tarvitse jälleen kysyä, että nyt voin ottaa esimerkiksi sekoittamasi satanismin ja saatananpalvonnan."

    Kuten sanoin, molemmat perustuvat eksyttäjään, ja paradoksaalisesti molempien katsantokantojen olemassaolo, on täysin kiinni siitä maailmankatsomuksesta jota ne itse vastustavat.
    Tiedän kyllä hyvin näennäiset erot noiden kesken. Mutta kun Anton setäkin menetti lopulta uskonsa, tai sanotaanko, että kääntyi saatananpalvojaksi, ja erosi kirkostaan, joka oli lähinnä paikka latinan kielisille käänteisille messuriiteille, ja irstailuille.
    Jos satanisti esim. kiistää yliluonnollisen, on hän jo silloin paradoksin edessä:
    "Tunnusta magian voima, jos olet käyttänyt sitä saadaksesi haluamasi. Jos kiellät magian voiman kutsuttuasi sitä onnistuneesti, menetät kaiken saamasi."
    Lukee seitsemäntenä "maan sääntönä" teikäläisten opissa.
    Magian tunnustaminen ilman Jumalan tunnustamista taas on vielä absurdimpi ajatus.


    "Minä itse en sano kenestäkään ennakkoluuloa, ennen kuin olen itse kysynyt asiasta. Ennakkoluulot ovat aikaisia mielipiteitä ja minun lisäkseni yleisesti ennakkoluuloja pidetään typeränä."

    Tuo on sinänsä hyvä asenne, mutta piditkö käskysi?
    "1. Älä jaa mielipiteitä tai neuvoja ellei sinulta niitä pyydetä."
    ;)
    Anyways, tuo sinun aloittama keskustelu oli kyllä aika ennakkoluulojen nakertama laiva, joka upposi satamaan.

    "Ja niin. Jos mielesi tekee itkeä, helpota toki oloasi. Ei se puperteetti ole helppoa aikaa. Olettaen, että olet kehityksessäsi siihen asti edennyt?"

    En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi, mutta "puperteetti" tunnetaan paremmin nimellä puberteetti.
    (Käsite josta alkaa olla jo aikaa.)

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    "Olen huomannut yhden huvittavan piirteen kristityissä. Jos heidän kanssaan "keskustelee", he ovat ensimmäisiä, jotka nostavat tietä pystyyn ja haukkuvat vastapuoltaan."

    Oletko koskaan kuullut metsän vastaavan kun sinne huudetaan. Historia osoittaa että tämän maailman systeemi pelkää totuuden puhujia, kristityt ovat joutuneet sen kokemaan jo keisari 666 kautta circus maximuksen hiekalla. Tosin, leijonan hampaissa naurava ja rukoileva 15v. tyttö voitti totuuden puolelle useamman osaltaan, kuin peto sai peloteltua.
    Jos vastapuoli on jo elämänkatsomuksensa kautta asennoitunut vastustamaan sitä mitä toinen pitää hyvänä. Niin reaktio on odotettava.
    Luuletko että minä menen Muslimien tykö julistamaan inhoani Muhamedia kohtaan, ja närkästyn jos minulle suututaan?
    Sinä voit kokeilla satanistina samaa.

    "He ovat myös niitä, joilla ennakkoluulot ovat vahvimmassa osassa. Voin taas selkeyttää, ettei sinun tarvitse jälleen kysyä, että nyt voin ottaa esimerkiksi sekoittamasi satanismin ja saatananpalvonnan."

    Kuten sanoin, molemmat perustuvat eksyttäjään, ja paradoksaalisesti molempien katsantokantojen olemassaolo, on täysin kiinni siitä maailmankatsomuksesta jota ne itse vastustavat.
    Tiedän kyllä hyvin näennäiset erot noiden kesken. Mutta kun Anton setäkin menetti lopulta uskonsa, tai sanotaanko, että kääntyi saatananpalvojaksi, ja erosi kirkostaan, joka oli lähinnä paikka latinan kielisille käänteisille messuriiteille, ja irstailuille.
    Jos satanisti esim. kiistää yliluonnollisen, on hän jo silloin paradoksin edessä:
    "Tunnusta magian voima, jos olet käyttänyt sitä saadaksesi haluamasi. Jos kiellät magian voiman kutsuttuasi sitä onnistuneesti, menetät kaiken saamasi."
    Lukee seitsemäntenä "maan sääntönä" teikäläisten opissa.
    Magian tunnustaminen ilman Jumalan tunnustamista taas on vielä absurdimpi ajatus.


    "Minä itse en sano kenestäkään ennakkoluuloa, ennen kuin olen itse kysynyt asiasta. Ennakkoluulot ovat aikaisia mielipiteitä ja minun lisäkseni yleisesti ennakkoluuloja pidetään typeränä."

    Tuo on sinänsä hyvä asenne, mutta piditkö käskysi?
    "1. Älä jaa mielipiteitä tai neuvoja ellei sinulta niitä pyydetä."
    ;)
    Anyways, tuo sinun aloittama keskustelu oli kyllä aika ennakkoluulojen nakertama laiva, joka upposi satamaan.

    "Ja niin. Jos mielesi tekee itkeä, helpota toki oloasi. Ei se puperteetti ole helppoa aikaa. Olettaen, että olet kehityksessäsi siihen asti edennyt?"

    En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi, mutta "puperteetti" tunnetaan paremmin nimellä puberteetti.
    (Käsite josta alkaa olla jo aikaa.)

    Ensimmäisessä postissani kysyin ehkä hieman kaukaa haetun, mutta mahdollisen kysymyksen, johon pyysin kokemuksia toisilta kirjoittajilta.

    "Oletko koskaan kuullut metsän vastaavan kun sinne huudetaan."

    Sinun ensimmäinen vastauksesi minulle aloitti kiistelymme, jossa hyvinkin selvästi halveksuit minua ja rivien välistä kutsuit asiaani typeräksi.

    "jonkin asteen tyhmyyden ja hulluuden epäpyhä-allianssi on se kun pahaksi maailmankatsomuksensa alitajuntaisesti huomannut hörhö, paljastaa itsepetoksensa kaikille "osoittaessaan" ja etsiessään, päinvastaisesta maailmankatsomuksesta sitä mistä omassa katsantokannassaan on kysymys."

    "Pahasta hyvän etsiminen on typeryyden, ja negatiivisen hulluuden huippu."

    Nyt haluaisin näkevän sinun taistelevan omia sanojasi vastaan.

    Mielestäsi satanismi ja saatananpalvonta ovat samalla mitoituksella yhtä pahoja ja mielettömiä? Molemmat perustuvat eksyttäjään? Kun puhut maailmankatsomuksesta, joka vastustaa todellista olemassaoloa, olet itse lähempänä sitä kuin uskotkaan.

    "Jos satanisti esim. kiistää yliluonnollisen, on hän jo silloin paradoksin edessä:
    "Tunnusta magian voima, jos olet käyttänyt sitä saadaksesi haluamasi. Jos kiellät magian voiman kutsuttuasi sitä onnistuneesti, menetät kaiken saamasi."
    Lukee seitsemäntenä "maan sääntönä" teikäläisten opissa.
    Magian tunnustaminen ilman Jumalan tunnustamista taas on vielä absurdimpi ajatus."

    Olet oikeassa siinä, ettei satanisti usko yliluonnolliseen. Magia taasen ei satanismissa ole yliluonnollista. Ei ollenkaan. Yksi itsetutkiskelun muoto monissa vastaavissa harjoitteissa, jossa pyritään saamaan vahva itsetieto.

    Kyseinen "maan sääntö" oli tosin "maan seitsemäs Saatanallinen sääntö".

    -Kyllä, sillä on väliä.

    Magia ei liity uskontoihin, sitä on niin pakanuudessa, kuin ateismissakin. Taiaksi voidaan nimetä niin meditaatio, kuin myös hypnoosi ja erilaiset terapiat. Tiedän mistä puhun harjoitettuani näitä mielestäsi vain ja ainoastaan uskontoon kuuluvien käsitteiden suorittamista.

    ----------------------------------------

    "En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi"

    "...itsemurhaan (asia mihin teikäläiset lopulta, lähes aina päätynevät."

    "Pahasta hyvän etsiminen on typeryyden, ja negatiivisen hulluuden huippu."

    "sirkusten urkurin kokoamaan irstailuoppiin hurahtanut vatipää uhkailee."

    "...pahaksi maailmankatsomuksensa alitajuntaisesti huomannut hörhö..."

    "Tämän palstan nimi voisi olla myöskin "avohoidokit". "

    Etkö rakastakkaan vihamiestäsi niinkuin kunnon kristityn pitää, kääntäen toisen posken, kun ensimmäiseen lyödään? Etkö olekkaan rauhaa rakastava, aina valmis tukemaan ja säälimään, rukoilemaan vihamiesten ja heikompien puolesta?

    Olet yksi meistä. Kutsu itseäsi siksi, millainen olet, etkä vain positiivisen sosiaalisen kuvan takia kristityksi. Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa.

    --------------------------------------------

    "Anyways, tuo sinun aloittama keskustelu oli kyllä aika ennakkoluulojen nakertama laiva, joka upposi satamaan"

    By the way,
    Nyt voisit perustella. Mikä tekstissäni oli ennakkoluuloa? Vastaa, ole hyvä.


    "En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi, mutta "puperteetti" tunnetaan paremmin nimellä puberteetti.
    (Käsite josta alkaa olla jo aikaa.)"

    Olisi pitänyt tarkistaa tekstini ennen sen lopullista lähettämistä, jotta olisin voinut välttää lapsukseni, jolla pääsit kiertämään toteamukseni.

    Joko löysit ystäviä nuorten palstoilta?

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Ensimmäisessä postissani kysyin ehkä hieman kaukaa haetun, mutta mahdollisen kysymyksen, johon pyysin kokemuksia toisilta kirjoittajilta.

    "Oletko koskaan kuullut metsän vastaavan kun sinne huudetaan."

    Sinun ensimmäinen vastauksesi minulle aloitti kiistelymme, jossa hyvinkin selvästi halveksuit minua ja rivien välistä kutsuit asiaani typeräksi.

    "jonkin asteen tyhmyyden ja hulluuden epäpyhä-allianssi on se kun pahaksi maailmankatsomuksensa alitajuntaisesti huomannut hörhö, paljastaa itsepetoksensa kaikille "osoittaessaan" ja etsiessään, päinvastaisesta maailmankatsomuksesta sitä mistä omassa katsantokannassaan on kysymys."

    "Pahasta hyvän etsiminen on typeryyden, ja negatiivisen hulluuden huippu."

    Nyt haluaisin näkevän sinun taistelevan omia sanojasi vastaan.

    Mielestäsi satanismi ja saatananpalvonta ovat samalla mitoituksella yhtä pahoja ja mielettömiä? Molemmat perustuvat eksyttäjään? Kun puhut maailmankatsomuksesta, joka vastustaa todellista olemassaoloa, olet itse lähempänä sitä kuin uskotkaan.

    "Jos satanisti esim. kiistää yliluonnollisen, on hän jo silloin paradoksin edessä:
    "Tunnusta magian voima, jos olet käyttänyt sitä saadaksesi haluamasi. Jos kiellät magian voiman kutsuttuasi sitä onnistuneesti, menetät kaiken saamasi."
    Lukee seitsemäntenä "maan sääntönä" teikäläisten opissa.
    Magian tunnustaminen ilman Jumalan tunnustamista taas on vielä absurdimpi ajatus."

    Olet oikeassa siinä, ettei satanisti usko yliluonnolliseen. Magia taasen ei satanismissa ole yliluonnollista. Ei ollenkaan. Yksi itsetutkiskelun muoto monissa vastaavissa harjoitteissa, jossa pyritään saamaan vahva itsetieto.

    Kyseinen "maan sääntö" oli tosin "maan seitsemäs Saatanallinen sääntö".

    -Kyllä, sillä on väliä.

    Magia ei liity uskontoihin, sitä on niin pakanuudessa, kuin ateismissakin. Taiaksi voidaan nimetä niin meditaatio, kuin myös hypnoosi ja erilaiset terapiat. Tiedän mistä puhun harjoitettuani näitä mielestäsi vain ja ainoastaan uskontoon kuuluvien käsitteiden suorittamista.

    ----------------------------------------

    "En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi"

    "...itsemurhaan (asia mihin teikäläiset lopulta, lähes aina päätynevät."

    "Pahasta hyvän etsiminen on typeryyden, ja negatiivisen hulluuden huippu."

    "sirkusten urkurin kokoamaan irstailuoppiin hurahtanut vatipää uhkailee."

    "...pahaksi maailmankatsomuksensa alitajuntaisesti huomannut hörhö..."

    "Tämän palstan nimi voisi olla myöskin "avohoidokit". "

    Etkö rakastakkaan vihamiestäsi niinkuin kunnon kristityn pitää, kääntäen toisen posken, kun ensimmäiseen lyödään? Etkö olekkaan rauhaa rakastava, aina valmis tukemaan ja säälimään, rukoilemaan vihamiesten ja heikompien puolesta?

    Olet yksi meistä. Kutsu itseäsi siksi, millainen olet, etkä vain positiivisen sosiaalisen kuvan takia kristityksi. Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa.

    --------------------------------------------

    "Anyways, tuo sinun aloittama keskustelu oli kyllä aika ennakkoluulojen nakertama laiva, joka upposi satamaan"

    By the way,
    Nyt voisit perustella. Mikä tekstissäni oli ennakkoluuloa? Vastaa, ole hyvä.


    "En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi, mutta "puperteetti" tunnetaan paremmin nimellä puberteetti.
    (Käsite josta alkaa olla jo aikaa.)"

    Olisi pitänyt tarkistaa tekstini ennen sen lopullista lähettämistä, jotta olisin voinut välttää lapsukseni, jolla pääsit kiertämään toteamukseni.

    Joko löysit ystäviä nuorten palstoilta?

    ...tahi sitten Eclipsen puiseen kalloon.

    Eclipsellä ei ole koskaan ollut pienintäkään yritystä keskustella täällä asiallisesti... Vittuilu alkaa viimeistään siinä vaiheessa kun pyydät häneltä perusteluja tai näyttöä niille roskaviesteille, joita hän lähettelee tänne ilmeisesti aamusta iltaan.

    Eclipse ei ole tällä palstalla keskustelemassa, hän on itsekin todennut, että hänen tarkoituksensa on "voittaa" keskustelut vaikuttamalla "kolmanteen osapuoleen" ts. hän syytää oman oppinsa mukaista roskapropagandaa sarjatulella tälle palstalle siinä toivossa, että joku sattuisi uskomaan...

    "Olet yksi meistä. Kutsu itseäsi siksi, millainen olet, etkä vain positiivisen sosiaalisen kuvan takia kristityksi. Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa."

    Heh--- Vakka kantensa valitsee ja niin edelleen.
    Eclipsen erottaa todellakin satanisteista ainoastaan se, että satanistit tunnustavat omaa väriään avoimesti, Eclipse taas kätkeytyy keinotekoisen hurskautensa ja tekopyhyytensä taakse.
    Raamatussa taidetaan kutsua näitä "eclipsejä" ulkokullatuiksi ;-D

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    ...tahi sitten Eclipsen puiseen kalloon.

    Eclipsellä ei ole koskaan ollut pienintäkään yritystä keskustella täällä asiallisesti... Vittuilu alkaa viimeistään siinä vaiheessa kun pyydät häneltä perusteluja tai näyttöä niille roskaviesteille, joita hän lähettelee tänne ilmeisesti aamusta iltaan.

    Eclipse ei ole tällä palstalla keskustelemassa, hän on itsekin todennut, että hänen tarkoituksensa on "voittaa" keskustelut vaikuttamalla "kolmanteen osapuoleen" ts. hän syytää oman oppinsa mukaista roskapropagandaa sarjatulella tälle palstalle siinä toivossa, että joku sattuisi uskomaan...

    "Olet yksi meistä. Kutsu itseäsi siksi, millainen olet, etkä vain positiivisen sosiaalisen kuvan takia kristityksi. Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa."

    Heh--- Vakka kantensa valitsee ja niin edelleen.
    Eclipsen erottaa todellakin satanisteista ainoastaan se, että satanistit tunnustavat omaa väriään avoimesti, Eclipse taas kätkeytyy keinotekoisen hurskautensa ja tekopyhyytensä taakse.
    Raamatussa taidetaan kutsua näitä "eclipsejä" ulkokullatuiksi ;-D

    Otan sanoistasi opikseni ja jätän Eclipsen kanssa väittelyn lopullisesti.

    Hehe, ulkokullatut.

    Hyvin sanottu!

    Kiitän ja toivotan hyvät kesät sinulle!

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Ensimmäisessä postissani kysyin ehkä hieman kaukaa haetun, mutta mahdollisen kysymyksen, johon pyysin kokemuksia toisilta kirjoittajilta.

    "Oletko koskaan kuullut metsän vastaavan kun sinne huudetaan."

    Sinun ensimmäinen vastauksesi minulle aloitti kiistelymme, jossa hyvinkin selvästi halveksuit minua ja rivien välistä kutsuit asiaani typeräksi.

    "jonkin asteen tyhmyyden ja hulluuden epäpyhä-allianssi on se kun pahaksi maailmankatsomuksensa alitajuntaisesti huomannut hörhö, paljastaa itsepetoksensa kaikille "osoittaessaan" ja etsiessään, päinvastaisesta maailmankatsomuksesta sitä mistä omassa katsantokannassaan on kysymys."

    "Pahasta hyvän etsiminen on typeryyden, ja negatiivisen hulluuden huippu."

    Nyt haluaisin näkevän sinun taistelevan omia sanojasi vastaan.

    Mielestäsi satanismi ja saatananpalvonta ovat samalla mitoituksella yhtä pahoja ja mielettömiä? Molemmat perustuvat eksyttäjään? Kun puhut maailmankatsomuksesta, joka vastustaa todellista olemassaoloa, olet itse lähempänä sitä kuin uskotkaan.

    "Jos satanisti esim. kiistää yliluonnollisen, on hän jo silloin paradoksin edessä:
    "Tunnusta magian voima, jos olet käyttänyt sitä saadaksesi haluamasi. Jos kiellät magian voiman kutsuttuasi sitä onnistuneesti, menetät kaiken saamasi."
    Lukee seitsemäntenä "maan sääntönä" teikäläisten opissa.
    Magian tunnustaminen ilman Jumalan tunnustamista taas on vielä absurdimpi ajatus."

    Olet oikeassa siinä, ettei satanisti usko yliluonnolliseen. Magia taasen ei satanismissa ole yliluonnollista. Ei ollenkaan. Yksi itsetutkiskelun muoto monissa vastaavissa harjoitteissa, jossa pyritään saamaan vahva itsetieto.

    Kyseinen "maan sääntö" oli tosin "maan seitsemäs Saatanallinen sääntö".

    -Kyllä, sillä on väliä.

    Magia ei liity uskontoihin, sitä on niin pakanuudessa, kuin ateismissakin. Taiaksi voidaan nimetä niin meditaatio, kuin myös hypnoosi ja erilaiset terapiat. Tiedän mistä puhun harjoitettuani näitä mielestäsi vain ja ainoastaan uskontoon kuuluvien käsitteiden suorittamista.

    ----------------------------------------

    "En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi"

    "...itsemurhaan (asia mihin teikäläiset lopulta, lähes aina päätynevät."

    "Pahasta hyvän etsiminen on typeryyden, ja negatiivisen hulluuden huippu."

    "sirkusten urkurin kokoamaan irstailuoppiin hurahtanut vatipää uhkailee."

    "...pahaksi maailmankatsomuksensa alitajuntaisesti huomannut hörhö..."

    "Tämän palstan nimi voisi olla myöskin "avohoidokit". "

    Etkö rakastakkaan vihamiestäsi niinkuin kunnon kristityn pitää, kääntäen toisen posken, kun ensimmäiseen lyödään? Etkö olekkaan rauhaa rakastava, aina valmis tukemaan ja säälimään, rukoilemaan vihamiesten ja heikompien puolesta?

    Olet yksi meistä. Kutsu itseäsi siksi, millainen olet, etkä vain positiivisen sosiaalisen kuvan takia kristityksi. Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa.

    --------------------------------------------

    "Anyways, tuo sinun aloittama keskustelu oli kyllä aika ennakkoluulojen nakertama laiva, joka upposi satamaan"

    By the way,
    Nyt voisit perustella. Mikä tekstissäni oli ennakkoluuloa? Vastaa, ole hyvä.


    "En tiedä sinun kehitystasostasi, mutta "puperteetti" tunnetaan paremmin nimellä puberteetti.
    (Käsite josta alkaa olla jo aikaa.)"

    Olisi pitänyt tarkistaa tekstini ennen sen lopullista lähettämistä, jotta olisin voinut välttää lapsukseni, jolla pääsit kiertämään toteamukseni.

    Joko löysit ystäviä nuorten palstoilta?

    "Ensimmäisessä postissani kysyin ehkä hieman kaukaa haetun, mutta mahdollisen kysymyksen, johon pyysin kokemuksia toisilta kirjoittajilta."

    Tässä kirjoituksessasi, teit naiivin ja säälittävän asenteen paljastavan, enempi tai vähempi totuudellisen yleistyksen, liittyen yksittäistapaukseen.
    Siitä johtuu reaktioni.

    "Mielestäsi satanismi ja saatananpalvonta ovat samalla mitoituksella yhtä pahoja ja mielettömiä? Molemmat perustuvat eksyttäjään? Kun puhut maailmankatsomuksesta, joka vastustaa todellista olemassaoloa, olet itse lähempänä sitä kuin uskotkaan."

    Todellinen olemassaolo on Jumala. Vanhurskas joka on lähempänä Jumalaa, on väkevämpi kuin saatana.
    Saatana on vain luotu muiden joukossa, ei sen kummempaa. Niin eikä kumpaakaan nihilismiin perustuvaa kristinuskon ns. pahaa omenaa, versiointia olisi ilman kohdetta jota ne paradoksaalisesti, enempi tai vähempi suoralla tavalla vastustavat.
    Päämäärä on siten kuolleena syntynyt.

    "Olet oikeassa siinä, ettei satanisti usko yliluonnolliseen. Magia taasen ei satanismissa ole yliluonnollista. Ei ollenkaan. Yksi itsetutkiskelun muoto monissa vastaavissa harjoitteissa, jossa pyritään saamaan vahva itsetieto."

    Heh. Eihän Jumalaankaan uskovalle ole mikään yliluonnollista.
    On täysin absurdiväite ettei magia olisi yliluonnollista. Tai siihen perustuvaa.

    "Magia ei liity uskontoihin, sitä on niin pakanuudessa, kuin ateismissakin. Taiaksi voidaan nimetä niin meditaatio, kuin myös hypnoosi ja erilaiset terapiat. Tiedän mistä puhun harjoitettuani näitä mielestäsi vain ja ainoastaan uskontoon kuuluvien käsitteiden suorittamista."

    Tuo on sama kun sanoisi että pakanalliset kultit eivät ole uskontoja, joita ne käytännössä väistämättä ovat.
    Laimean magian harjoittaminen, ei muuten korvaa asiavirhettä jota satanismi kantaa, tässäkin asiassa. Tai tarkemmin; epäkohtaa.
    Psykologiset metodit mistä puhuit juontavat juurensa yliluonnolliseen kommunikointiin, psykologia, tarkoittaa literaalisesti: sieluntiedettä.

    "Etkö rakastakkaan vihamiestäsi niinkuin kunnon kristityn pitää, kääntäen toisen posken, kun ensimmäiseen lyödään? Etkö olekkaan rauhaa rakastava, aina valmis tukemaan ja säälimään, rukoilemaan vihamiesten ja heikompien puolesta?"

    Kristitty on todellakin vaativa nimitys, mutta tosi krisitillisyys on aina pyrkimystä. (tästä lisää vastauksessani joonakaselle.) Muuten Kristillisyys, ei siltikään anna tukea ns. kynnysmattokristillisyydelle.
    Sillä on Raamatussa on lähtökohtana aina rakentava hyvä, mutta jos toinen on tietoisesti, ja periaatteessa totuutta vastaan, on sanottu myöskin:
    "Älä puhu tyhmän kuullen, sillä hän katsoo ymmärtäväiset sanasi ylen."

    JA

    "Vastaa tyhmälle hänen hulluutensa mukaan, ettei hän itseänsä viisaana pitäisi."

    SILLÄ:

    "Yhtä vähän kuin lumi kesällä ja sade elonaikana soveltuu tyhmälle kunnia."

    "Opposition is true frienship"-pitää sikäli paikkansa että jos toiselle vastaa siten, mitä hän haluaa kuulla, on huonompi vaihtoehto, kuin että sanoisi hänelle sen mitä hänen tarvitsee kuulla.

    Mutta lähtökohdat, mitä tulee Rakkauteen, tärkeimpään, ovat totta.

    Alku ja loppu.

    "Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa."

    Tämä on täysin totta. Resignaatiossa minä elän.

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    "Ensimmäisessä postissani kysyin ehkä hieman kaukaa haetun, mutta mahdollisen kysymyksen, johon pyysin kokemuksia toisilta kirjoittajilta."

    Tässä kirjoituksessasi, teit naiivin ja säälittävän asenteen paljastavan, enempi tai vähempi totuudellisen yleistyksen, liittyen yksittäistapaukseen.
    Siitä johtuu reaktioni.

    "Mielestäsi satanismi ja saatananpalvonta ovat samalla mitoituksella yhtä pahoja ja mielettömiä? Molemmat perustuvat eksyttäjään? Kun puhut maailmankatsomuksesta, joka vastustaa todellista olemassaoloa, olet itse lähempänä sitä kuin uskotkaan."

    Todellinen olemassaolo on Jumala. Vanhurskas joka on lähempänä Jumalaa, on väkevämpi kuin saatana.
    Saatana on vain luotu muiden joukossa, ei sen kummempaa. Niin eikä kumpaakaan nihilismiin perustuvaa kristinuskon ns. pahaa omenaa, versiointia olisi ilman kohdetta jota ne paradoksaalisesti, enempi tai vähempi suoralla tavalla vastustavat.
    Päämäärä on siten kuolleena syntynyt.

    "Olet oikeassa siinä, ettei satanisti usko yliluonnolliseen. Magia taasen ei satanismissa ole yliluonnollista. Ei ollenkaan. Yksi itsetutkiskelun muoto monissa vastaavissa harjoitteissa, jossa pyritään saamaan vahva itsetieto."

    Heh. Eihän Jumalaankaan uskovalle ole mikään yliluonnollista.
    On täysin absurdiväite ettei magia olisi yliluonnollista. Tai siihen perustuvaa.

    "Magia ei liity uskontoihin, sitä on niin pakanuudessa, kuin ateismissakin. Taiaksi voidaan nimetä niin meditaatio, kuin myös hypnoosi ja erilaiset terapiat. Tiedän mistä puhun harjoitettuani näitä mielestäsi vain ja ainoastaan uskontoon kuuluvien käsitteiden suorittamista."

    Tuo on sama kun sanoisi että pakanalliset kultit eivät ole uskontoja, joita ne käytännössä väistämättä ovat.
    Laimean magian harjoittaminen, ei muuten korvaa asiavirhettä jota satanismi kantaa, tässäkin asiassa. Tai tarkemmin; epäkohtaa.
    Psykologiset metodit mistä puhuit juontavat juurensa yliluonnolliseen kommunikointiin, psykologia, tarkoittaa literaalisesti: sieluntiedettä.

    "Etkö rakastakkaan vihamiestäsi niinkuin kunnon kristityn pitää, kääntäen toisen posken, kun ensimmäiseen lyödään? Etkö olekkaan rauhaa rakastava, aina valmis tukemaan ja säälimään, rukoilemaan vihamiesten ja heikompien puolesta?"

    Kristitty on todellakin vaativa nimitys, mutta tosi krisitillisyys on aina pyrkimystä. (tästä lisää vastauksessani joonakaselle.) Muuten Kristillisyys, ei siltikään anna tukea ns. kynnysmattokristillisyydelle.
    Sillä on Raamatussa on lähtökohtana aina rakentava hyvä, mutta jos toinen on tietoisesti, ja periaatteessa totuutta vastaan, on sanottu myöskin:
    "Älä puhu tyhmän kuullen, sillä hän katsoo ymmärtäväiset sanasi ylen."

    JA

    "Vastaa tyhmälle hänen hulluutensa mukaan, ettei hän itseänsä viisaana pitäisi."

    SILLÄ:

    "Yhtä vähän kuin lumi kesällä ja sade elonaikana soveltuu tyhmälle kunnia."

    "Opposition is true frienship"-pitää sikäli paikkansa että jos toiselle vastaa siten, mitä hän haluaa kuulla, on huonompi vaihtoehto, kuin että sanoisi hänelle sen mitä hänen tarvitsee kuulla.

    Mutta lähtökohdat, mitä tulee Rakkauteen, tärkeimpään, ovat totta.

    Alku ja loppu.

    "Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa."

    Tämä on täysin totta. Resignaatiossa minä elän.

    Ihme, että pienellä provosaatiolla ulkopuolelta muutit kieliasuasi täysillä ja yritit saada viimeisillä sanoilla mielikuvan voitosta itsellesi ja itsestäsi näennäisesti viisaamman kuvan. Harmi, että rakensit heikon pohjan jo aiemmin typeryydellesi.

    En aio koskea enää tekstisi epäkohtiin. Katson viisammaksi jättää sinut omaan arvoosi.

    --------------------------------------------

    "Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa."

    Tämä on täysin totta. Resignaatiossa minä elän.

    --------------------------------------------

    Tervetuloa todellisuuteen. Ainakaan et petä itseäsi.

    Z'j-m'h kh'rn Z'j-m'h kh'r Z'j-m'h kh rmnu.

    Ou-o nje'y fha'gnu qurst-ti ngai-kang whro-kng'h rgh-i szhno zyo-dhron'k po'j nu Cth'n I'a ry'gzengrho.

    Tervehdykseni sinulle lammas. Elä rauhassa.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Ihme, että pienellä provosaatiolla ulkopuolelta muutit kieliasuasi täysillä ja yritit saada viimeisillä sanoilla mielikuvan voitosta itsellesi ja itsestäsi näennäisesti viisaamman kuvan. Harmi, että rakensit heikon pohjan jo aiemmin typeryydellesi.

    En aio koskea enää tekstisi epäkohtiin. Katson viisammaksi jättää sinut omaan arvoosi.

    --------------------------------------------

    "Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa."

    Tämä on täysin totta. Resignaatiossa minä elän.

    --------------------------------------------

    Tervetuloa todellisuuteen. Ainakaan et petä itseäsi.

    Z'j-m'h kh'rn Z'j-m'h kh'r Z'j-m'h kh rmnu.

    Ou-o nje'y fha'gnu qurst-ti ngai-kang whro-kng'h rgh-i szhno zyo-dhron'k po'j nu Cth'n I'a ry'gzengrho.

    Tervehdykseni sinulle lammas. Elä rauhassa.

    Kaikesta päätellen luu jäi syvälle kurkkuusi?

    Sinulla kun ei ole muuta vaihtoehtoa kuin tyytyä jättämään minut omaan arvooni.

    Lauman pässin elostelut eivät minua ole koskaan vakuuttaneet.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Otan sanoistasi opikseni ja jätän Eclipsen kanssa väittelyn lopullisesti.

    Hehe, ulkokullatut.

    Hyvin sanottu!

    Kiitän ja toivotan hyvät kesät sinulle!

    hieman vituttaa, kun hän tuli erehtyi länksyttämään minulle, ja saikin nenilleen.

    Tiedäthän, piski joka älähtää kun..

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    ...tahi sitten Eclipsen puiseen kalloon.

    Eclipsellä ei ole koskaan ollut pienintäkään yritystä keskustella täällä asiallisesti... Vittuilu alkaa viimeistään siinä vaiheessa kun pyydät häneltä perusteluja tai näyttöä niille roskaviesteille, joita hän lähettelee tänne ilmeisesti aamusta iltaan.

    Eclipse ei ole tällä palstalla keskustelemassa, hän on itsekin todennut, että hänen tarkoituksensa on "voittaa" keskustelut vaikuttamalla "kolmanteen osapuoleen" ts. hän syytää oman oppinsa mukaista roskapropagandaa sarjatulella tälle palstalle siinä toivossa, että joku sattuisi uskomaan...

    "Olet yksi meistä. Kutsu itseäsi siksi, millainen olet, etkä vain positiivisen sosiaalisen kuvan takia kristityksi. Jumalasi huomaa todella mikä olet, vaikka kuinka yrittäisit esittää puhdasta hengellisyyden puolustajaa."

    Heh--- Vakka kantensa valitsee ja niin edelleen.
    Eclipsen erottaa todellakin satanisteista ainoastaan se, että satanistit tunnustavat omaa väriään avoimesti, Eclipse taas kätkeytyy keinotekoisen hurskautensa ja tekopyhyytensä taakse.
    Raamatussa taidetaan kutsua näitä "eclipsejä" ulkokullatuiksi ;-D

    "Eclipsellä ei ole koskaan ollut pienintäkään yritystä keskustella täällä asiallisesti... Vittuilu alkaa viimeistään siinä vaiheessa kun pyydät häneltä perusteluja tai näyttöä niille roskaviesteille, joita hän lähettelee tänne ilmeisesti aamusta iltaan."

    Ai? :D
    Lähinnä vittuilu alkaa sillon kun esim. joku de Dorkabas tulee arvostelemaan lapsuksen takia vertausta huonoksi.
    Entä mitä, ja milloin en ole perustellut? Tämä olisi mielenkiintoista huomata itsekkin.
    Luulen että tiedät sen paremmin kuin minä, sillä vietät aikaasi seuraillen, ja ylösmerkiten mitä kirjoitan.
    Tässähän tuntee itsensä oikein julkimoksi, nyt kun minullakin on oma mad stalker-väijyttelemässä. :D

    "Eclipse ei ole tällä palstalla keskustelemassa, hän on itsekin todennut, että hänen tarkoituksensa on "voittaa" keskustelut vaikuttamalla "kolmanteen osapuoleen" ts. hän syytää oman oppinsa mukaista roskapropagandaa sarjatulella tälle palstalle siinä toivossa, että joku sattuisi uskomaan..."

    No tuo "roskapropaganda" sanan putkahtaminen tuoksahtavasta suustasi on lähinnä huvittavaa, vai mitä de ATHEME? :D
    Sinunlaistesi takia puhun kolmannelle osapuolelle,sillä olet niitä joilla ei o aikomustakaan keskustella, vaan toimia kyseenalaisena totuuden torvena.
    Tai viemäri, olisi parempi sana, eikö?

    "Vakka kantensa valitsee ja niin edelleen.
    Eclipsen erottaa todellakin satanisteista ainoastaan se, että satanistit tunnustavat omaa väriään avoimesti, Eclipse taas kätkeytyy keinotekoisen hurskautensa ja tekopyhyytensä taakse.
    Raamatussa taidetaan kutsua näitä "eclipsejä" ulkokullatuiksi ;-D"

    Sinunlaisia kutsutaan Raamatussa tyhmiksi.
    Kyllähän minä väriäni tunnustan, mutta en kynnysmattokristillisyyttä.
    Joskaan en todellakaan väitä olevani mikään mallikristitty.
    Se on yleensä teidän teesinne.

    Entä mitä väliä sillä olisi vaikka olisin maailman huonoin ihminen?

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    hieman vituttaa, kun hän tuli erehtyi länksyttämään minulle, ja saikin nenilleen.

    Tiedäthän, piski joka älähtää kun..

    "erehtyi länksyttämään minulle, ja saikin nenilleen."

    Eclipse on ilmeisesti taas nähnyt märkää unta...

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    "Eclipsellä ei ole koskaan ollut pienintäkään yritystä keskustella täällä asiallisesti... Vittuilu alkaa viimeistään siinä vaiheessa kun pyydät häneltä perusteluja tai näyttöä niille roskaviesteille, joita hän lähettelee tänne ilmeisesti aamusta iltaan."

    Ai? :D
    Lähinnä vittuilu alkaa sillon kun esim. joku de Dorkabas tulee arvostelemaan lapsuksen takia vertausta huonoksi.
    Entä mitä, ja milloin en ole perustellut? Tämä olisi mielenkiintoista huomata itsekkin.
    Luulen että tiedät sen paremmin kuin minä, sillä vietät aikaasi seuraillen, ja ylösmerkiten mitä kirjoitan.
    Tässähän tuntee itsensä oikein julkimoksi, nyt kun minullakin on oma mad stalker-väijyttelemässä. :D

    "Eclipse ei ole tällä palstalla keskustelemassa, hän on itsekin todennut, että hänen tarkoituksensa on "voittaa" keskustelut vaikuttamalla "kolmanteen osapuoleen" ts. hän syytää oman oppinsa mukaista roskapropagandaa sarjatulella tälle palstalle siinä toivossa, että joku sattuisi uskomaan..."

    No tuo "roskapropaganda" sanan putkahtaminen tuoksahtavasta suustasi on lähinnä huvittavaa, vai mitä de ATHEME? :D
    Sinunlaistesi takia puhun kolmannelle osapuolelle,sillä olet niitä joilla ei o aikomustakaan keskustella, vaan toimia kyseenalaisena totuuden torvena.
    Tai viemäri, olisi parempi sana, eikö?

    "Vakka kantensa valitsee ja niin edelleen.
    Eclipsen erottaa todellakin satanisteista ainoastaan se, että satanistit tunnustavat omaa väriään avoimesti, Eclipse taas kätkeytyy keinotekoisen hurskautensa ja tekopyhyytensä taakse.
    Raamatussa taidetaan kutsua näitä "eclipsejä" ulkokullatuiksi ;-D"

    Sinunlaisia kutsutaan Raamatussa tyhmiksi.
    Kyllähän minä väriäni tunnustan, mutta en kynnysmattokristillisyyttä.
    Joskaan en todellakaan väitä olevani mikään mallikristitty.
    Se on yleensä teidän teesinne.

    Entä mitä väliä sillä olisi vaikka olisin maailman huonoin ihminen?

    "No tuo "roskapropaganda" sanan putkahtaminen tuoksahtavasta suustasi on lähinnä huvittavaa, vai mitä de ATHEME? :D"

    Ai, tuoko siis on se "voitto" jolla paisuttelet egoasi?
    Shefu ilmeisestikin poisti sen silloisen avauksisi, ennen kuin ehdit lukea palautteeni (tosin samapas tuo tietenkin on, kun sinua ei se totuus ole koskaan kiinnostunut)

    Calantha siis kirjoitti, että hän käyttää kehän luomisessa sauvaa athamen (ts. veitsen) SIJASTA.

    Ainoastaan sinun kaltaisesi imbesilli voisi tuosta tulkita, että Athame olisi yhtä kuin Sauva.

    Ja jälleen ratakiskosta väännetty esimerkki, joka luonnollisestikin menee hukkaan, koskapa kaltaiseltasi neanderthalilta puuttuu mitä ilmeisimminkin edes alustava sisälukutaito:

    Usemmat ihmiset käyttävät henkilökohtaiseen matkustamiseen henkilöautoa.
    Kuitenkin löytyy myös sellaisia ihmisiä, jotka henkilöauton sijaan ajavat mielummin polkupyörällä tai moottoripyörällä (tai sinun tapauksessasi apurattain varustetulla kolmipyörällä)

    Se, että nämä ihmiset käyttävät ajaessaan vaihtoehtoista kulkuneuvoa ei todellakaan tarkoita sitä, että polkupyöriä tai moottoripyöriä alettaisiin kutsumaan yhtä äkkiä autoiksi.

    Vastaavasti, mikäli joku yksittäinen henkilö käyttää Athamen korvikkeena sauvaa, niin se ei todellakaan tarkoita että sauva olisi yhtä äkkiä muuttunut veitseksi.

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    "erehtyi länksyttämään minulle, ja saikin nenilleen."

    Eclipse on ilmeisesti taas nähnyt märkää unta...

    mutta minä en näe vastakeskustelijoista märkiä unia. Sinä tosin vaikutat hieman sellaiselta pojalta?

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    "No tuo "roskapropaganda" sanan putkahtaminen tuoksahtavasta suustasi on lähinnä huvittavaa, vai mitä de ATHEME? :D"

    Ai, tuoko siis on se "voitto" jolla paisuttelet egoasi?
    Shefu ilmeisestikin poisti sen silloisen avauksisi, ennen kuin ehdit lukea palautteeni (tosin samapas tuo tietenkin on, kun sinua ei se totuus ole koskaan kiinnostunut)

    Calantha siis kirjoitti, että hän käyttää kehän luomisessa sauvaa athamen (ts. veitsen) SIJASTA.

    Ainoastaan sinun kaltaisesi imbesilli voisi tuosta tulkita, että Athame olisi yhtä kuin Sauva.

    Ja jälleen ratakiskosta väännetty esimerkki, joka luonnollisestikin menee hukkaan, koskapa kaltaiseltasi neanderthalilta puuttuu mitä ilmeisimminkin edes alustava sisälukutaito:

    Usemmat ihmiset käyttävät henkilökohtaiseen matkustamiseen henkilöautoa.
    Kuitenkin löytyy myös sellaisia ihmisiä, jotka henkilöauton sijaan ajavat mielummin polkupyörällä tai moottoripyörällä (tai sinun tapauksessasi apurattain varustetulla kolmipyörällä)

    Se, että nämä ihmiset käyttävät ajaessaan vaihtoehtoista kulkuneuvoa ei todellakaan tarkoita sitä, että polkupyöriä tai moottoripyöriä alettaisiin kutsumaan yhtä äkkiä autoiksi.

    Vastaavasti, mikäli joku yksittäinen henkilö käyttää Athamen korvikkeena sauvaa, niin se ei todellakaan tarkoita että sauva olisi yhtä äkkiä muuttunut veitseksi.

    "Ai, tuoko siis on se "voitto" jolla paisuttelet egoasi?
    Shefu ilmeisestikin poisti sen silloisen avauksisi, ennen kuin ehdit lukea palautteeni (tosin samapas tuo tietenkin on, kun sinua ei se totuus ole koskaan kiinnostunut)"

    Vain sekö? :D In your dreams..
    Sheriffi itseasiassa poisteli useita sinun täysin palstalle liittymättömiä avauksia. Näet täällä on tapana keskustelu itse aiheesta, mutta koska sinähän tiedät jo kaiken kaikesta, ei sinun tarvise, joten voit aina koittaa haastaa riitaa, sehän sopisi sinun primitiiviselle luonteellesi?

    "Calantha siis kirjoitti, että hän käyttää kehän luomisessa sauvaa athamen (ts. veitsen) SIJASTA.

    Ainoastaan sinun kaltaisesi imbesilli voisi tuosta tulkita, että Athame olisi yhtä kuin Sauva."

    Et vieläkään käsitä, idiootti, että ATHEME on fallos-symboli, jota symboloi mikä tahansa sauva!!PÄSSI!! Fallos sen sijaan symboloinee sinua, pieni, kurttuinen, ehkäpä visvaakin valuva, ja ÄO on hyvin alhainen.

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    "Ai, tuoko siis on se "voitto" jolla paisuttelet egoasi?
    Shefu ilmeisestikin poisti sen silloisen avauksisi, ennen kuin ehdit lukea palautteeni (tosin samapas tuo tietenkin on, kun sinua ei se totuus ole koskaan kiinnostunut)"

    Vain sekö? :D In your dreams..
    Sheriffi itseasiassa poisteli useita sinun täysin palstalle liittymättömiä avauksia. Näet täällä on tapana keskustelu itse aiheesta, mutta koska sinähän tiedät jo kaiken kaikesta, ei sinun tarvise, joten voit aina koittaa haastaa riitaa, sehän sopisi sinun primitiiviselle luonteellesi?

    "Calantha siis kirjoitti, että hän käyttää kehän luomisessa sauvaa athamen (ts. veitsen) SIJASTA.

    Ainoastaan sinun kaltaisesi imbesilli voisi tuosta tulkita, että Athame olisi yhtä kuin Sauva."

    Et vieläkään käsitä, idiootti, että ATHEME on fallos-symboli, jota symboloi mikä tahansa sauva!!PÄSSI!! Fallos sen sijaan symboloinee sinua, pieni, kurttuinen, ehkäpä visvaakin valuva, ja ÄO on hyvin alhainen.

    "Sheriffi itseasiassa poisteli useita sinun täysin palstalle liittymättömiä avauksia. Näet täällä on tapana keskustelu itse aiheesta, mutta koska sinähän tiedät jo kaiken kaikesta, ei sinun tarvise, joten voit aina koittaa haastaa riitaa, sehän sopisi sinun primitiiviselle luonteellesi?"

    Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti.

    ////////////////////////////////////////

    "Et vieläkään käsitä, idiootti, että ATHEME on fallos-symboli, jota symboloi mikä tahansa sauva!!PÄSSI!!"

    Heh heh heh...
    Kuten tavallista sinulle, alat jälleen soittamaan suutasi kun esille tulee asia, jota et ole ymmärtänyt. Sinulla on kiva tapa kompensoida kokemasi nöyryytykset lapsellisella kiukuttelulla...

    Atheme on määritelty selvällä suomen kielellä vaikkapa täällä:
    http://www.funet.fi/~magi/metsola/arkisto/wicca/sohlberg/4-rituaalit.html

    "Jokaisella noidalla on yleensä henkilökohtainen rituaaliveitsi eli athame, joka voi olla periaatteessa tavallinen veitsi, mutta sitä ei saa käyttää muihin kuin rituaalisiin tarkoituksiin. Athamea käytetään maagisen kehän luomiseen ja poistamiseen liittyvissä rituaaleissa. Se on maskuliinisuuden symboli. Farrarien kirjassa athame liitetään tulen elementtiin (Farrar 1984, 251-252). Rituaaliveitsen kautta suunnataan energiaa omasta kehosta (Cunningham 1988, 95)."

    ATHAME on nimitys nimenomaan RITUAALIVEITSELLE, erotuksena mistä hyvänsä muusta veitsestä, esim "työveitsenä" käytetystä BOLLINESTA. Ja totta helvetissä se athame ON "maskuliinisuuden symboli", enkä minä sitä piirrettä ole missään vaiheessa kieltänytkään...
    Mutta kun tuollaisen idiootin päähän ei tunnu mahtuvan, että käsite "ATHEME" sisältää myös paljon muuta, kuin MINKÄ TAHANSA etäisesti fallosta muistuttavan esineen. Ja se tarkka KOKONAISmääritelmä löytyy vaikkapa tuon antamani linkin takaa.
    (Mutta sinähän jätät totta kai tällaiset faktat huomiotta, kun kuvittelet että riehumalla, inttämällä ja päätäsi aukomalla saat tiedolliset puutteesi unohtumaan)

    Sinä kun olet niin kovasti peräänkuuluttanut täällä sitä logiikkaa, mutta omasi tuntuu vuotavan kuin seula...

    Ilmeisesti sinun logiikallasi myös nähtyäsi ensimmäistä kertaa norsun, totesit että norsu on harmaa, ja tämän jälkeen aloit kovaan ääneen kuuluttaa ihmisille, että mikä hyvänsä harmaa esine tai asia on nimenomaan norsu...

    Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?



    "Fallos sen sijaan symboloinee sinua, pieni, kurttuinen, ehkäpä visvaakin valuva, ja ÄO on hyvin alhainen"

    Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    "Sheriffi itseasiassa poisteli useita sinun täysin palstalle liittymättömiä avauksia. Näet täällä on tapana keskustelu itse aiheesta, mutta koska sinähän tiedät jo kaiken kaikesta, ei sinun tarvise, joten voit aina koittaa haastaa riitaa, sehän sopisi sinun primitiiviselle luonteellesi?"

    Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti.

    ////////////////////////////////////////

    "Et vieläkään käsitä, idiootti, että ATHEME on fallos-symboli, jota symboloi mikä tahansa sauva!!PÄSSI!!"

    Heh heh heh...
    Kuten tavallista sinulle, alat jälleen soittamaan suutasi kun esille tulee asia, jota et ole ymmärtänyt. Sinulla on kiva tapa kompensoida kokemasi nöyryytykset lapsellisella kiukuttelulla...

    Atheme on määritelty selvällä suomen kielellä vaikkapa täällä:
    http://www.funet.fi/~magi/metsola/arkisto/wicca/sohlberg/4-rituaalit.html

    "Jokaisella noidalla on yleensä henkilökohtainen rituaaliveitsi eli athame, joka voi olla periaatteessa tavallinen veitsi, mutta sitä ei saa käyttää muihin kuin rituaalisiin tarkoituksiin. Athamea käytetään maagisen kehän luomiseen ja poistamiseen liittyvissä rituaaleissa. Se on maskuliinisuuden symboli. Farrarien kirjassa athame liitetään tulen elementtiin (Farrar 1984, 251-252). Rituaaliveitsen kautta suunnataan energiaa omasta kehosta (Cunningham 1988, 95)."

    ATHAME on nimitys nimenomaan RITUAALIVEITSELLE, erotuksena mistä hyvänsä muusta veitsestä, esim "työveitsenä" käytetystä BOLLINESTA. Ja totta helvetissä se athame ON "maskuliinisuuden symboli", enkä minä sitä piirrettä ole missään vaiheessa kieltänytkään...
    Mutta kun tuollaisen idiootin päähän ei tunnu mahtuvan, että käsite "ATHEME" sisältää myös paljon muuta, kuin MINKÄ TAHANSA etäisesti fallosta muistuttavan esineen. Ja se tarkka KOKONAISmääritelmä löytyy vaikkapa tuon antamani linkin takaa.
    (Mutta sinähän jätät totta kai tällaiset faktat huomiotta, kun kuvittelet että riehumalla, inttämällä ja päätäsi aukomalla saat tiedolliset puutteesi unohtumaan)

    Sinä kun olet niin kovasti peräänkuuluttanut täällä sitä logiikkaa, mutta omasi tuntuu vuotavan kuin seula...

    Ilmeisesti sinun logiikallasi myös nähtyäsi ensimmäistä kertaa norsun, totesit että norsu on harmaa, ja tämän jälkeen aloit kovaan ääneen kuuluttaa ihmisille, että mikä hyvänsä harmaa esine tai asia on nimenomaan norsu...

    Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?



    "Fallos sen sijaan symboloinee sinua, pieni, kurttuinen, ehkäpä visvaakin valuva, ja ÄO on hyvin alhainen"

    Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?

    Sen lähettämäni linkin takaa löytyvä teksti on Jussi Sohlbergin Pro Gradu tutkielma Helsingin yliopiston Uskontotieteen laitokselle.

    Suosittelen lukemaan työn kokonaisuudessaan, ennen kuin alat taas julistamaan täällä "totuuksiasi". Ehkäpä ensi kerralla et munaa itseäsi ihan totaalisesti...
    (Ainahan sitä voi toivoa)

    http://www.funet.fi/~magi/metsola/arkisto/wicca/sohlberg/

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    "Sheriffi itseasiassa poisteli useita sinun täysin palstalle liittymättömiä avauksia. Näet täällä on tapana keskustelu itse aiheesta, mutta koska sinähän tiedät jo kaiken kaikesta, ei sinun tarvise, joten voit aina koittaa haastaa riitaa, sehän sopisi sinun primitiiviselle luonteellesi?"

    Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti.

    ////////////////////////////////////////

    "Et vieläkään käsitä, idiootti, että ATHEME on fallos-symboli, jota symboloi mikä tahansa sauva!!PÄSSI!!"

    Heh heh heh...
    Kuten tavallista sinulle, alat jälleen soittamaan suutasi kun esille tulee asia, jota et ole ymmärtänyt. Sinulla on kiva tapa kompensoida kokemasi nöyryytykset lapsellisella kiukuttelulla...

    Atheme on määritelty selvällä suomen kielellä vaikkapa täällä:
    http://www.funet.fi/~magi/metsola/arkisto/wicca/sohlberg/4-rituaalit.html

    "Jokaisella noidalla on yleensä henkilökohtainen rituaaliveitsi eli athame, joka voi olla periaatteessa tavallinen veitsi, mutta sitä ei saa käyttää muihin kuin rituaalisiin tarkoituksiin. Athamea käytetään maagisen kehän luomiseen ja poistamiseen liittyvissä rituaaleissa. Se on maskuliinisuuden symboli. Farrarien kirjassa athame liitetään tulen elementtiin (Farrar 1984, 251-252). Rituaaliveitsen kautta suunnataan energiaa omasta kehosta (Cunningham 1988, 95)."

    ATHAME on nimitys nimenomaan RITUAALIVEITSELLE, erotuksena mistä hyvänsä muusta veitsestä, esim "työveitsenä" käytetystä BOLLINESTA. Ja totta helvetissä se athame ON "maskuliinisuuden symboli", enkä minä sitä piirrettä ole missään vaiheessa kieltänytkään...
    Mutta kun tuollaisen idiootin päähän ei tunnu mahtuvan, että käsite "ATHEME" sisältää myös paljon muuta, kuin MINKÄ TAHANSA etäisesti fallosta muistuttavan esineen. Ja se tarkka KOKONAISmääritelmä löytyy vaikkapa tuon antamani linkin takaa.
    (Mutta sinähän jätät totta kai tällaiset faktat huomiotta, kun kuvittelet että riehumalla, inttämällä ja päätäsi aukomalla saat tiedolliset puutteesi unohtumaan)

    Sinä kun olet niin kovasti peräänkuuluttanut täällä sitä logiikkaa, mutta omasi tuntuu vuotavan kuin seula...

    Ilmeisesti sinun logiikallasi myös nähtyäsi ensimmäistä kertaa norsun, totesit että norsu on harmaa, ja tämän jälkeen aloit kovaan ääneen kuuluttaa ihmisille, että mikä hyvänsä harmaa esine tai asia on nimenomaan norsu...

    Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?



    "Fallos sen sijaan symboloinee sinua, pieni, kurttuinen, ehkäpä visvaakin valuva, ja ÄO on hyvin alhainen"

    Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?

    "Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti."

    Hahahaaa..Asia itse asiassa on siten että sinä tulit "kiusaamaan" ylenkatsomiasi kristittyjä, ja kun sitten saitkin mitä tilasit, ja siitäkös se riemu alkoi. Sinun huomionkipeä selvästi piilomasokistinen luonteesi luulisi olevan vain varsin kiusallinen.


    Atheme, edelleenkin on fallinen symboli. Sinun logiikallasi symboloiva esine on tärkeämpi kuin se mitä se symboloi.

    "Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?"

    Logiikkani korjaa sinun 100%:sen visakalloisuutesi tuotoksia.

    "Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?"

    Ei, vaan se on määritelmä sinusta.
    Huumorintajusi on yhtä surkastunut kuin muutkin ymmärrykseen liittyvät seikat btw.

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    "Sheriffi itseasiassa poisteli useita sinun täysin palstalle liittymättömiä avauksia. Näet täällä on tapana keskustelu itse aiheesta, mutta koska sinähän tiedät jo kaiken kaikesta, ei sinun tarvise, joten voit aina koittaa haastaa riitaa, sehän sopisi sinun primitiiviselle luonteellesi?"

    Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti.

    ////////////////////////////////////////

    "Et vieläkään käsitä, idiootti, että ATHEME on fallos-symboli, jota symboloi mikä tahansa sauva!!PÄSSI!!"

    Heh heh heh...
    Kuten tavallista sinulle, alat jälleen soittamaan suutasi kun esille tulee asia, jota et ole ymmärtänyt. Sinulla on kiva tapa kompensoida kokemasi nöyryytykset lapsellisella kiukuttelulla...

    Atheme on määritelty selvällä suomen kielellä vaikkapa täällä:
    http://www.funet.fi/~magi/metsola/arkisto/wicca/sohlberg/4-rituaalit.html

    "Jokaisella noidalla on yleensä henkilökohtainen rituaaliveitsi eli athame, joka voi olla periaatteessa tavallinen veitsi, mutta sitä ei saa käyttää muihin kuin rituaalisiin tarkoituksiin. Athamea käytetään maagisen kehän luomiseen ja poistamiseen liittyvissä rituaaleissa. Se on maskuliinisuuden symboli. Farrarien kirjassa athame liitetään tulen elementtiin (Farrar 1984, 251-252). Rituaaliveitsen kautta suunnataan energiaa omasta kehosta (Cunningham 1988, 95)."

    ATHAME on nimitys nimenomaan RITUAALIVEITSELLE, erotuksena mistä hyvänsä muusta veitsestä, esim "työveitsenä" käytetystä BOLLINESTA. Ja totta helvetissä se athame ON "maskuliinisuuden symboli", enkä minä sitä piirrettä ole missään vaiheessa kieltänytkään...
    Mutta kun tuollaisen idiootin päähän ei tunnu mahtuvan, että käsite "ATHEME" sisältää myös paljon muuta, kuin MINKÄ TAHANSA etäisesti fallosta muistuttavan esineen. Ja se tarkka KOKONAISmääritelmä löytyy vaikkapa tuon antamani linkin takaa.
    (Mutta sinähän jätät totta kai tällaiset faktat huomiotta, kun kuvittelet että riehumalla, inttämällä ja päätäsi aukomalla saat tiedolliset puutteesi unohtumaan)

    Sinä kun olet niin kovasti peräänkuuluttanut täällä sitä logiikkaa, mutta omasi tuntuu vuotavan kuin seula...

    Ilmeisesti sinun logiikallasi myös nähtyäsi ensimmäistä kertaa norsun, totesit että norsu on harmaa, ja tämän jälkeen aloit kovaan ääneen kuuluttaa ihmisille, että mikä hyvänsä harmaa esine tai asia on nimenomaan norsu...

    Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?



    "Fallos sen sijaan symboloinee sinua, pieni, kurttuinen, ehkäpä visvaakin valuva, ja ÄO on hyvin alhainen"

    Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?

    "Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti."

    Hahahaaa..Asia itse asiassa on siten että sinä tulit "kiusaamaan" ylenkatsomiasi kristittyjä, ja kun sitten saitkin mitä tilasit, ja siitäkös se riemu alkoi. Sinun huomionkipeä selvästi piilomasokistinen luonteesi luulisi olevan vain varsin kiusallinen.


    Atheme, edelleenkin on fallinen symboli. Sinun logiikallasi symboloiva esine on tärkeämpi kuin se mitä se symboloi.

    "Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?"

    Logiikkani korjaa sinun 100%:sen visakalloisuutesi tuotoksia.

    "Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?"

    Ei, vaan se on määritelmä sinusta.
    Huumorintajusi on yhtä surkastunut kuin muutkin ymmärrykseen liittyvät seikat btw.

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    Sen lähettämäni linkin takaa löytyvä teksti on Jussi Sohlbergin Pro Gradu tutkielma Helsingin yliopiston Uskontotieteen laitokselle.

    Suosittelen lukemaan työn kokonaisuudessaan, ennen kuin alat taas julistamaan täällä "totuuksiasi". Ehkäpä ensi kerralla et munaa itseäsi ihan totaalisesti...
    (Ainahan sitä voi toivoa)

    http://www.funet.fi/~magi/metsola/arkisto/wicca/sohlberg/

    "Ehkäpä ensi kerralla et munaa itseäsi ihan totaalisesti...
    (Ainahan sitä voi toivoa)"

    Luulenpa että jatkossa sinulla ei ole toivoakaan siitä etteikö itsesinöyryyttäminen jatkuisi. Jos wanhat merkit pitävät paikkansa.

    Äänestä

  • de Carabas kirjoitti:

    "Sheriffi itseasiassa poisteli useita sinun täysin palstalle liittymättömiä avauksia. Näet täällä on tapana keskustelu itse aiheesta, mutta koska sinähän tiedät jo kaiken kaikesta, ei sinun tarvise, joten voit aina koittaa haastaa riitaa, sehän sopisi sinun primitiiviselle luonteellesi?"

    Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti.

    ////////////////////////////////////////

    "Et vieläkään käsitä, idiootti, että ATHEME on fallos-symboli, jota symboloi mikä tahansa sauva!!PÄSSI!!"

    Heh heh heh...
    Kuten tavallista sinulle, alat jälleen soittamaan suutasi kun esille tulee asia, jota et ole ymmärtänyt. Sinulla on kiva tapa kompensoida kokemasi nöyryytykset lapsellisella kiukuttelulla...

    Atheme on määritelty selvällä suomen kielellä vaikkapa täällä:
    http://www.funet.fi/~magi/metsola/arkisto/wicca/sohlberg/4-rituaalit.html

    "Jokaisella noidalla on yleensä henkilökohtainen rituaaliveitsi eli athame, joka voi olla periaatteessa tavallinen veitsi, mutta sitä ei saa käyttää muihin kuin rituaalisiin tarkoituksiin. Athamea käytetään maagisen kehän luomiseen ja poistamiseen liittyvissä rituaaleissa. Se on maskuliinisuuden symboli. Farrarien kirjassa athame liitetään tulen elementtiin (Farrar 1984, 251-252). Rituaaliveitsen kautta suunnataan energiaa omasta kehosta (Cunningham 1988, 95)."

    ATHAME on nimitys nimenomaan RITUAALIVEITSELLE, erotuksena mistä hyvänsä muusta veitsestä, esim "työveitsenä" käytetystä BOLLINESTA. Ja totta helvetissä se athame ON "maskuliinisuuden symboli", enkä minä sitä piirrettä ole missään vaiheessa kieltänytkään...
    Mutta kun tuollaisen idiootin päähän ei tunnu mahtuvan, että käsite "ATHEME" sisältää myös paljon muuta, kuin MINKÄ TAHANSA etäisesti fallosta muistuttavan esineen. Ja se tarkka KOKONAISmääritelmä löytyy vaikkapa tuon antamani linkin takaa.
    (Mutta sinähän jätät totta kai tällaiset faktat huomiotta, kun kuvittelet että riehumalla, inttämällä ja päätäsi aukomalla saat tiedolliset puutteesi unohtumaan)

    Sinä kun olet niin kovasti peräänkuuluttanut täällä sitä logiikkaa, mutta omasi tuntuu vuotavan kuin seula...

    Ilmeisesti sinun logiikallasi myös nähtyäsi ensimmäistä kertaa norsun, totesit että norsu on harmaa, ja tämän jälkeen aloit kovaan ääneen kuuluttaa ihmisille, että mikä hyvänsä harmaa esine tai asia on nimenomaan norsu...

    Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?



    "Fallos sen sijaan symboloinee sinua, pieni, kurttuinen, ehkäpä visvaakin valuva, ja ÄO on hyvin alhainen"

    Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?

    "Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti."

    Hahahaaa..Asia itse asiassa on siten että sinä tulit "kiusaamaan" ylenkatsomiasi kristittyjä, ja kun sitten saitkin mitä tilasit, ja siitäkös se riemu alkoi. Sinun huomionkipeä selvästi piilomasokistinen luonteesi luulisi olevan vain varsin kiusallinen.


    Atheme, edelleenkin on fallinen symboli. Sinun logiikallasi symboloiva esine on tärkeämpi kuin se mitä se symboloi.

    "Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?"

    Logiikkani korjaa sinun 100%:sen visakalloisuutesi tuotoksia.

    "Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?"

    Ei, vaan se on määritelmä sinusta.
    Huumorintajusi on yhtä surkastunut kuin muutkin ymmärrykseen liittyvät seikat btw.

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    "Minä yritin heti tälle palstalle saavuttuani monta päivää saada sinulta vastausta esittämiini täysin asiallisiin kysymyksiin... Sinulta ei kuulunut yhtäkään vastausta, ainoastaan jatkuvaa päänaukomista...
    Jossain vaiheessa tuli sitten vastaan se raja, jossa en viitsinyt enää yrittää saada sinusta irti niitä asiallisia perusteluja, vaan päätin vastata sinulle samassa sävyssä, jota itse olet käyttänyt keskustelujemme alusta asti."

    Hahahaaa..Asia itse asiassa on siten että sinä tulit "kiusaamaan" ylenkatsomiasi kristittyjä, ja kun sitten saitkin mitä tilasit, ja siitäkös se riemu alkoi. Sinun huomionkipeä selvästi piilomasokistinen luonteesi luulisi olevan vain varsin kiusallinen.


    Atheme, edelleenkin on fallinen symboli. Sinun logiikallasi symboloiva esine on tärkeämpi kuin se mitä se symboloi.

    "Tuo logiikkako on sitä sinun 100-kertaista ymmärrystäsi?"

    Logiikkani korjaa sinun 100%:sen visakalloisuutesi tuotoksia.

    "Tuoko on sinun määritelmäsi "fallokselle"? Nooh, jos omasi sopii tuohon kuvaukseen, niin en kyllä ihmettele enää käytöstäsi täällä, Herra Peniskompleksi ;-)
    Mistä asti penikseltä muka on mitattu älykkyysosamäärä?"

    Ei, vaan se on määritelmä sinusta.
    Huumorintajusi on yhtä surkastunut kuin muutkin ymmärrykseen liittyvät seikat btw.

    Viat löytyvät kaikkialta muualta paitsi Hänen Täydellisyydestään Eclipsestä...

    "Hahahaaa..Asia itse asiassa on siten että sinä tulit "kiusaamaan" ylenkatsomiasi kristittyjä, ja kun sitten saitkin mitä tilasit, ja siitäkös se riemu alkoi."

    Eips, silloin Tammikuussa oikaisin niitä silloisessa "tutkielmassasi" olleita asiavirheitä.
    Sinulle tietisti on hirvittävä henkilökohtainen loukkaus, mikäli joku uskaltaa kyseenalaistaa kaiken sen roskan, mitä täällä tyrkytät.
    Tämä palsta on edelleen yleisesti Uskontopalsta. Jos haluat nauttia(?) kaltaisestasi seurasta, niin Suomi24:lla on sitä varten ihan erikseen oma palsta kristityille.

    "Atheme, edelleenkin on fallinen symboli. Sinun logiikallasi symboloiva esine on tärkeämpi kuin se mitä se symboloi."

    Sinä irroitat edelleen tuon yhden merkityksen asiayhteydestään, ja takerrut kiinni siihen, ettei sinun tarvitsisi myöntää tietämättömyyttäsi.

    Kokonaisuus on tärkeämpää kuin yksittäinen, tarkoitushakuisesti asiayhteydestä irroitettu symbolinen merkitys. Tässä tapauksessa on kyse siitä että toisin kuin sinä väität, Athame ei suinkaan ole mukä hyvänsä vastaan tuleva kepukka. Sinun logiikallasi ilmeisesti mikä tahansa pyörillä varustettu kulkuväline on auto?

    "Huumorintajusi on yhtä surkastunut kuin muutkin ymmärrykseen liittyvät seikat btw."

    Niin, ilmeisesti itse olet sitä mieltä että ruumiineritteiden ja oman peniksesi makaaberin ulkoasun kuvaileminen on laatuhuumoria...

    Äänestä

Näin kerran dokumentti-pätkän Amerikkalaisesta, yllätys, kirkosta joiden jumalanpalveluksissa 'käsiteltiin' käärmeitä. Vanhassa testamentissa mainitaan ilmeisesti jotain käärmeen, tuon pahan symbolin, pitämisestä käsissä ja nämä jumalan lapset olivat ottaneet asian kirjaimellisesti ja siis pitelivät kalkkarokäärmeitä käsissään jumalanpalveluksen yhteydessä.
Ainakin yksi kyseisen seurakunnan jäsenistä oli kuollut puremaan ja monien sormet ja kädet olivat aika huonossa kunnossa lukuisten puremien johdosta. Uskoo ken tahtoo.

Äänestä

siksikö olet satanisti , että olet ottanut laajalti selvää uskovaisten tekemistä rikoksista ? ja tullut sitten päätelmään, että parasta olla heistä mahdollisimman kaukana ? Oma taustani on sikäli samankaltainen, että kun opiskelin aluksi teologiaa Helsingissä, lähdin sieltä äkkiä pakoon huomattuani miten typerää ja pimeää porukkaa sinne oli kasautunut .. Huomattuani miten kauheita ihmisiä useimmat uskovaiset ovat, olen päättnyt pysyä heistä niin kaukana kuin mahdollista...Mutta en lue tätä kristillisyyden perustajan Jeesuksen viaksi, enkä liittoudu sen takia Luficer / tai animapuolensa Lucian kanssa, vaan luotan siihen että Jeesus tulee takaisin ja tekee selvää jälkeä näistä pönttöpäistä... Niin, uskon todella että viimeisenä päivänä totuus paljastuu ja silloin nähdään että uskovaisista suurin osa on ollut pimeistä pimeimpiä saatanan liittolaisia. Sinä olen käsittääkseni väärässä jengissä leimatessasis itsesi satanistiksi...Suomen uskovaiset ovat satanisteja, sinä yrität seurata selvästi touuden henkeä.. Tätä kaikkea se tarkoittaa kun sanotaan että '''viimeiset tulevat ensimmäisiksi''

Äänestä
  • Olen Satanisti ideologian vuoksi ja kunnioitan sen käsitteitä. Olisit kysynyt ennen kuin muodostit ennakkoluulon ja uskoit sen todeksi, vaikka todistajina olivat vain omat mielipiteesi.

    Jos et kerro minulle vastauksia kysymyksiini, olet hyödytön. Miksi edes vaivauduit vastaamaan pääpostiini?

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Olen Satanisti ideologian vuoksi ja kunnioitan sen käsitteitä. Olisit kysynyt ennen kuin muodostit ennakkoluulon ja uskoit sen todeksi, vaikka todistajina olivat vain omat mielipiteesi.

    Jos et kerro minulle vastauksia kysymyksiini, olet hyödytön. Miksi edes vaivauduit vastaamaan pääpostiini?

    en ole mudostanut sinusta mitään ennakkoluuloja enkä usko todeksi mitään ihmisestä muutaman anonyyminä kirjoitetun sanan perusteella. Eikä pitäisi kenenkään muunkaan käydä ihan niin kuumana. Huomaan kyllä että ne herjaavat sinua ja ennustavat sinun päätyvän itsemurhaan , nämä'' kristillisen rakkauden yksinoikeuden '' haltijat . En todellakaan pidä uskovaisista, minusta ne ovat todellisesti pahempia saatanan palvojia kuin teikäläiset . Se mitä nimeä joku kantaa, ei tee häntä pyhäksi eikä pahaksi . Jos kaikki nämä kristitty nimeä kuljettavat olisivat todella sitä mitä väittävät, tämä suunnaton pahuus mikä historiamme on tulvillaan, ei olisi aivan näin kauheaa..
    Mitä tulee muutoin vastaukseesi, sinä esitit pääpostissa sellaisia kysymyksiä, ettei niihin varmaan kellään vastausta ole antaa, sen enempää minkä kerroin. Ne jotka väittävät olevansa kristittyjä, eivät sitä ole
    Vaan pieniä perkeleitä, eikä aina niin pieniäkään.

    Äänestä

  • esjotes kirjoitti:

    en ole mudostanut sinusta mitään ennakkoluuloja enkä usko todeksi mitään ihmisestä muutaman anonyyminä kirjoitetun sanan perusteella. Eikä pitäisi kenenkään muunkaan käydä ihan niin kuumana. Huomaan kyllä että ne herjaavat sinua ja ennustavat sinun päätyvän itsemurhaan , nämä'' kristillisen rakkauden yksinoikeuden '' haltijat . En todellakaan pidä uskovaisista, minusta ne ovat todellisesti pahempia saatanan palvojia kuin teikäläiset . Se mitä nimeä joku kantaa, ei tee häntä pyhäksi eikä pahaksi . Jos kaikki nämä kristitty nimeä kuljettavat olisivat todella sitä mitä väittävät, tämä suunnaton pahuus mikä historiamme on tulvillaan, ei olisi aivan näin kauheaa..
    Mitä tulee muutoin vastaukseesi, sinä esitit pääpostissa sellaisia kysymyksiä, ettei niihin varmaan kellään vastausta ole antaa, sen enempää minkä kerroin. Ne jotka väittävät olevansa kristittyjä, eivät sitä ole
    Vaan pieniä perkeleitä, eikä aina niin pieniäkään.

    Tiesit minun olevan satanisti, mutta tekstissäsi mainitsit toisen puolen valitsijat kristinuskossa. Tämä tarkoittanee niitä, jotka todistavat saatanan jumalakseen ja luulit minun olleen sellainen.

    Edelleen tekstistäsi löytyy samojen ennakkoluulojen maku, vaikka kovasti puolustelit itseäsi.

    "en ole mudostanut sinusta mitään ennakkoluuloja"

    Entäpä tämä?

    "En todellakaan pidä uskovaisista, minusta ne ovat todellisesti pahempia saatanan palvojia kuin teikäläiset"

    -Meikäläiset? Liität minut jälleen väärään ryhmään.

    Sanoit, että et usko todeksi mitään ihmisestä pelkän nimimerkin perusteella, hyvä. Sitten voisit olla muodostamatta mitään mielipiteitä kenestäkään, kysymättä ensin.

    Muutoin viestissäsi oli hyvinkin järkeä ja olen siitä suhteellisen samaa mieltä.

    Sen lukeminen toi leveän hymyn kasvoilleni.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Tiesit minun olevan satanisti, mutta tekstissäsi mainitsit toisen puolen valitsijat kristinuskossa. Tämä tarkoittanee niitä, jotka todistavat saatanan jumalakseen ja luulit minun olleen sellainen.

    Edelleen tekstistäsi löytyy samojen ennakkoluulojen maku, vaikka kovasti puolustelit itseäsi.

    "en ole mudostanut sinusta mitään ennakkoluuloja"

    Entäpä tämä?

    "En todellakaan pidä uskovaisista, minusta ne ovat todellisesti pahempia saatanan palvojia kuin teikäläiset"

    -Meikäläiset? Liität minut jälleen väärään ryhmään.

    Sanoit, että et usko todeksi mitään ihmisestä pelkän nimimerkin perusteella, hyvä. Sitten voisit olla muodostamatta mitään mielipiteitä kenestäkään, kysymättä ensin.

    Muutoin viestissäsi oli hyvinkin järkeä ja olen siitä suhteellisen samaa mieltä.

    Sen lukeminen toi leveän hymyn kasvoilleni.

    ''Tämä tarkoittanee niitä, jotka todistavat
    saatanan jumalakseen ja luulit minun olleen sellainen. '' sinä itse kirjoitit olevasi satanisti... en minä ole mitää väittänyt..


    Edelleen tekstistäsi löytyy samojen ennakkoluulojen maku, vaikka
    kovasti puolustelit itseäsi. '''Ei minulla ole mitään syytä puolustella itseäni ei uskovaisia eikä satanisteja vastaan... Uskon kokonaisvalatiseen totuuteen , jossa kaikki puolet ovat edustettuina

    Äänestä

  • esjotes kirjoitti:

    ''Tämä tarkoittanee niitä, jotka todistavat
    saatanan jumalakseen ja luulit minun olleen sellainen. '' sinä itse kirjoitit olevasi satanisti... en minä ole mitää väittänyt..


    Edelleen tekstistäsi löytyy samojen ennakkoluulojen maku, vaikka
    kovasti puolustelit itseäsi. '''Ei minulla ole mitään syytä puolustella itseäni ei uskovaisia eikä satanisteja vastaan... Uskon kokonaisvalatiseen totuuteen , jossa kaikki puolet ovat edustettuina

    Tosin nyt tämä menee jo tietämättömyyden puolelle.

    "sinä itse kirjoitit olevasi satanisti... en minä ole mitää väittänyt.."

    Väitit olevani saatananpalvoja.

    Satanismin ja tuon kristillis-suunnan välillä on huomattava ero. En hyväksy sitä, että minut lasketaan kristittyjen tasolle.

    Sanoin olevani Satanisti, oikein.

    Mutta en ole sanonut olevani palvoja, enkä tule sanomaan, joten jätä se aiheesta pois.

    Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

"Olen kiinostunut tutkimaan mielettömyyden rajoja.."

Olisin kiinnostunut kuulemaan, miksi pahuus kiinnostaa sinua ( mikäli oikein ymmärsin )?

Kiitos jos vaivaudut vastaamaan :-)

Äänestä
  • Aika mielenkiintoista, että mainitsit pahuuden. Väitin aluksi tuon puolen kristinuskosta olevan hulluutta ja typeryyttä, mutta hieno asia mielestäni on se, että kokoat nuo tapahtumat pahuudeksi.

    Kysymykseesi ei ole helppoa vastausta. Vastaa itse, miksi halusit tietää motiivini, niin vastaat kysymykseesi puolestani.

    Äänestä

  • Jos et halua / voi vastata edelliseen - ehkä liian henk.kohtaiseen - kysymykseeni, niin voisitko kuitenkin kertoa minulle jotain oleellista satanismi-filosofiastasi ? Mihin te satanistit tähtäätte, minkälaisessa maailmassa te haluaisitte elää ?

    Äänestä

  • ava kirjoitti:

    Jos et halua / voi vastata edelliseen - ehkä liian henk.kohtaiseen - kysymykseeni, niin voisitko kuitenkin kertoa minulle jotain oleellista satanismi-filosofiastasi ? Mihin te satanistit tähtäätte, minkälaisessa maailmassa te haluaisitte elää ?

    se olisi ihan mielenkiintoista kuulla , nimittäin teistä liikkuu vain vastapuolen antamia kuvauksia... Audiatus et altera pars , eli kerro Typhoon . Voin vakuuttaa etten kysy tätä päästäkseni lyömään tai pilkkaamaan , minulla ei ole sellaista intohimoa kuin uskovaisilla.. Puhua asiasta rauhallisen objektiivisesti. Mihin satanistit pyrkivät, millaiseen maailmaan ?

    Äänestä

  • ava kirjoitti:

    Jos et halua / voi vastata edelliseen - ehkä liian henk.kohtaiseen - kysymykseeni, niin voisitko kuitenkin kertoa minulle jotain oleellista satanismi-filosofiastasi ? Mihin te satanistit tähtäätte, minkälaisessa maailmassa te haluaisitte elää ?

    Näemmä ajatusleikit ovat liian korkealla tavoittamattomissasi, joten voin vastata kysymykseeni itse, jotta ymmärrät.

    Esitit kysymyksesi samoista syistä kuin minäkin. Mielenkiinnosta, ehkä myös halusta päästä katkomaan mielipiteitä ja kumota ne omillaan.

    Olen varma, ettet ymmärtänyt vieläkään. Anna kun helpotan vielä.

    Yksinkertaisesti, halusin tietää koska se kiinnostaa minua. Tuohon ei ole mitään sen ihmeellisempää syytä.

    Halusit tietää maailmankuvastani, lue pari viestiä eteenpäin.
    Eräs toinen esitti saman kysymyksen ja vastaan mielummin hänelle.

    Äänestä

  • esjotes kirjoitti:

    se olisi ihan mielenkiintoista kuulla , nimittäin teistä liikkuu vain vastapuolen antamia kuvauksia... Audiatus et altera pars , eli kerro Typhoon . Voin vakuuttaa etten kysy tätä päästäkseni lyömään tai pilkkaamaan , minulla ei ole sellaista intohimoa kuin uskovaisilla.. Puhua asiasta rauhallisen objektiivisesti. Mihin satanistit pyrkivät, millaiseen maailmaan ?

    Millaisessa maailmassa minä haluasin elää?
    Mihin me pyrimme?

    Haluan, että maailma olisi vapaa uskontojen kahleista ja ihmiset saisivat elää vapaasti vastaten vain omalle omatunnolleen, muutoin laille, jonka ihminen on itse kirjoittanut.

    Haluan, että maailma olisi oikeudenmukainen. Rikoksen rangaistus vastatkoon rikoksen vakavuutta. Jos tapat, sinun on kuoltava. Jos ryöstät, sinun on menetettävä enemmän. Jos raiskaat, sinut on raiskattava, kärsittävä, kastroitava.

    Haluan teollistumisen taantumisen. Haluan pystyä nauttimaan luonnosta ja sen antimista ilman teknologian rajoituksia. Tekniikan kehittyminen laiskuuttaa ihmiset ja tekee heistä sosiaalisesti kasvottomampia.

    Haluan luonnontasapainon ihmiskuntaan. Ihmislaji on eläimistössä ainut, joka tuhoaa luontoa, antamatta sille mitään. Muut lajit saavat ympäristönsä kanssa aikaan tasapainon. On jo aika, että ihmiset vihdoinkin ymmärtäisivät tehdä samoin. Miten kristityt voivat kutsua itseään eläintä mahtavemmaksi, kun ei-ihmiseläimet saavuttavat harmoniaa luonnon kanssa täydentäen sen kauneutta, ihmisen vain tuhoten sitä.

    Luonnollinen verenhimo saa ihmiset haluamaan tai käyttämään väkivaltaa edukseen. Kun liian moni lyö päänsä yhteen, syntyy voimakkaita järjestöjä, jotka ovat valmiita todistamaan omien oppien mukaan kaiken. Kuvitelkaa sotia, jos suurimmat maat olisivat jakautuneita pienempiin osiin, ei tarvitsisi pelätä maailmaa kattavia sotia, vaan pienempiä yhteenottoja. Jos ihmisen laumavietti saataisiin vielä kadotettua, sotia ei käytäisi enää kuin henkilötasolla. Olen sotaa vastaan, olen kaikkia niitä vastaan, jotka haluavat tuhota kaiken sen, mikä on maailmassamme vielä kaunista.

    Haluan, että ihmiset oppisivat arvostamaan omia mielipiteitään, rohkeasti, massasta välittämättä. Tuhannet trendit, mallit, ihanteet ja metodit saavat ihmiset käyttäytymään kuin olisivat toistensa klooneja. Kukaan ei enää uskalla sanoa mielipiteitään eroaviksi, koska erilaisuutta pelätään liikaa. Kauneus on katsojan silmässä. Kaikki on yksilön mielessä.

    Haluan, että jokainen joutuisi pitämään itsestään huolen. Olen itse tehnyt elämäni eteen todella paljon ja kun kuulen jonkun ruikuttavan elämästään, siitä miksi ei saa tarpeeksi rahaa sosiaaliavusta ja valtiolta, se pistää vihaksi. Jokainen tehköön työnsä kunnolla ja pitäköön itsestään huolen! Loiset, siivelläeläjät ja rikolliset kuolkoon heikkouteensa!

    -------------------------------------------------

    Tuossa on lyhyt kuvaus muutoksista maailmaan, jotka ottaisin. Nämä ovat olleet mielipiteitäni syntymästäni saakka ja sellaisena ne pysyvät. Satanisti olen, sellaisena pysyn kuolemaani saakka.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Millaisessa maailmassa minä haluasin elää?
    Mihin me pyrimme?

    Haluan, että maailma olisi vapaa uskontojen kahleista ja ihmiset saisivat elää vapaasti vastaten vain omalle omatunnolleen, muutoin laille, jonka ihminen on itse kirjoittanut.

    Haluan, että maailma olisi oikeudenmukainen. Rikoksen rangaistus vastatkoon rikoksen vakavuutta. Jos tapat, sinun on kuoltava. Jos ryöstät, sinun on menetettävä enemmän. Jos raiskaat, sinut on raiskattava, kärsittävä, kastroitava.

    Haluan teollistumisen taantumisen. Haluan pystyä nauttimaan luonnosta ja sen antimista ilman teknologian rajoituksia. Tekniikan kehittyminen laiskuuttaa ihmiset ja tekee heistä sosiaalisesti kasvottomampia.

    Haluan luonnontasapainon ihmiskuntaan. Ihmislaji on eläimistössä ainut, joka tuhoaa luontoa, antamatta sille mitään. Muut lajit saavat ympäristönsä kanssa aikaan tasapainon. On jo aika, että ihmiset vihdoinkin ymmärtäisivät tehdä samoin. Miten kristityt voivat kutsua itseään eläintä mahtavemmaksi, kun ei-ihmiseläimet saavuttavat harmoniaa luonnon kanssa täydentäen sen kauneutta, ihmisen vain tuhoten sitä.

    Luonnollinen verenhimo saa ihmiset haluamaan tai käyttämään väkivaltaa edukseen. Kun liian moni lyö päänsä yhteen, syntyy voimakkaita järjestöjä, jotka ovat valmiita todistamaan omien oppien mukaan kaiken. Kuvitelkaa sotia, jos suurimmat maat olisivat jakautuneita pienempiin osiin, ei tarvitsisi pelätä maailmaa kattavia sotia, vaan pienempiä yhteenottoja. Jos ihmisen laumavietti saataisiin vielä kadotettua, sotia ei käytäisi enää kuin henkilötasolla. Olen sotaa vastaan, olen kaikkia niitä vastaan, jotka haluavat tuhota kaiken sen, mikä on maailmassamme vielä kaunista.

    Haluan, että ihmiset oppisivat arvostamaan omia mielipiteitään, rohkeasti, massasta välittämättä. Tuhannet trendit, mallit, ihanteet ja metodit saavat ihmiset käyttäytymään kuin olisivat toistensa klooneja. Kukaan ei enää uskalla sanoa mielipiteitään eroaviksi, koska erilaisuutta pelätään liikaa. Kauneus on katsojan silmässä. Kaikki on yksilön mielessä.

    Haluan, että jokainen joutuisi pitämään itsestään huolen. Olen itse tehnyt elämäni eteen todella paljon ja kun kuulen jonkun ruikuttavan elämästään, siitä miksi ei saa tarpeeksi rahaa sosiaaliavusta ja valtiolta, se pistää vihaksi. Jokainen tehköön työnsä kunnolla ja pitäköön itsestään huolen! Loiset, siivelläeläjät ja rikolliset kuolkoon heikkouteensa!

    -------------------------------------------------

    Tuossa on lyhyt kuvaus muutoksista maailmaan, jotka ottaisin. Nämä ovat olleet mielipiteitäni syntymästäni saakka ja sellaisena ne pysyvät. Satanisti olen, sellaisena pysyn kuolemaani saakka.

    Kiitos tyhjentävästä vastauksestasi. Tiedänpä minäkin nyt enemmän.

    Mielenrauhaa ja mukavaa kesää sinulle :-)

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Näemmä ajatusleikit ovat liian korkealla tavoittamattomissasi, joten voin vastata kysymykseeni itse, jotta ymmärrät.

    Esitit kysymyksesi samoista syistä kuin minäkin. Mielenkiinnosta, ehkä myös halusta päästä katkomaan mielipiteitä ja kumota ne omillaan.

    Olen varma, ettet ymmärtänyt vieläkään. Anna kun helpotan vielä.

    Yksinkertaisesti, halusin tietää koska se kiinnostaa minua. Tuohon ei ole mitään sen ihmeellisempää syytä.

    Halusit tietää maailmankuvastani, lue pari viestiä eteenpäin.
    Eräs toinen esitti saman kysymyksen ja vastaan mielummin hänelle.

    Kiitos vastauksistasi.

    Mielentyyneyttä ja kaikkea hyvää sinulle :-)

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Näemmä ajatusleikit ovat liian korkealla tavoittamattomissasi, joten voin vastata kysymykseeni itse, jotta ymmärrät.

    Esitit kysymyksesi samoista syistä kuin minäkin. Mielenkiinnosta, ehkä myös halusta päästä katkomaan mielipiteitä ja kumota ne omillaan.

    Olen varma, ettet ymmärtänyt vieläkään. Anna kun helpotan vielä.

    Yksinkertaisesti, halusin tietää koska se kiinnostaa minua. Tuohon ei ole mitään sen ihmeellisempää syytä.

    Halusit tietää maailmankuvastani, lue pari viestiä eteenpäin.
    Eräs toinen esitti saman kysymyksen ja vastaan mielummin hänelle.

    `Olen varma, ettet ymmärtänyt vieläkään`
    Etukäteen tai ilman että tuntee jotain ihmistä ei voi olla varma ymmärtääkö hän jotain vai ei.

    Äänestä

  • ava kirjoitti:

    Kiitos tyhjentävästä vastauksestasi. Tiedänpä minäkin nyt enemmän.

    Mielenrauhaa ja mukavaa kesää sinulle :-)

    Ja kiitos, että kiitit.

    Äänestä

  • +++ kirjoitti:

    `Olen varma, ettet ymmärtänyt vieläkään`
    Etukäteen tai ilman että tuntee jotain ihmistä ei voi olla varma ymmärtääkö hän jotain vai ei.

    "Etukäteen tai ilman että tuntee jotain ihmistä ei voi olla varma ymmärtääkö hän jotain vai ei."

    Olet täysin oikeassa, mutta kyseinen ei ollutkaan etukäteen, tai vähääkään tuntematta.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Millaisessa maailmassa minä haluasin elää?
    Mihin me pyrimme?

    Haluan, että maailma olisi vapaa uskontojen kahleista ja ihmiset saisivat elää vapaasti vastaten vain omalle omatunnolleen, muutoin laille, jonka ihminen on itse kirjoittanut.

    Haluan, että maailma olisi oikeudenmukainen. Rikoksen rangaistus vastatkoon rikoksen vakavuutta. Jos tapat, sinun on kuoltava. Jos ryöstät, sinun on menetettävä enemmän. Jos raiskaat, sinut on raiskattava, kärsittävä, kastroitava.

    Haluan teollistumisen taantumisen. Haluan pystyä nauttimaan luonnosta ja sen antimista ilman teknologian rajoituksia. Tekniikan kehittyminen laiskuuttaa ihmiset ja tekee heistä sosiaalisesti kasvottomampia.

    Haluan luonnontasapainon ihmiskuntaan. Ihmislaji on eläimistössä ainut, joka tuhoaa luontoa, antamatta sille mitään. Muut lajit saavat ympäristönsä kanssa aikaan tasapainon. On jo aika, että ihmiset vihdoinkin ymmärtäisivät tehdä samoin. Miten kristityt voivat kutsua itseään eläintä mahtavemmaksi, kun ei-ihmiseläimet saavuttavat harmoniaa luonnon kanssa täydentäen sen kauneutta, ihmisen vain tuhoten sitä.

    Luonnollinen verenhimo saa ihmiset haluamaan tai käyttämään väkivaltaa edukseen. Kun liian moni lyö päänsä yhteen, syntyy voimakkaita järjestöjä, jotka ovat valmiita todistamaan omien oppien mukaan kaiken. Kuvitelkaa sotia, jos suurimmat maat olisivat jakautuneita pienempiin osiin, ei tarvitsisi pelätä maailmaa kattavia sotia, vaan pienempiä yhteenottoja. Jos ihmisen laumavietti saataisiin vielä kadotettua, sotia ei käytäisi enää kuin henkilötasolla. Olen sotaa vastaan, olen kaikkia niitä vastaan, jotka haluavat tuhota kaiken sen, mikä on maailmassamme vielä kaunista.

    Haluan, että ihmiset oppisivat arvostamaan omia mielipiteitään, rohkeasti, massasta välittämättä. Tuhannet trendit, mallit, ihanteet ja metodit saavat ihmiset käyttäytymään kuin olisivat toistensa klooneja. Kukaan ei enää uskalla sanoa mielipiteitään eroaviksi, koska erilaisuutta pelätään liikaa. Kauneus on katsojan silmässä. Kaikki on yksilön mielessä.

    Haluan, että jokainen joutuisi pitämään itsestään huolen. Olen itse tehnyt elämäni eteen todella paljon ja kun kuulen jonkun ruikuttavan elämästään, siitä miksi ei saa tarpeeksi rahaa sosiaaliavusta ja valtiolta, se pistää vihaksi. Jokainen tehköön työnsä kunnolla ja pitäköön itsestään huolen! Loiset, siivelläeläjät ja rikolliset kuolkoon heikkouteensa!

    -------------------------------------------------

    Tuossa on lyhyt kuvaus muutoksista maailmaan, jotka ottaisin. Nämä ovat olleet mielipiteitäni syntymästäni saakka ja sellaisena ne pysyvät. Satanisti olen, sellaisena pysyn kuolemaani saakka.

    ''Haluan, että maailma olisi vapaa uskontojen kahleista ja ihmiset saisivat
    elää vapaasti vastaten vain omalle omatunnolleen, muutoin laille, jonka
    ihminen on itse kirjoittanut. '' Tieäkkö sä satanisti kenen programmia sinä mainostat ? Se ei ole arkkityyppi Saatanan ohjelma vaan Jeesuksen. Raamatussa on kirjoitettu että kun hän jälleenpalaa, kaikki uskonnot lopetetaan tarpeettomina, koska täysi itsetiedostus ( omatunto ) ohjaa heitä...Myös sodat loppuvat ja kaavailemasi mukainen järjestys tulee vallalle.. Sä oot jätkä KRISTITTY , tiedä se.. Nämä tämmöset uskovaiset jotka tällä palstalla mesoavat, he eivät missään tapauksessa haluaisi NYKYISEN , SAATNAN JOHTAMAN JÄRJESTELMÄN LOPPUMISTA... Tätä kaikkea se tarkoittaa kun kirjoitetaan että Herran päivän tullessa mustat ovat valkoisia ja valkoiset mustia. Älä ny loukkaannu aiva verisesti kun haukun sua kristityksi , en todellakaan sekoita sinua näihin JOTKA LUULEVAT OLEVANSA ...Ota asia rennosti ja naura paskaiset hörönaurut.. Unelmasi tulee vielä toteutumaan, aivan yhtä varmasti kuin talven jälkeen saapuu kevät

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Millaisessa maailmassa minä haluasin elää?
    Mihin me pyrimme?

    Haluan, että maailma olisi vapaa uskontojen kahleista ja ihmiset saisivat elää vapaasti vastaten vain omalle omatunnolleen, muutoin laille, jonka ihminen on itse kirjoittanut.

    Haluan, että maailma olisi oikeudenmukainen. Rikoksen rangaistus vastatkoon rikoksen vakavuutta. Jos tapat, sinun on kuoltava. Jos ryöstät, sinun on menetettävä enemmän. Jos raiskaat, sinut on raiskattava, kärsittävä, kastroitava.

    Haluan teollistumisen taantumisen. Haluan pystyä nauttimaan luonnosta ja sen antimista ilman teknologian rajoituksia. Tekniikan kehittyminen laiskuuttaa ihmiset ja tekee heistä sosiaalisesti kasvottomampia.

    Haluan luonnontasapainon ihmiskuntaan. Ihmislaji on eläimistössä ainut, joka tuhoaa luontoa, antamatta sille mitään. Muut lajit saavat ympäristönsä kanssa aikaan tasapainon. On jo aika, että ihmiset vihdoinkin ymmärtäisivät tehdä samoin. Miten kristityt voivat kutsua itseään eläintä mahtavemmaksi, kun ei-ihmiseläimet saavuttavat harmoniaa luonnon kanssa täydentäen sen kauneutta, ihmisen vain tuhoten sitä.

    Luonnollinen verenhimo saa ihmiset haluamaan tai käyttämään väkivaltaa edukseen. Kun liian moni lyö päänsä yhteen, syntyy voimakkaita järjestöjä, jotka ovat valmiita todistamaan omien oppien mukaan kaiken. Kuvitelkaa sotia, jos suurimmat maat olisivat jakautuneita pienempiin osiin, ei tarvitsisi pelätä maailmaa kattavia sotia, vaan pienempiä yhteenottoja. Jos ihmisen laumavietti saataisiin vielä kadotettua, sotia ei käytäisi enää kuin henkilötasolla. Olen sotaa vastaan, olen kaikkia niitä vastaan, jotka haluavat tuhota kaiken sen, mikä on maailmassamme vielä kaunista.

    Haluan, että ihmiset oppisivat arvostamaan omia mielipiteitään, rohkeasti, massasta välittämättä. Tuhannet trendit, mallit, ihanteet ja metodit saavat ihmiset käyttäytymään kuin olisivat toistensa klooneja. Kukaan ei enää uskalla sanoa mielipiteitään eroaviksi, koska erilaisuutta pelätään liikaa. Kauneus on katsojan silmässä. Kaikki on yksilön mielessä.

    Haluan, että jokainen joutuisi pitämään itsestään huolen. Olen itse tehnyt elämäni eteen todella paljon ja kun kuulen jonkun ruikuttavan elämästään, siitä miksi ei saa tarpeeksi rahaa sosiaaliavusta ja valtiolta, se pistää vihaksi. Jokainen tehköön työnsä kunnolla ja pitäköön itsestään huolen! Loiset, siivelläeläjät ja rikolliset kuolkoon heikkouteensa!

    -------------------------------------------------

    Tuossa on lyhyt kuvaus muutoksista maailmaan, jotka ottaisin. Nämä ovat olleet mielipiteitäni syntymästäni saakka ja sellaisena ne pysyvät. Satanisti olen, sellaisena pysyn kuolemaani saakka.

    ( mahtaako tulla taas kahteen kertaan ) ''Haluan, että maailma olisi vapaa uskontojen kahleista ja ihmiset saisivat
    elää vapaasti vastaten vain omalle omatunnolleen, muutoin laille, jonka
    ihminen on itse kirjoittanut. '' Tieäkkö sä satanisti kenen programmia sinä
    mainostat ? Se ei ole arkkityyppi Saatanan ohjelma vaan Jeesuksen.
    Raamatussa on kirjoitettu että kun hän jälleenpalaa, kaikki uskonnot
    lopetetaan tarpeettomina, koska täysi itsetiedostus ( omatunto ) ohjaa
    heitä...Myös sodat loppuvat ja kaavailemasi mukainen järjestys tulee
    vallalle.. Sä oot jätkä KRISTITTY , tiedä se.. Nämä tämmöset uskovaiset
    jotka tällä palstalla mesoavat, he eivät missään tapauksessa haluaisi
    NYKYISEN , SAATNAN JOHTAMAN JÄRJESTELMÄN LOPPUMISTA... Tätä
    kaikkea se tarkoittaa kun kirjoitetaan että Herran päivän tullessa mustat
    ovat valkoisia ja valkoiset mustia. Älä ny loukkaannu aiva verisesti kun
    haukun sua kristityksi , en todellakaan sekoita sinua näihin JOTKA
    LUULEVAT OLEVANSA ...Ota asia rennosti ja naura paskaiset hörönaurut..
    Unelmasi tulee vielä toteutumaan, aivan yhtä varmasti kuin talven jälkeen
    saapuu kevät

    Äänestä

  • esjotes kirjoitti:

    ( mahtaako tulla taas kahteen kertaan ) ''Haluan, että maailma olisi vapaa uskontojen kahleista ja ihmiset saisivat
    elää vapaasti vastaten vain omalle omatunnolleen, muutoin laille, jonka
    ihminen on itse kirjoittanut. '' Tieäkkö sä satanisti kenen programmia sinä
    mainostat ? Se ei ole arkkityyppi Saatanan ohjelma vaan Jeesuksen.
    Raamatussa on kirjoitettu että kun hän jälleenpalaa, kaikki uskonnot
    lopetetaan tarpeettomina, koska täysi itsetiedostus ( omatunto ) ohjaa
    heitä...Myös sodat loppuvat ja kaavailemasi mukainen järjestys tulee
    vallalle.. Sä oot jätkä KRISTITTY , tiedä se.. Nämä tämmöset uskovaiset
    jotka tällä palstalla mesoavat, he eivät missään tapauksessa haluaisi
    NYKYISEN , SAATNAN JOHTAMAN JÄRJESTELMÄN LOPPUMISTA... Tätä
    kaikkea se tarkoittaa kun kirjoitetaan että Herran päivän tullessa mustat
    ovat valkoisia ja valkoiset mustia. Älä ny loukkaannu aiva verisesti kun
    haukun sua kristityksi , en todellakaan sekoita sinua näihin JOTKA
    LUULEVAT OLEVANSA ...Ota asia rennosti ja naura paskaiset hörönaurut..
    Unelmasi tulee vielä toteutumaan, aivan yhtä varmasti kuin talven jälkeen
    saapuu kevät

    Jokainen, joka sanoo tienneensä asian jo etukäteen. Sanoi nähneensä sen jo kaukaa, tiesi mitä tulee tapahtumaan, ovat vain valehtelijoita.

    Voit mainiosti haukkua minua kristityksi, mutta on muutamia asioita, mitkä erottavat minut kristitystä paremmin, kuin mustan värin valkoisesta.

    Jos kristityt haluavat, että maailma olisi vapaa jokaisesta uskonnosta, uskoen luonnon ja siitä huolesta pitämiseen, maallisuuden korostamiseen, on minulta todellakin jäänyt huomaamatta jotakin kyseisestä idiotismista. Ottaen huomioon myös, että mainitsin JOKAISEN uskonnon, joten jos tahtoni tulisi käymään toteen, kristinuskoa ei olisi.

    Puhuttaessa Saatanan järjestelmästä, kristinusko on yksi niistä, jotka pitävät sitä yllä. Moneen kertaan saa kuulla, kuinka eri lahkot taistelevat näkemyksistään välittämättä muusta maailmasta. Kristinuskolle on tärkeämpää saada enemmän ihmisiä laumaansa, kuin lopettaa sodat. Itseasiassa, kristinusko on valmis todistamaan verellä oppinsa. Ajat eivät ole pahemmin muuttuneet ristiretkien ajoilta. Afrikassa nälissään oleville kansoille ei anneta ruoka-apua, vaan RAAMATTU.

    Toisekseen, mikä minut erottaa hyvinkin selvästi kristitystä, on maailman katsomukseni eriäminen. Monet satanistit ajattelevat samoin "järisyttävää" -postistani, mutta se ei tee heistä sen enempää kristittyjä, kuin minustakaan. Minä itse uskon saatanaan. En lihallisena olentona, jota pitäisi palvoa, vaan tasapainoittavana voimana, jonka vaikutuksen voi nähdä luonnossa, eläimissä ja maailmassa itsessään. Saatana on se positiivinen voima, joka kunnioittaa luontoa, kiroten hengellisyyden. Kannan saatanan symbolia ikuisesti ihollani, kunnioittaen sen metodeja. Kristinusko typerässä tekopyhyydessään on hyvinkin kaukana siitä, mihin minä uskon.

    Monien mielikuva satanisteista on väkivaltainen ja vastenmielisesti häiriintynyt persoona, joka omistaa elämäänsä pahuudelle ja sen palvonnalle mitä kauheimmilla teoilla.

    Yleinen ja harmittavan lapsellinen ennakkoluulo.

    Todellisuus on, että satanistien riveissä on vain
    vahvasti yksilöllisiä ihmisiä, jotka ideologian puolesta uskaltavat kunnioittaa sitä mitä oikeasti ovat. Lähes kaikki ne asiat, jotka kristinusko kieltää, otamme vastaan, niiden johtaessa joko emootionaaliseen tai fyysiseen nautintoon. Syntisen hyvää..

    En viitsinyt edes hymyillä idioottimaiselle postillesi. Väitän myös, että todellinen 'esjotes' -nimimerkin taakse käykeytyvä henkilö ei suoltaisi tuollaista sontaa toisten luettavaksi.

    Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä

Tämän julkaisin tuossa taannoin, lueppas hieman origineistanne..

Atheists and Their Fathers
Kerby Anderson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).

For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.

Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."

Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."

Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.

Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."

Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.

After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."

Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.

Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.

Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.

Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."

Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.

Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.

Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.

Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.

William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.

As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.

I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.

Hihihihihiii

Äänestä
  • Lukisin mielelläni, jos ei tarkoituksesi olisi selvä mitä haet takaa.

    Tosin, minulle on samantekevää mitä teksti sisälsi. Mutta ole itsellesi hyvä, että vaivauduit turhan takia.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Lukisin mielelläni, jos ei tarkoituksesi olisi selvä mitä haet takaa.

    Tosin, minulle on samantekevää mitä teksti sisälsi. Mutta ole itsellesi hyvä, että vaivauduit turhan takia.

    "Tosin, minulle on samantekevää mitä teksti sisälsi. Mutta ole itsellesi hyvä, että vaivauduit turhan takia."

    Etkö silloin sinäkin?

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    "Tosin, minulle on samantekevää mitä teksti sisälsi. Mutta ole itsellesi hyvä, että vaivauduit turhan takia."

    Etkö silloin sinäkin?

    Halusin sinun vain tietävän, että se ei minua liikuttanut.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Halusin sinun vain tietävän, että se ei minua liikuttanut.

    miten minä olenkaan hyvä aavistamaan. TOsin, tällä palstalla lähinnä keskustellaan toisen osapuolen kautta kolmannelle osapuolle.

    Äänestä

  • EclipsE kirjoitti:

    miten minä olenkaan hyvä aavistamaan. TOsin, tällä palstalla lähinnä keskustellaan toisen osapuolen kautta kolmannelle osapuolle.

    "tällä palstalla lähinnä keskustellaan toisen osapuolen kautta kolmannelle osapuolle."

    Mielenkiintoinen teoria ja kenenhän kanssa minulla on tällä kertaa kunnia puhua?

    Äänestä

  • Tommi kirjoitti:

    "tällä palstalla lähinnä keskustellaan toisen osapuolen kautta kolmannelle osapuolle."

    Mielenkiintoinen teoria ja kenenhän kanssa minulla on tällä kertaa kunnia puhua?

    Minulle, ja sille joka seuraa keskusteluamme.

    Äänestä

hoitaa aina omansa helvettiin. Odottele rauhassa.

Äänestä
  • hirveää puhetta nämä rakkaat kristityt suustaan päästävät ! Minä epäilen että he ovat nimimerkki Typhoonia paljon ennen ja paljon varmemmin helvetissä.. Se että satanisteja on paljon, se on seurausta nimenomaan kristillisten kauheasta tasosta...

    Äänestä

  • esjotes kirjoitti:

    hirveää puhetta nämä rakkaat kristityt suustaan päästävät ! Minä epäilen että he ovat nimimerkki Typhoonia paljon ennen ja paljon varmemmin helvetissä.. Se että satanisteja on paljon, se on seurausta nimenomaan kristillisten kauheasta tasosta...

    tekee joskus kipeää.

    Etkö tiennyt, että saatana kokoaa omaa kansaansa helvettiin?

    Äänestä

  • Näin kirjoitti:

    tekee joskus kipeää.

    Etkö tiennyt, että saatana kokoaa omaa kansaansa helvettiin?

    millainen käsitys sinulla on, tapahtuuko tämä helvettiin kerääminen joskus tuonnempana , kaikille jo aiemminkin kuolleille, vain onko sinne viety yksitellen jo kaikki ne jotka ovat kuolleet , eivätkä ole olleet oikealla tavalla uskovaisia ? Mitäs tuumit siitä asiasta että helevetti on ruotsiksi HEL -VETE , eli kokonaistiedostaminen.. Kuin sanot että ''tottuus tekee kipeää'' , ettei vaan olisi niin asianlaita, että kun ihmiset joutuvat tunnustamaan kokonaisvaltaisen totuuden itsessään ja ympäristössään ( myös kipeät, salatut asiat ) se on se hel veten tuli...Ainakin se voisi olla room. katolisten tarkoittama kiirastuli ? Eikö joku satanisti voisi valaista asiaa , miten se oikein on...Tehän tunnette sen helvetti puolen ? Mistä syystä muuten Sveitisä sanotaan helvetiaksi ? Onko siellä liian vähän uskovaisia vai kootaanko se joukkogrillauspaikka kenties sinne... Entä miksi Suomen pääkaupunki HELL sinki , sekin assosioituu helvettiin ? Perkeleen helvetti, kun olisi hyvä saada vastauksia syvempiä, kuin vaan tuo että joka ei usko menee helvettiin... Ei se voi niin mustavalkoista olla

    Äänestä

  • Näin kirjoitti:

    tekee joskus kipeää.

    Etkö tiennyt, että saatana kokoaa omaa kansaansa helvettiin?

    millainen käsitys sinulla on, tapahtuuko tämä helvettiin kerääminen joskus
    tuonnempana , kaikille jo aiemminkin kuolleille, vain onko sinne viety
    yksitellen jo kaikki ne jotka ovat kuolleet , eivätkä ole olleet oikealla tavalla
    uskovaisia ? Mitäs tuumit siitä asiasta että helevetti on ruotsiksi HEL
    -VETE , eli kokonaistiedostaminen.. Kuin sanot että ''tottuus tekee kipeää'' ,
    ettei vaan olisi niin asianlaita, että kun ihmiset joutuvat tunnustamaan
    kokonaisvaltaisen totuuden itsessään ja ympäristössään ( myös kipeät,
    salatut asiat ) se on se hel veten tuli...Ainakin se voisi olla room. katolisten
    tarkoittama kiirastuli ? Eikö joku satanisti voisi valaista asiaa , miten se
    oikein on...Tehän tunnette sen helvetti puolen ? Mistä syystä muuten
    Sveitisä sanotaan helvetiaksi ? Onko siellä liian vähän uskovaisia vai
    kootaanko se joukkogrillauspaikka kenties sinne... Entä miksi Suomen
    pääkaupunki HELL sinki , sekin assosioituu helvettiin ? Perkeleen helvetti,
    kun olisi hyvä saada vastauksia syvempiä, kuin vaan tuo että joka ei usko
    menee helvettiin... Ei se voi niin mustavalkoista olla

    Äänestä

  • esjotes kirjoitti:

    millainen käsitys sinulla on, tapahtuuko tämä helvettiin kerääminen joskus
    tuonnempana , kaikille jo aiemminkin kuolleille, vain onko sinne viety
    yksitellen jo kaikki ne jotka ovat kuolleet , eivätkä ole olleet oikealla tavalla
    uskovaisia ? Mitäs tuumit siitä asiasta että helevetti on ruotsiksi HEL
    -VETE , eli kokonaistiedostaminen.. Kuin sanot että ''tottuus tekee kipeää'' ,
    ettei vaan olisi niin asianlaita, että kun ihmiset joutuvat tunnustamaan
    kokonaisvaltaisen totuuden itsessään ja ympäristössään ( myös kipeät,
    salatut asiat ) se on se hel veten tuli...Ainakin se voisi olla room. katolisten
    tarkoittama kiirastuli ? Eikö joku satanisti voisi valaista asiaa , miten se
    oikein on...Tehän tunnette sen helvetti puolen ? Mistä syystä muuten
    Sveitisä sanotaan helvetiaksi ? Onko siellä liian vähän uskovaisia vai
    kootaanko se joukkogrillauspaikka kenties sinne... Entä miksi Suomen
    pääkaupunki HELL sinki , sekin assosioituu helvettiin ? Perkeleen helvetti,
    kun olisi hyvä saada vastauksia syvempiä, kuin vaan tuo että joka ei usko
    menee helvettiin... Ei se voi niin mustavalkoista olla

    se ei ensin ota vastausta ollenkaan ja sitten kun sen tekee toisen kerran, huomaa että siinähän onkin kaksi samaa tekstiä..tylsää

    Äänestä

  • esjotes kirjoitti:

    hirveää puhetta nämä rakkaat kristityt suustaan päästävät ! Minä epäilen että he ovat nimimerkki Typhoonia paljon ennen ja paljon varmemmin helvetissä.. Se että satanisteja on paljon, se on seurausta nimenomaan kristillisten kauheasta tasosta...

    Näin on, muistakaamme, että jos kristityt eivät olisi keksineet saatanan hahmoa, ei olisi nykypäivän palvojia, jotka suorittavat vastenmielisiä lainvastaisia tekoja herransa hyväksi.

    Muistakaamme myös, että saatananpalvojat ovat kristittyjä.

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Näin on, muistakaamme, että jos kristityt eivät olisi keksineet saatanan hahmoa, ei olisi nykypäivän palvojia, jotka suorittavat vastenmielisiä lainvastaisia tekoja herransa hyväksi.

    Muistakaamme myös, että saatananpalvojat ovat kristittyjä.

    "Muistakaamme myös, että saatananpalvojat ovat kristittyjä. "

    Eli olette ottaneet Jeesuksen vastaan, Herraksi ja Vapahtajaksi. Hieno homma, se onkin viisautta :)

    Äänestä

  • Typhon kirjoitti:

    Näin on, muistakaamme, että jos kristityt eivät olisi keksineet saatanan hahmoa, ei olisi nykypäivän palvojia, jotka suorittavat vastenmielisiä lainvastaisia tekoja herransa hyväksi.

    Muistakaamme myös, että saatananpalvojat ovat kristittyjä.

    että oletkos sinä oikeassa ja muut väärässä ?

    Äänestä

  • Deemas kirjoitti:

    "Muistakaamme myös, että saatananpalvojat ovat kristittyjä. "

    Eli olette ottaneet Jeesuksen vastaan, Herraksi ja Vapahtajaksi. Hieno homma, se onkin viisautta :)

    Kristinusko on duateisminen uskonto, jossa voi valita herrakseen kahdesta voimasta. Hyvästä ja pahasta, Jumalasta ja saatanasta.

    Saatananpalvojat ovat valinneet herrakseen saatanan, jota sitten kunnioittavat. Saatana kuuluu olennaisena osana kristinuskoon, joten saatananpalvonta on kristinuskon suunta, vaikka sen itsenäistä tietoisuutta yhtenä uskontona vakuutellaankin.

    Äänestä

  • +++ kirjoitti:

    että oletkos sinä oikeassa ja muut väärässä ?

    Jokainen saa uskoa mihin haluaa.

    Mielipiteet eivät ole koskaan väärässä tai oikeassa. On vain henkilökohtaiset ajatukset, jotka ovat itselleen oikeat, jos ne miellyttävät.

    Äänestä

mtym

Äänestä

Kommentoi aloitusta


Typhon kirjoitti:

Jokainen ääripää on kaikilta osin negatiivista. Kun luin "Hulluus / viisaus" kirjoitusta, mieleeni tuli pari esimerkkiä kristittyjen hulluudesta.

Olen itse Satanisti ja voi allekirjoittaa sen, että kristittyjen piireissä on hyvinkin korkealle koulutettuja ja todella viisaita jäseniä. Tällöin ei voida ainakaan puhua tyhmyydestä yleisesti kristittyjen piireissä, mutta mitä hulluuteen ja typeryyteen tulee, se on hyvinkin totta.

Kun kristitty menee liian pitkälle, voidaan verratessa sanoa sitä vaikka suorastaan vastenmieliseksi. Ns. kiihkouskovainen varoo koko elämänsä tekemästä syntiä, samalla pakottaen toiset samaan kastiin. Kiihkouskovainen uskoo jokaisen sanan joka raamattuun on kirjoitettu ja on valmis todistamaan sen verellä.

Mieleeni tuli tapaus 80-luvulla amerikassa, jossa äiti pääsi rangaistuksetta uskonnon varjolla pahoinpideltyään tyttärensä. Tyttärelle oli murrosiän vaiheessa alkanut kuukautiset ja äiti oli lukenut raamatusta, kuinka jumala rankaisi naista synnistä tuomitsemalla heidät vuotamaan kerran kuukaudessa verta. Äiti laski summan yhteen ja uskoi tyttärensä tehneen syntiä. Hän hakkasi tyttärensä pahoin ja telkesi hänet yksin pieneen koppiin, jossa tytär sai viettää viikon nälissään.

Tuo on hulluutta. Pahempaa löytyy.

Amerikassa on sairaala, joka on kirkon hallinnassa, tosin siellä ei paranneta lääketieteen kirjoittaneilla, vaan rukoilemisella. Jopa vaikeasti sairaat ihmiset tuodaan kyseiseen laitokseen, jossa tarvittaessa monet nunnat ja jopa papit rukoilevat sairaalle parannusta.

Sairaaalaan tuotiin 11v poika, jolla oli diabetes. Aluksi nunnia oli yksi. Hän rukoili pojan vuoteella poikaa terveeksi, mutta pojan sairaus paheni. kahden viikon jälkeen pojan kivut olivat suunnattomat ja sairasvuoteen viereen tuotiin lisää nunnia rukoilemaan pojan puolesta. Lopuksi nunnia taisi olla yksitoista, jokainen toisiaan käsistä pidellen ja rukoillen pojalle pelastusta, tuloksetta. Poika oli huutanut kivusta monta tuntia, kivun vain yltyen ja lopulta hän antoi periksi. Hän kuoli. Pojan kuolemasta nousi suunnaton kohu ja sairaalaa pakotettiin luopumaan virastaan. En muista syytä miten ihmeessä sairaala sai jatkaa toimiaan, mutta se yrittää vielä parantaa sairaita potilaita rukoilemisella, yhä edelleen toimetta.

Nyt kysynkin sinulta, tiedätkö sinä yhtä vastenmielisiä faktoja kristinuskosta. Olen kiinostunut tutkimaan mielettömyyden rajoja tässä puhtaaksi väitetyssä uskonnossa.

Lähteet: CNN networks, 4D dokumentti, Dark side of christianity,

Anonyymi
5000

Ilmoita asiaton sisältö

  • Sisältää materiaalia, joka on loukkaavaa, herjaavaa, rasistista, uhkailevaa tai ahdistelevaa.

  • Materiaali sisältää nimiä, yhteystietoja tai muita henkilökohtaisia tietoja. Julkisuuden henkilöistä, julkisissa viroissa toimivista ihmisistä sekä yritysten vastuuhenkilöistä saa keskustella työhön liittyen. Myös yksityiselämään liittyvistä asioista voi keskustella siltä osin, kuin niistä on julkisesti kerrottu.

  • Sisältää lapsille haitallista tai heiltä kiellettyä materiaalia. Seksuaalinen sisältö on sallittua aiheeseen tarkoitetuilla palstoilla, joiden ikäraja on 18 vuotta.

  • Lainvastaista sisältöä voi olla mm. yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levitys, kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan, laiton uhkaaminen, alaikäisiin liittyvä seksuaalinen sisältö/grooming, petokset, identiteettivarkaudet, kunnianloukkaukset ja tekijänoikeusrikkomukset.

  • Sisältö ei liity palstan tai keskusteluketjun aiheeseen.

  • Viesti ei ole suomea tai ruotsia (pl. International Forums), se sisältää mainontaa, se sisältää tekijänoikeuksin suojattua materiaalia, se on massapostitus tai jokin muu syy.

Jaa keskustelu