So this televangelist is on the tv in the other room (somebody left it on, too far away to change) and he's telling me that jealously is bad because God put the "unfair" situation there as a test of my faith. He says that to be jealous is to fail the test. But if we're happy for their success, God will give us what we want. Before every "promotion" comes a "test." So we should be happy for other people, pray for their success, because if we do that, God will give us what we want.

So does it make me a bad person that I think that's a bunch of crap, but I'm happy for other people's success anyway, because I just think that's the right thing to do? Being jealous is useless...other people's success doesn't hurt me at all. I'm happy for their success because THEIR happiness makes ME happy. There's not enough happiness in the world, I'm glad to see some more spring up.

So who's the better person...the fanatical Christian who prays for others so that they can get what they want, or the atheist/agnostic who does it selflessly?

Jealousy is what keeps the economy going baby!

You better covet your neighbor's possessions!! And why not his wife too?!

No ... ENVY "keeps the economy going baby" ...
undelying jealousy is hate which is self-consuming and counter-productive.
I'm a Christian and also know the happiness of being happy at the success of others
but I have been taught to "have faith and do good" also.
Sorry I'm not a follower of anyone who preaches ideas that can be interpreted as magic formulas to bribe God into bestowing worldly goods and success upon me.

We are taught basicly to be good and to do good and hopefully if we are successful in this life, God may allow us to continue with Him in the afterlife in which we Christians believe.
I don't try to make comparisons nor do I profess to be good, better or best
but I rest my defence of my beliefs.

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 13 June 2005 - 01:28

Well from what i understand(skimmed through taurus but didnt really read everything thoroughly...not a lot to read either but i am lazy ) something along the lines of taurusrex.i also wanted to add that i have had massive contact with some christian peopleand as i have been explained what you just said sage comes from a chapter in the bible and i believe that either the evangelist on TV interpreted wrong or you just plain got it the wrong way, but anyways yeah the bible says that you should love others selflessly and that the reward FOR THAT is BLah blah blah...now knowing this makes it kinda hard imo...but thats basically the teaching...not to mention that the vast majority of televangelists are BSers and are only in it for the money or so i have heard and ill quote "they should burn in the depths of hell, but that just my opinion".

lol oh man some people are just too funny

Let's get our terms straight. Jealousy is the feeling that someone else has or is trying to take someONE away from you. It has to do with relationships between people and love. The last definition in my dictionary uses it as "vigilant in guarding a possesion" but that is not the main use of the word.

Envy is wanting what others have, such as coveting your neighbor's "donkey". Or TV, car, lifestyle, looks, brains, etc. They are very dissimilar words used as synonyms and it always irks me to hear them misused. Thank you,
Mogictionary

Mog
I'm going to stand partially corrected for two or a few reasons:
the first being that I haven't ever looked to see in a dictionary for myself until now to see the actual meaning of the word "envy" (i.e. I have always taken on blind faith the definition or idea of the meaning of "envy" that was verbally given to us by our public school English deparment).

The definition that our English deparment tried to convey for the word "envious" forty years ago unlike the word "jealous" was "wanting or being desirous of the success or worldly goods that someone else has WITHOUT hating or begrudging them for it", but admittedly the definition that follows:
"envious: feeling bitter and unhappy because of another’s advantages, possessions, or luck"
was used as the first definition of the word "jealous" in an online dictionary (i.e. NO ... SORRY they ARE defined as synonyms WITH BOTH IMPLYING HATE with the same basic meaning and as far as I'm concerned, I'm the one who should be irked because of either being mistaught by our public school system or because as I was warned by someone "languages do get changed" (i.e. there is no mention of the word hate in connection with the word "jealous" today other than implied with the meaning of the word "envious" as the first meaning of "jealous").

Granted the word jealous does also refer to being possessive in a love relationship and it has also been stretched to include vigilance, but the UGLY CONNOTATION of the word "jealous" has literally been replaced by the meaning of word "envious" as the first meaning of the word "jealous";
and I repeat that forty years ago we were taught that the word "envy" simply meant even admiring someone for having succees and worldly goods that we found desireable and would also want for ourselves.

PS:
Are there any American English majors who can verify that there was once a distinction made between being envious and being jealous with the word "jealous" having negative connotations but the word "envious" not implying being hateful or resentful? I don't deny that the meaning of "envious" as I have found today is even more negative than that of "jealous", but is there someone who can verify that there was a change in the meaning of the word envious" or at least that it was taught that "envious" didn't imply hating but only wanting?

Also is there a word today to describe "wanting what someone else has without hating them for it"?
If there is please just substitute it for the word "envy" in my first post.

TR

Perhaps another thing that needs to be cleared up is the idea of good works getting one into heaven. This is an old theological debate. However, evangelical christians (fundamentalists) have no need to do good works or even be good people whatsoever, as far as I can tell. They are born again and that gets them into heaven no matter what they do on earth, such as join an army and kill innocent peoples or take unfair advantage of others economically. The older style religions, such as Catholicism, stressed doing good to others as a prerequisite for salvation. One wasn't assured a place in heaven merely by accepting Jesus as one's savior.

Here's something I've been thinking about recently. I think that all the good that has been done in the name of religious belief could have been done without the religion. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. Agnostics and Atheists also do these things with no "reward" waiting for them, so that is true altruism and love.

However, all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion, such as inquisitions, forced conversions, intolerance of other's beliefs and lifestyles that don't affect the religious person at all, like hating gay people because they are gay, etc., wouldn't have been possible without the influence of the religion. Not to say that non-believers are better or less intolerant, but that religion gives folks an excuse to persecute others. Look around the world, Hindus and Muslims are at each others throats, Jews and Arabs, Christians and Muslims. So much pain and torture because of these unprovable beliefs!

As John Lennon said in "Imagine", imagine no religions. The world might be able to solve some of its pressing problems if people worked together and left God to take care of him/herself. The universe is a complicated place and I am not convinced that anyone has ever been able to give any real proof of the existence of God.

Anyways, Sage, you are right, being happy for other's success is fine, as long as they came by it fairly.

I'm starting to feel like a captured audience.
I have stated that I'm a Christian and I have also felt happiness at the success of others;
So I don't feel any less right than anyone else on that issue;
and apparently I would have been better to ask a nun or a priest for a proper meaning of the word "envy" than to trust my elementary school English teachers;
but in any event I believe it was the idea that they tried to convey that was more important.

Even if somewhere it is stated that "envious" doesn't NECESSARILY imply hate and resentment but just wanting the same success as others would be a sufficient "shade of difference" of the meaning from "jealous".
Does the statement
"she was the envy of the ball in her hot-pink gown" sound full of hate and resentment? I do think something is being lost in the generation gap.

On the issue of having "faith in God alone and doing good" ...
yes Catholics (i.e. my generation of Catholics) required both but many Christians required just faith in God.

PS:
I don't hate anyone but I do hate some things that some folks do.

TR

PPS:
I did find a definition in the Cambridge online dictionary for the word "envy" which is much closer to the meaning that I was taught that the word has. There is a "shade of difference" emphasized between the noun envy and the noun jealousy and the adjectives envious and jealous.
As I have stated the word jealous has always had a negative connotation which wasn't implied by the word envious.

dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25968&dict=CALD

Sorry to say but the one good thing about the English language is that there is a word for every "shade of meaning" which I'm starting to believe that we Americans have succeeded to butcher.

TR

As an evangelical Christian, I have a slightly different take on the "only belief in God" or being "born again so they can do whatever they want on Earth and still get into Heaven" thing: Once a person is truly born again, they are changed from their old way of life. They accept Christ as their savior and ask the Holy Spirit to dwell in their heart and surrender their life to Christ's Will. They are not capable of doing "whatever they want" as they really seek to do what Christ wants instead. Defying God is not without penalty. If you do not observe the fruit of the Spirit, you might seriously question their salvation. This must be done carefully though as the Lord does work in mysterious ways and some things that might not seem like they are done the way we would like might still be part of God's plan.

Moggy, we've had this discussion at least 5 or 6 times in the last year and a half. The refutation of your theory is readily available if you just look. The three most accomplished killers and enslavers of human beings in history based on sheer numbers are: Mao, Stalin, and Hitler...none of them were particularly religious individuals and are generally considered to be atheists or agnostics. They were able to perpetrate their monstrous evils on their fellow human beings because their worldview supported the idea that they would not have to answer to God. The only purpose for human beings on this earth is to serve their pleasures and needs. There is nothing else. How completely sad. Just "Imagine"! No Heaven. No God. Only the powerful and strong abusing the weak with no retribution...ever. Religion is and always has been a civilizing force in our world. Some small minority has abused it, but even so...we are better and stronger because of this. Once Islam goes through a reformation to bring their faith in line with basic human rights and the last bastions of godless communism collapse under their own weight, the world will be much more peaceful and the Kingdom of God will truly be at hand.
Cheers,
H.

This "God" fellow everyone speaks of, will he/she/it/them allow big furry monsters into the big party upstairs? I'm housebroken!
Or do I have to sit in oblivion with Rex the dog and Goldie the goldfish?

~ROAR~
Yeti

Well maybe there's a religion and a place for reincognito
but I'm sure Rex will find his way out of oblivion if it is at all possible.
I just hope there aren't any "multies" in Heaven.

TR

www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html

"You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941"

_from the link above, in Hitler's own words!

So there!

Well Adolf Hitler may have considered himself to be a Catholic but his ideas of "doing good" to the best of my knowledge were not acceptable to the Pope or the Catholic Church at that time. Also he wasn't even German and I have read something that sounds like an Oedipus complex associated with him. It seems he may have been a very disturbed character from early youth.

In my personal college history class it was explained that Hitler did manage to convince his followers that they were on some sort of crusade. There is no denying that but I offer the following as evidence that his crusade was not sanctioned by the Catholic Church:
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0028.html

PS:
Aside from Adolf Hitler, an obvious madman, there was an ongoing struggle in Europe and Russia from the early nineteen hundreds between the forces of Bolshevism and capitalism with the Church caught in the middle.
Can no one elaborate on the setting from about 1916 through the end of WWII? I would like to hear all about it.

TR

OK Moggy...you've got some sort of argument for removing number 3 from the list...how about the top 2?

I will get back to you with refutation regarding Hitler's actual beliefs after work. See what you can come up with on Mao and Stalin for me.
Thanks,
H.

Will do.

Hitler's actual beliefs are impossible to know. He could have lied about everything he ever said. What is true, however, is that he USED religion to justify his actions to others. I hardly think he was acting as Jesus wanted his followers to act! Invading countries that posed no threat to his, trampling the rights of innocent people, killing millions in his insane quest for world domination. He needed to be stopped.

This is how many perceive the USA today, as well. A religious, warlike people who will stop at nothing to rule the world. Whether that is true or not, it is a very common perception and there are good arguments to support that contention. That is one reason I am so scared of the present administration, they are nearly analogous to the Nazi system. They use similar lies and distortions to achieve their ends. One example is that although they KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq, he used that and still uses it as an excuse to invade. He even mispoke himself and early on called it a "crusade" just as Hitler did!

The Catholic church has often been criticized for doing little to hinder Hitler, even praising him for fighting Bolshevism. If the Pope had early on said that what Hitler was doing was wrong, countless people would have switched from Nazi supporters to antagonists.

The Russian Orthodox church made deals with the Soviets not to criticize the regime in exchange for their continued existence. Check out the Freedom from Religion website, it is outlined there. As pointed out there, the Russians were a very religious nation under the Tsars and it was one of the worst nations on earth for centuries. Religion doesn't necessarily make for a just society.

Mao was raised in a country that had never embraced a revealed religion. Confucianism was the system China used for much of their history and it is not what westerners would classify as a religion, more a philosophy of life. It stifled creativity and class mobility for centuries, even so. Buddhism came from India and was changed extensively in China. Buddhism is different from most religions in many ways, not least of which is that it does not describe a God figure, only a system that the universe seems to follow. There are no requirements of faith, just applied actions to a specified goal, release from the cycle of Karma to rejoin the cosmic all, etc.

I have seen no indication that Mao had any religion. He did much bad and much good as well. China was invaded by Japan and the US-backed Chiang government did very little with military support to repel the invasion, instead using it to tighten control over the people in regions already controlled by Chiang. It was the communists who fought the Japanese and that is why they garnered enough support to take over the country after the war. They were seen as liberators who didn't rape and pillage as the Republican Chinese were so fond of doing. Mao was a true revolutionary and founded a government. Unfortunately, the system they ended up with was a corrupt, intolerant regime of brutality and coersion.

At this point I'm going to just attempt again to "water the horse" but in order to do it I need to say something in defence of the Catholic Church.
Can we forego ancient and medieval history?
I mean every people that walked the Earth probably have a closet or two that can be aired.
Anyway I don't think that the medieval history of the Catholic Church is relevant here because I think I can even defend the Catholic Church for that period against why they did this and why they did that even though there would be disagreement, but the disagreement is always that supposed men of peace took up the sword to defend themselves against invaders. Horrors.

Some of our medieval Popes actually called crusades to defend Europe against the Saracens;
but I do feel that the history of the past 100 years is relevant to contemporary history;
and as I stated I think that basicly the underlying struggle between Bolshevism and capitalism in the form of fascism in Europe with the Catholic Church caught in the middle of them are the forces which led to WWII.
The Catholic Church in Spain and the Russian Orthodox Christians were the direct initial targets and victims of the Bolsheviks and I think the questions should be, "why?"
Who were the Bolsheviks? Why did they target the Church?

Do we realize that 4000 clergy people were murdered by the
"red terror" early in the Spanish Civil War? Do we realize that the revolutionists were supported by volunteers from places like Scotland and America? Why? Who were they? Were they just soldiers of fortune or were they communists?
Do we realize that when the Communists attacked the Church in Spain that it was the reason the revolution failed (that is because the main population of Spain went to the support the SUPPOSED TERRIBLE CHURCH);
and yes Mussolini did go to the aid of Franco and the Catholic Church and I can imagine that he was cheered for it. I don't know the motives of Hitler at the time but he was there too.

PS:
I'm sorry but I can't accept the medieval crusades and the inquistion as a 20th century excuse for the Bolshevik revolutions (i.e. unless the motives of the perpetrators of the Bolshevik revolutions go that deep).
Again ... who were the Bolsheviks?
I repeat that the Communist revolution in Spain failed because they attacked and slaughtered clergy people of the Church and the main population of Spanish Catholics rose to the support of the Catholic Church.
It's in the encyclopedia.

TR

All I can say is that they don't call this the dark age for no reason.

Mog - "Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941"

_from the link above, in Hitler's own words!

So there!"

I did some checking and found a site that compares his public writings and speeches with what he said in private:

homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

"Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called "Hitler's Table Talk" (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953)."

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941 -
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday -
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)
Plus much more....the conclusion is that he is not Christian or Atheist but believed in many strange things...mostly in his own destiny. Duh!!!

Hardly ringing endorsements of his Christian heritage! Also in his own words. And more likely to be his true beliefs as this was not for public consumption/propaganda purposes. So there!
-----
Hitler did not use religion as his motivation to get the Germans to do his bidding. It was an appeal to their soiled honor from WWI, escape from the weight of reparations, and his vision of them as the "master race" that moved them. He only mentioned religion (as John Kerry and Howard Dean likely do) to stop from being disqualified from holding power in a nation that had a Christian tradition.

It is sad that you view (or understand people who view) the US as similar in any way to Nazi Germany. Although Amnesty International considers GITMO the "gulag of our times", the gas chambers and work camps have not been completed there yet!!! Although I think Newsweek and Dan Rather are working with Mary Mapes to get that story from an unnamed source!

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all supressed religious freedom when they had the power to do so.
Cheers,
H.

I don't point the finger just at Christianity, I point it at all religions.

Hitler USED religion to his own purposes. I don't think that very many warlike religious leaders ever really had much belief in the religion itself, but used it to further their own aims. Truly religious people try to live good lives and don't murder. They are few and far between. Most people give lip service to their religious teachings and do what they want anyway. Witness the widespread use of contraceptives by Catholics.

I do not equate Bush with Hitler. I am just frightened by the right-wing's use of similar tactics and propaganda. It could happen here, very easily. That must not be allowed to happen.

American citizens have been lulled into stupidity by consumerism, bad education and a lack of community to shame behavior that hurts everyone like there used to be in this country. Having a child out of wedlock was a horrible burden in the old days. Women were ruined by it and therefore avoided it strenuously, waiting for marriage to "give it up". That actually made sense, since we've seen what effect single motherhood has had on this country. Children raised by single mothers are far more likely to be criminals and a weight on society than children with two parents, straight or gay.
"If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."

I digress a lot.