My Worldview

Well, I suppose if I'm going to be posting on this forum, I ought to introduce myself. Hi, I'm dedtekker. You can call me ded. I'm twenty-something, from the Midwest, and I like long walks on the beach. Bring a tent.

In regards to my spiritual worldview, I would broadly classify myself as theist. To be more specific, I believe that Yahweh(which is one of His many names) instituted the covenant of Law through Moses, then sent His son Jesus to fulfill the old covenant, and institute the new covenant of Grace. I believe that when I surrendered lordship of my life to Jesus, I died to sin, and Christ began living His life through me. For this reason, I do not believe that I need to keep the Law in order to please God.

Here's an interesting fact: I do not "attend church" in the traditional sense of the phrase. I believe that the Church(Greek word ekklesia) consists of people, and does not mean a building with a phallic symbol. The system behind the building attempts to re-institute the Law and bring people under bondage. This insidious harlot emasculates men and gives people the false impression that they need to work to earn God's favor. This system is the root of a great deal of misery, suffering, and death, as evidenced by the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the condemnation that it forces upon its members every Sunday.

So, here's hoping that our conversations will remain civil. I'm looking forward to them.

Welcome to the Truth-Saves forum dedtekker. Look forward to your posts and debates :-)

Hello Ded, welcome to this forum. I too hope that we can remain civil, although I (you might have guessed) do not believe in any God, and certainly not in Yahweh. I would be happy to allow others their beliefs, following the wisdom of H.L. Mencken:

Mencken wrote:We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

(Which is, by the way, the only thing I've ever read from him.)

On first sight, you would gladly allow your your religion, but I'd like to make sure:
- Do you think that homosexual couples should be able to marry?
- Do you think soft drugs should be legalized?
- Do you think euthanasia should be allowed?
- Do you think church bells should be banned?

If you answer "yes" to all of those, then let's stop debating religion and let's have a beer.

Hey Niels, I'd gladly take you up on your offer of a beer, regardless of our respective views. Look me up if you ever find yourself in the state of Wisconsin. We have an excellent ale here called Spotted Cow, which is one of my favorites.

Regarding your four questions, each of them is a topic upon which many words have been spoken. Discussing the morality of particular issues is not something I would particularly care to delve into at this juncture, as that would lead me to the knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge (the conscience, if you will) is what causes feelings of guilt and shame, and conversely, pride and arrogance.

One minor detail: I don't adhere to any religion. Religion is a system by which many people are enslaved. I possess beliefs. There is a difference between the two.

dedtekker wrote:Regarding your four questions, each of them is a topic upon which many words have been spoken. Discussing the morality of particular issues is not something I would particularly care to delve into at this juncture, as that would lead me to the knowledge of good and evil.

Yet when you vote, you vote on parties that support or oppose those questions. If you can vote, then why can't you answer these questions?

That knowledge (the conscience, if you will) is what causes feelings of guilt and shame, and conversely, pride and arrogance.

It also leads to personal responsibility. I value that highly.

One minor detail: I don't adhere to any religion. Religion is a system by which many people are enslaved. I possess beliefs. There is a difference between the two.

You wouldn't believe how many Catholics say that. They'd better: As delusional as Catholics are, who could ever take the pope and the Vatican seriously?

Niels wrote:On first sight, you would gladly allow your your religion, but I'd like to make sure:

I just realized the intent of this statement, despite its poor grammar. Who makes the decision to "allow" or "disallow" anything? A person who is in control. By making this statement you are attempting to assert your authority over me in this conversation. In essence, you are trying to control my thoughts and beliefs. Besides being an impossible prospect, you have no right to do such a thing. I'm certain that you would object if I told you that I would "allow" you to be an atheist if you would just agree with me on four arbitrary issues.

Niels wrote:Yet when you vote, you vote on parties that support or oppose those questions. If you can vote, then why can't you answer these questions?

Have you considered the possibility that I choose not to vote? The One I believe in had this to say about politics:

Jesus wrote:"My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."(John 18:36, NKJV)

Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.(Acts 1:6-7, NKJV)

"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."(Matthew 22:21, NKJV)

So according to these verses, the movement to "Take back America for God" is total BS. After studying these verses and others(Romans 13 comes to mind), I have begun to distance myself from political affiliation. One of my favorite authors said this in an essay titled The Baby, the whole Baby, nothing but the Baby, so help us God.

Ted Dekker wrote:Our identity is not stamped with any specific political party or ideology however good or bad it is, but to the man who avoided being identified by any political ideology whenever possible and offered only the sage advice to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

In regards to your point about personal responsibility, I would like to draw a line between the spiritual and natural aspects of this issue. I agree that personal responsibility is important. In the natural realm, I need to take care of myself and pay the bills just like everyone else. That has nothing to do with morals. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that you are using the phrase "personal responsibility" to mean "good morals." By making this distinction between the natural and spiritual/moral, I can make decisions without having to derive righteousness from my actions.

Niels wrote:

dedtekker wrote:One minor detail: I don't adhere to any religion. Religion is a system by which many people are enslaved. I possess beliefs. There is a difference between the two.

You wouldn't believe how many Catholics say that. They'd better: As delusional as Catholics are, who could ever take the pope and the Vatican seriously?

How many Catholics have told you that their religion is a system of bondage? For that matter, how many Protestants have told you the same thing?
Protestants like to rip on Catholicism, but they fail to realize that they are under the same Old Covenant system that emphasizes a righteousness based on works. Confessional is replaced by "Men's Accountability" groups. The underlying message that "you need to please God by your actions" is the same whether it comes from a pastor or a priest.

dedtekker wrote:

Niels wrote:On first sight, you would gladly allow your your religion, but I'd like to make sure:

I just realized the intent of this statement, despite its poor grammar. Who makes the decision to "allow" or "disallow" anything?

My bad: I should have used "to respect" instead of "to allow" - as in the quote from Mencken:

Mencken wrote: We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Have you considered the possibility that I choose not to vote? The One I believe in had this to say about politics:

I don't have beers with people who quote the bible at the slightest provocation.

In regards to your point about personal responsibility, I would like to draw a line between the spiritual and natural aspects of this issue. I agree that personal responsibility is important. In the natural realm, I need to take care of myself and pay the bills just like everyone else. That has nothing to do with morals. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that you are using the phrase "personal responsibility" to mean "good morals." By making this distinction between the natural and spiritual/moral, I can make decisions without having to derive righteousness from my actions.

That overload of crap deserves to be quoted in full.

Your actions show your morals. Your morals are defined by how generous, righteous and helpful you are in real life. The things you share only with your sky-daddy have nothing to do with morals.

Protestants like to rip on Catholicism, but they fail to realize that they are under the same Old Covenant system that emphasizes a righteousness based on works. Confessional is replaced by "Men's Accountability" groups. The underlying message that "you need to please God by your actions" is the same whether it comes from a pastor or a priest.

I actually do know a church that is consistent in following the Bible - and they've actually read it. It's Landover Baptist Church. Watch one of their pastors preach to a gathering of atheists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-jk3VvjGoE

dedtekker wrote:One minor detail: I don't adhere to any religion. Religion is a system by which many people are enslaved. I possess beliefs. There is a difference between the two.

Can I call you dedtekker now?

On a serious note you falsely stated that you do not adhere to any religion. I am not going to assume your reasoning for making a false statement like that but from my experience with others far too many Christians pretend they are not subscribing to a religion as a means of ignoring the fact that they are part of a religion since religions are becoming a joke in this modern age of knowledge.

A religion is simply " a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies)." You follow that definition to the T. Christianity is a religion and you are a Christian as you base you assumptions concerning purpose and nature from Christian scriptures. What you should have said is that you do not adhere to any particular sect of Christianity. That may have even been what you meant to say but it does have a very different meaning than you actually said.

Niels wrote:I don't have beers with people who quote the bible at the slightest provocation.

Well, your loss.

Your actions show your morals. Your morals are defined by how generous, righteous and helpful you are in real life.

I'd tell you that they're not my actions, but you probably wouldn't believe me. (Galatians 2:20)

I actually do know a church that is consistent in following the Bible - and they've actually read it. It's Landover Baptist Church. Watch one of their pastors preach to a gathering of atheists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-jk3VvjGoE

Ah, Pastor Deacon Fred. That guy is such a hoot! Have you heard his rant against the Xbox 360?

PDF wrote:Can the Xbox 360 watch you masturbate? I'm sure it will help millions of youngsters shim-sham their tallywhackers because it delightfully accepts dirty videos! But it isn't going to sit there out of concern while it watches you commit the sin of personal abuse, and it isn't going to cry tears of love and forgiveness as you get up to find a paper towel afterwards!

As I'm sure you're well aware, Landover Baptist is a parody site; a satire of fundamentalist Christian dogma. You thought you were going to pull a fast one on me, didn't you?

Admin wrote:Can I call you dedtekker now? ''

Sure Admin, on this forum. I'd prefer that you use my real name in real life.

A religion is simply " a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies)."

Back to semantics, I see. Would you mind telling me what dictionary you're using? By this very broad, simplistic definition, I could make the argument that you also have religion. You do have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, do you not? Your beliefs just deny the existence of the supernatural. Did you know that in 2005, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that atheism is a religion?

I've found Webster's Dictionary to be much more precise. Websters defines religion as

1b: the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 (archaic) : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (emphases mine)

I maintain the veracity of my statement that I do not adhere to any religious system based on these three reasons:

• I do not believe that I need to serve God with my works.(Matt 20:28, Rom 7:6, Gal 5:13) I believe that I am to serve others.
• I reject the religious institutionalized system.
• I am a non-conformist. (Rom 12:2)

Have you checked out the etymology of the word?

Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

This supports my statement that religion is a system of bondage. In fact, I'd venture to say that this is the origin of the phrase "The ties that bind."

Admin wrote:What you should have said is that you do not adhere to any particular sect of Christianity. That may have even been what you meant to say but it does have a very different meaning than you actually said.

The word sect means to divide, and is the root word of dissection. Division is inherent in religion. Going back to 1 Corinthians 1:13, Christ is not divided.

Bottom line, I reject everything about the "Christian religion" except for the core belief in Jesus Christ and the Grace that He brought.

dedtekker wrote:
I'd tell you that they're not my actions, but you probably wouldn't believe me. (Galatians 2:20)

wikipedia wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility
In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired. The defense's acceptance in American jurisdictions vary considerably. The majority of states have adopted it by statute or case decision, and a minority even recognise broader defenses such as 'irresistible impulse.'

Does that describe you, Dedtekker? If not, then I see no reason why you shouldn't take responsibility for your own actions.

Dt wrote:As I'm sure you're well aware, Landover Baptist is a parody site; a satire of fundamentalist Christian dogma. You thought you were going to pull a fast one on me, didn't you?

Yup: You caught me.
If only Westboro Baptist Church was a parody too...

I've found Webster's Dictionary to be much more precise. Websters defines religion as

1b: the service and ====="worship of God or the supernatural"===== (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 (archaic) : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (emphases mine)

Actually Dedtekker, you're the one arguing semantics. You assert that you do not ascribe to religion. The Admin. called YOU out on the semantics. You're trying to play a word game to wiggle out of your beliefs being classified as religion. Just because you're non-denominational, don't attend a church, etc, that does not mean you're not indeed religious.

You do believe in some form of Skydaddy, yes? That alone is enough to classify as religion according to the many definitions out there, including the one you listed. (====="worship of God or the supernatural"=====)

Worship is the word you're preying on, I suspect. Lets not argue semantics and say, "You don't "worship" God, you just believe in him and live your life for him." As I stated above, and I'll state again to crystalize, you were the one who originally committed the act of arguing semantics. You're reply to the Admin. was basically a strawman....