New Post in "The Way I See It"

[338375]

Aw, shucks, it's really simple, folks. Y'all are going to Hell unless you give me all your money right now. PM me for wire transfer instructions.

If you don't mind, I'd like to have a look at Hell, before I send the money.
My wife seems to be doing a great job of making my life a living hell, so I'm a little curious just how bad it really is....

 

[A.P.F.]

In a country that was founded on the basis of freedom of religion, even long before the creation of the Continental Congress and the revolutionary war, it's amusing that so many are so full of condemnation of religion.

It's interesting that so many are so misinformed, too.

Christ's divinity was not inserted into the Cannon in later years, and in fact was foretold long before the authorship of the various books of the New Testament. Isiah prophesied it, and Christ himself was crucified because he declared his own divinity and eternal nature. It was his statement that "Before Abraham, I am" drove the Jews in his time stark raving bonkers, and lead them to push for his execution. In fact, at the time of his pronouncement, the crowd attempted to stone him to death, for declaring himself to be divine. The actual translation of his statement is more revealing, however, in that it doesn't just mean "I am," but Yahweh, which more specifically, was a direct pronunciation of his own divinity. Literally, it means "Before Abraham, I AM," meaning "I am God."

Religion exists far beyond the issues of "control" and "power" and "money." Far to the opposite, religion exists to address an intrinsic need in the human psyche, which is as necessary as physical nourishment or exercise. It's as necessary as intellectual stimulation, and the human emotional needs. The spiritual is an element of humanity which can certainly be abused, but which has nothing to do with money, power, or control. It has to do with understanding one's own self, understanding one's own relationship to the world and universe, and coming to terms with the questions one may have about one's own existence.

The weak mind generally gives way to the redneck argument that all wars are fought because of religion (they are not, though one could say that most wars stem from economic roots). The weak mind declares that religion is a product of the weak mind; a circular and pointless observation. The truth is that religion and spirituality are every bit as valid components of intellect and thought as is learning of physics and chemistry.

The point of the sermon, as referenced by Emerson here, is directed to radical religion. Radical believers, fueled by personal perception and tempered by political motivation and aims, are not about religion at all. When one's religion tends to interfere with the rights, privileges, and lives of others, to adversely affect them and take away from their own, then religion becomes problematic and a blight.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is not a religion of destruction either. The purpose behind Islam is to preach and recognize that there is one God, and all things are subject to that God. Many, most in fact, practitioners of Islam are peaceful, law abiding, and live their lives with no thought to the harm of others. Certain radical believers use Islam as a vehicle for political motivations; this is not religion at all, but politics dressed as something else.

One can scarcely condemn religion for political acts by religious dissidents. Religion is a valuable, necessary part of any society. Religion is cast aside by those too closed-minded to properly explore it's worth, though it's rapidly embraced in times of need; hence, the tried-and-true statement that "there are no athiests in foxholes."

To have the arrogance to reject God in times of plenty is a luxury afforded the soft-bodied and self-absorbed, but one not easily afforded those who fear, those who hunger, or those in need. Spirituality is no crime, nor is it an offense. It's a founding premise of our own nation, the center of the First Ammendment, and a hallmark of our society. We recognize, embrace, allow, and support people from all cultures, all religions, all beliefs, so long as they do not infringe on another.

Extremists, radicalists, terrorists, and criminals have no part of that freedom, but seek to destroy it. Rather than inventing idiotic put-downs for recognized institutions of society, try to open up a bit and learn. You might be surprised at what you don't know.

Well, sns3guppy, thank you for your condescending post. I am too old and too tired to bother knocking down all the straw men you have erected, so I'll leave you with a quote from a man that is far wiser than I.

You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition. [Sol Hadden in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 285.]

 

[sns3guppy]

I am too old and too tired to bother knocking down all the straw men you have erected, so I'll leave you with a quote from a man that is far wiser than I.

Thanks for making my point, again.

It's a weak mind that can't tolerate the spiritual, and that gets another to speak for him. You suggest that when I advocate that tolerance pervade, and that an open mind is superior to a closed one, this is condescending. The truth is that for you to think that way is arrogant.

The topic has gone far afield, and degenerated to simpleton views on religion as the root of all evil, mingled with wild assertions and outright lies. The sermon referenced by Emerson was spot-on; accurate, true, and correct. One would do well to listen, rather than chase parked cars with circular arguments without any ground to logic or truth.

 

[viva la]

chase parked cars with circular arguments without any ground to logic or truth.

circular arguments like Scripture is true because the God of Scripture says it is true...and the God of Scripture is real because Scripture says he is real?

Is that what you mean by circular arguments?

 

[sns3guppy]

An assertion was made that the divinity of Christ was inserted much later. The truth is that such divinity was affirmed long before the cannon were compiled.

Whether Christ is whom he is claimed to be, specifically, the Christ, is up to each man to determine for himself.

The test of veracity of the Bible is found in the direction to ask God directly.

The testof veracity in the Qu'ran is somewhat different; attempt to write a chapter like the Qu'ran, with the assertion that one will be unable. The Qu'ran then prescribes the death penalty for those who would try.

The Qu'ran asserts itself, and prescribes death for those who would question it's veracity or value. The Bible does not. It rightly directs the reader to question God and find out for himself or herself.

 

[tyr_shadowblade]

If you don't mind, I'd like to have a look at Hell, before I send the money.

There are many Hells.

 

[viva la]

The Qu'ran asserts itself, and prescribes death for those who would question it's veracity or value. The Bible does not. It rightly directs the reader to question God and find out for himself or herself.

Tell that to Jerry Falwell and other like him. Tell that to the crusaders who started wars and killed people in the name of God. Tell that to the Right to Lifers who bomb abortion clinics.

IOW the Christianity also has religious zealots and radicals.

 

[sns3guppy]

Tell that to Jerry Falwell and other like him. Tell that to the crusaders who started wars and killed people in the name of God. Tell that to the Right to Lifers who bomb abortion clinics.

IOW the Christianity also has religious zealots and radicals.

Talk about circular arguments of stupidity.

Jerry Falwell speaks for Christianity? Falwell speaks for Falwell. Who is he to speak for God? Likewise for those who engaged in warfare. The crusades were not fought for God, but for land, for politics. From the 6th crusade onward, the campaigns were fought independent of catholic sanction.

One can scarcely condemn Islam because of extremists. Most Muslims are good muslims. One can scarcely condemn Christianity because some extremists are Christian.

The purpose of the thread, apparently lost on you and most other posters here, is a sermon about zealots and extremists...not about Christianity or Islam.

Fools who bomb abortion clinics do not speak for God. Fools who launch corrupt campaigns and take money to preach what scripture they choose to interpret...do not speak for God.

I have no need to tell bombers and crusaders and televangelists that the Bible tells the reader to work it out directly with God. This really can't be disputed. Your direction, then, to tell extremists what the Bible says is a hollow argument which is both circular and without point.

The bible isn't your enemy. It doesn't direct you do wrong. The Qu'ran is not your enemy. It directs those who believe in it to follow the God in whom they believe.

The extremists out there are your enemy. Know them. They do not speak for their religion; they do not follow their religion. They do not have religion. They have economic and political agendas. Osama does not do what he does for religious purposes; he does what he does to unstabilize the government of Saudi Arabia; he has political aims. Trying to blame religion for the acts of extremists is like trying to blame a squeaky from door on the color of the house. With that kind of idiotic logic, you may as well prevent a barn fire by dehorning all the cows.

 

[Bimmer1]

I believe that Falwell no longer speaks for anyone.......................... I think he has departed.

 

[viva la]

I believe that Falwell no longer speaks for anyone.......................... I think he has departed.

point still stands. religion of any flavor will have extremists and there are those who will look at those extremists as representative of the whole.

 

[sns3guppy]

Nobody ever disputed that. It's the point of the sermon to which Emerson directs.

Those who look on the extremists as representative of the whole are, however, small minded and not in possession of the bigger picture.

One can certainly not condemn a church or religion based on the misbehavior of certain of it's adherents who do not uphold the doctrine or direction of that church or religion. If the church teaches love and tolerance and certain members practice hatred and indifference, then this doesn't reflect on the church, but on the individuals who fail to live up to that which they purport to believe.

 

[SIFU1A]

though lotsa churches preach love and tolerance more folks have been killed over religion than anything else, also while some folks might be very tolerant of others in certain countries they might not be tolerant at all in others, imho the "bigger picture" of certain religions tolerance of others might not be too tolerant of others in certain parts of the world so comparisons of what the majority think in one part of the world and what the majority thinks in another isnt accurate at all.

just for comparisons sake, iran is far less tolerant of others than muslims in the US, now if thats because they have the power to be less tolerant in iran and dont have that power here or that the muslims in the US just think differently, who knows?

i know christian folks who imho are far less tolerant of others than they should be FWIW.

as far as what ernie posts on his website, right or wrong its his site and he can post whatever he wants, right, wrong, whatever, he could post the moons made outta green cheese if he wants to, its his site, FWIW i pretty much agree with most of what i have seen on it.

 

[Wunderbar]

Just finished Edith Hamiltons "Of heroes and Gods" last month. She makes a good point of how modern religion has changed from using gods as an excuse for nature to using gods to control others via religion. My college history instructor always recited Thomas Jefferson's quote about mankinds greatest ambition was to control others or something to that point. After traveling the world I see how governments partake in that practice.

 

[Turbo Tension]

Thomas Paine said religion is slavery, most likely in reference to Christianity. He must be a fanatic terrorist of Islam.

 

[Lycosa]

Ernest Emerson made a choice when he decided to go political.
So did I. I no longer own Emerson knives.

 

[Bimmer1]

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Emerson made public political statements long before the recent threads began. Aren't we all political in public to some extent? We all have some ideas and opinions about politics and religion. I'm willing to bet that we all give our money to companies every single day that turn around and spend the money we just gave them for their products on something that we do not agree with or endorse. There is no way we can monitor where our money goes after it is spent with every single purchase.

Also, everyone keeps comparing Emerson quality, fit & finish, and warranty to Benchmade, Spyderco, etc. Why? How much larger are other production knife companies when compared to Emerson? How many factories and employees do Benchmade and Emerson have compared to Emerson? I understand Emerson is stepping up with a new facility and new employees soon but while we should expect quality for our money is comparing Emerson to other much larger companies with more capabilities really fair in this process? Maybe Emerson is putting out knives with quality that is as good as he can do with what he has. There are QC issues with Benchmade and Spyderco. Hell......one forum member who lives overseas just received his limited run Spyderco M4 Military and it didn't have any screws holding the new steel insert to the ti framelock bar. To me that is pretty poor....................but I realize it happens with all companies. How many omega springs do we hear about out here that break on Benchmade Axis locks? If we held them to the standard we are trying to hold Emerson to then no omega spring should ever break and if it does then shame on Benchmade.

Knives are like religion, Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge vs. Toyota vs. Honda, and motor oils. Everyone has their brand loyalty and always will. If the product isn't apart of our brand loyalty then of course we are going to be biased. We bring preconceived ideas to the table and automatically exclude those brands or ideas that we do not like and use that against the company or group.

How many threads are we going to have concerning the politics or religious views of Emerson? I guess if Sal from Spyderco posted his views then that would start a storm as well. I'm sure the people making our knives over in Taiwan, China, Japan, and even some here in the U.S. do not express the same views that all of us have. Just because they are not public with their world view does not mean they don't have one that opposes our own.

Mr. Emerson posts his views out here and elsewhere because for many Emerson owners they are not just fans of his knives they also find themselves holding the same system of belief in politics as Mr. Emerson. Also, the Emerson apparel line, bling products, self defense techniques, etc. are part of the lifestyle of the men and women who buy Emerson. He posts for them more than anything else. My feeling is that if we don't like it then just ignore it. It isn't going away. If Emerson was not here promoting views that others didn't like then someone else would be. Opposing views are always going to exist so let's just get over it. We don't have to like it but very rarely are we going to change anyone's mind.

 

[Kiah]

There's a story that Thor called out Jesus to battle, but Jesus didn't show.
I'd say that just as credible as the other stories bandied around as Truth.
And Valhalla sounds less lame than many other mythical afterlife tales.
Thor for the win!

Seriously though, Bimmer's post pretty much sums up my opinion. People are gonna be Outraged!!! for a bit and then get over it. It's like the Leatherman thing. If I had to share a belief system or political views with every knife maker that I buy from, I'd be sitting here tearing stuff open with my teeth. If you dig down deep enough you'll find that you can always find a point to disagree about. Best to just chuck the whole silly notion of idols out the window to begin with and save yourself the grief.

 

[sns3guppy]

Thomas Paine said religion is slavery, most likely in reference to Christianity. He must be a fanatic terrorist of Islam.

If you'd stopped by quoting Paine (which you didn't do correctly or well), you'd have been okay. You had to delve into non-sequitur stupidity, however, and that should be addressed.

What possibly connection could you make, and what reason could you contrive, for attempting to tie Paine to Islam?

Paine hated religion. Paine hated Christianity. Paine had nothing to say about Islam. The closest you will find is his reference to "the Turkish church," which he referred to in the same paragraphs and breath as Christianity; his lack of regard extended to all religion.

You might do well to recall Paine's statement that: "I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

Paine spoke for himself, and was opinionated. He did not speak in favor of Islam. He did not speak in favor of terrorism. You'll note that Paine stated that he "always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine." Paine spoke opposite to terrorism, referring to those who deny others the right of free speech or thought as "slaves."

Your statement makes no sense, and is neither ironic, nor workable. More importantly to the discussion at hand, it does nothing to address the sermon to which Mr. Emerson pointed.

Best to just chuck the whole silly notion of idols out the window to begin with and save yourself the grief.

Also absolutely without relevance to the conversation; in particular to the sermon to which Emerson points. When the sermon addresses radicals in Islam, it addresses those who are NOT adherents to their own professed religion, but instead violate it outright. There is no mention nor use of idols, neither there, nor in Islam (which expressly forbids it, as does Christianity).

There is no grief, however, in belief in God, nor in living up to that belief. What fault do you find in the time-honored edict to "Love thy neighbor as thyself?"

 

[stabman]

Also, everyone keeps comparing Emerson quality, fit & finish, and warranty to Benchmade, Spyderco, etc. Why? How much larger are other production knife companies when compared to Emerson? How many factories and employees do Benchmade and Emerson have compared to Emerson? I understand Emerson is stepping up with a new facility and new employees soon but while we should expect quality for our money is comparing Emerson to other much larger companies with more capabilities really fair in this process? Maybe Emerson is putting out knives with quality that is as good as he can do with what he has.

Smaller company+less employees+smaller production runs=no excuse.
If he was pumping out as many blades as they, then there'd be an excuse.
He isn't, so that's not an excuse.

 

[Bimmer1]

If you'd stopped by quoting Paine (which you didn't do correctly or well), you'd have been okay. You had to delve into non-sequitur stupidity, however, and that should be addressed.

What possibly connection could you make, and what reason could you contrive, for attempting to tie Paine to Islam?

Paine hated religion. Paine hated Christianity. Paine had nothing to say about Islam. The closest you will find is his reference to "the Turkish church," which he referred to in the same paragraphs and breath as Christianity; his lack of regard extended to all religion.

You might do well to recall Paine's statement that: "I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

Paine spoke for himself, and was opinionated. He did not speak in favor of Islam. He did not speak in favor of terrorism. You'll note that Paine stated that he "always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine." Paine spoke opposite to terrorism, referring to those who deny others the right of free speech or thought as "slaves."

Your statement makes no sense, and is neither ironic, nor workable. More importantly to the discussion at hand, it does nothing to address the sermon to which Mr. Emerson pointed.



Also absolutely without relevance to the conversation; in particular to the sermon to which Emerson points. When the sermon addresses radicals in Islam, it addresses those who are NOT adherents to their own professed religion, but instead violate it outright. There is no mention nor use of idols, neither there, nor in Islam (which expressly forbids it, as does Christianity).

There is no grief, however, in belief in God, nor in living up to that belief. What fault do you find in the time-honored edict to "Love thy neighbor as thyself?"

As someone who spent many years studying Theology, Philosophy, and Christian Apologetics I understand your view point. At the same time I have come to realize that there are two kinds of skeptics. There is an honest skeptic----one who does not believe but is at least open to listen to the facts and may possibly be swayed by the material that someone brings to them. Then there is the good old close-minded skeptic. That is the camp most of us fit in. The closed-minded skeptic already has their proconceived ideas and they have no interest in what the opposing view expresses. It does not matter what level of passion the person has with the opposing view.
This is what you are fighting out here. You will not find many honest skeptics in the world today. Most people know what they believe and they are not going to change. They may not even know why they believe what they do but they still are not going to change.
That is why we see all of this going back and forth over and over and over. No one is really listening to anything. We are all just fighting to be heard. We are passionate about what we believe and we just cannot see how anyone would believe anything different. I do believe that argument and debate can stir learning but now when those involved are not listening and are only bringing argument after argument to the table.
In the end St. Francis might have said it best.........."Preach the gospel at all times and when necessary use words." As someone who has seen the world of church and Christianity from many sides I would say that is true. Until the world sees it lived in the lives of those who claim to believe then most people just are not buying it. The biggest stumbling block we all have is seeing the terrible things done by those who claim to have such great faith and a relationship with the God of the Bible. That in itself shuts the door with many people.