|
|
tuapui
Famous Hero
Poetic Psycho Baby BlackDragon
|
posted October 05, 2002 06:37 AM |
|
|
Okay so you all get a star for your general knowledge, Social studies and History. Now if you would excuse me, I recieved my report yesterday and how I utterly flunked my history and anything to do with it and everything else. So there. 
____________
 <<<Hy
peractive  Do not touch.
Highly Psychotically Poetic.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2002 06:59 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 5 Oct 2002
|
Hitler
quote:
“Hitler was a Christian, a catholic. Later in your posting, when its about the number of deaths, you even label him "atheist" “
I actually labeled him an occultist. I am sure there are many titles that never completely capture Hitler….but as person who lived his life by the teachings of Christianity would have to be the farthest stretch.
quote:
“In "Mein Kampf", Hitler wrote:"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Doesn´t sound very atheistic to me. “
Hitler USED religion to suit his purposes in the extreme sense of the word. He didn’t even have anything close to a scriptural mindset and he knew it…thus he hated Christians…because the majority of Christians know that the whole Bible was written by JEWS, JEWS were God’s chosen people, and as mentioned before Jesus was a JEW. One can quickly see that Hitler had little in common with Christian theology. One of the reasons USA supports Israel so much is because of a large population of Christians who have the highest regard for Israel given our Scriptural admonitions.
Religion/Philosophy
“ Did you know that Martin Luther not only burned alleged witches, but also called out for the burning of the synagogues and the homes of the Jews? “
I acknowledge that Luther despite his great wisdom and world changing revolutionary actions had some anti- semantic views which again if you read the Bible can never makes sense. His inappropriate words were more in response to what he perceived as their blasphemy of his God not on the race as a whole. But lets not cast the baby out with the bathwater. What legitimate historians recorded that he burned witches? I have never heard that?
quote:
“I think it is, if our actions are predetermined, then we have no real choice, then free will is just an illusion. “
There is a continuum between fatalism and free will….it is not an either/or issue. Personally I ascribe to foreknowledge of God…which affords immense free will.
quote:
"I speak what I have seen in the presence of the Father, and therefore you do what you have heard from your father." "Our father is Abraham!" they replied.
...
You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.John 8:38-45 “
You missed the point of the passage. They said they were children of Abraham (which if you know Jesus’ genealogy he also was a direct descendent of Abraham as all Jews were). He was saying that they do not live as children of Abraham because Abraham recognized God as his father….so instead they were following the devil who encourages others to deny that Jesus is God. As you know from your reading of the Bible, Jesus never denied Abraham nor did he never stop trying to save Jews. His ministry was primarily to the Jews. The bible teaches that anyone, Jews or gentiles, who does not believe he is God is being deceived by Satan.
You seem to struggle with what I think is the 2nd biggest misunderstanding about the Bible from most people. Many of the verses you go onto quote indicate a basic misunderstanding of both context and the relationship between the Old and New covenant.
quote:
“First of all, Jesus strongly approves of the writing of the Old Testament, that are full of murder and cruelties: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew5:17-18 “
You are distorting the passage. Jesus came to fulfill the law to show its true purpose….many times he showed what the true intent of God was all along (the old covenant leading to the new covenant)….look into how he interpreted vengeance, divorce, adultery, anger, swearing in a court of law, etc.
I am curious have you ever read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation or only read books that pull out specific verses that miss the context and totality of the writing? And if you have….have you ever attempted to read the Bible in its whole with an objective mindset versus reading it to prove an agenda?
Quote
“He also threatens the ones who do not follow him with hell and be tortured forever -
A threat? That is one of the most popular misunderstandings about the Bible.
It is interesting how you interpret a spiritual fact as a threat. If I tell you that if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute you will die….is that a threat? Those are not threats….according to Scripture they just ARE…they are spiritual givens…and since God exalts freedom of choice….he allows us to make the choice. You interpret a threat where I see an amazing amount of grace. God being our Creator could of said “if you sin you are just dead and that is all there is to it” but instead he said “I love you so much I am willing to suffer and pay your price so that we can have an eternal and joyful relationship”.
Also again you did not show ANYWHERE where Jesus encouraged CURRENT abuse, murder, etc. You only pointed to verses that indicate the spiritual laws of what will happen AFTER death.
Here is the gospel in a nutshell 1. we are all sinners 2. God is holy and without sin 3. Our sin separates us from God 4. Jesus died to atone or pay for our sins 5. By accepting his payment, our sins are covered 6. God wants a real relationship with us, we have free choice…either to sin and not accept the atonement for sin which will result in eternal separation from God (aqua hell), or to know we are sinners and accepts Christ’s death/payment for our sins which will result in eternal communion with God (aka heaven). There is a logical sequence…if you drop any of them then the scriptural passages will most likely be misunderstood.
Quote
“Jesus commanded his followers to obey the OLd Testament, which says:
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus1:8 “
A misinterpretation my friend. An understanding of the New Covenant I would encourage you to explore. It would help you understand the relationship between the old covenant and its application. If Jesus commanded Christians to follow all of the Old Testament why would he show the new revelation such as “ you have heard it was said ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth’, But I tell you…if someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:38-39)
I am sure many of your issues would become more clear if you understood those Biblical concepts. You could pick up anyone’s writing and misunderstand their point if you don’t understand the totality and principle of the whole. This is particularly compounded given that the Bible was written over 1500 years by over 40 authors (who were peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, kings and scholars, etc.), in three languages, in three continents.
My respect for your intellectual ability has grown immensely since we started IMing each other. But your interpretation of many of the verses that you quote is reckless and sometimes outlandish. The way you “interpret” scripture is misinformed as you do not follow basic and accepted exegesis principles. Your understanding of ANE (ancient near eastern) cultural appears deficient which handicaps your understanding of the Bible.
quote:
“ You seem to think that it requires belief to understand the bible.”
Belief assists in understanding the Bible but in no way is an exclusive means of understanding the Bible. As mentioned previously there are basic concepts that most people miss in understanding the Bible. There are a multitude of non-Christians who have read and understand the Bible…they have written some pretty good books about the Bible…they don’t misinterpret or misunderstand as they practice good exegesis. They don’t agree with the biblical message but they understood it.
quote:
“Different sources say that for example the inquisition (13.-18. century) killed up to 10 millions, and the crusades (11.-13. century) up to 22 millions. According to Deschner, the burning of alleged witches (16.-18. century) took around 9 millions of lifes (this number is disputed, other estimations are lower).”
As you mention those are very high estimates (much higher than from my reading). But lets even use them…my point still stands….the total of those three outlandish figures is 41 million over 7-800 years by your account….my point was in the less than 100 years 3 non christains killed 116-126 million. Again none of the deaths/murders are excusable but I mention it only to put things in perspective.
quote:
“What I value is not atheism as such, but the relative freedom of mind. I won’t teach my children to be atheists.”
Sounds like relativism to me….which of course is a belief and world view that you are teaching your children. Many people erroneously think that the world has “objective” vacuums…this just isn’t the case….everyone has a world view and everyone directly and indirectly teaches their children their world view.
quote
“If they then become Christian conservatives, that´s okay with me”
I think you would probably bust a main blood vessel in your head given your passions as relayed in these posts ….but of course that is my opinion.
quote:
“a book that largely teaches archaic and inhuman ethics. “
First how does that correspond to your “its ok if my kids become conservative Christians” attitude you just motioned? You would be ok with your kids believing in inhuman ethics? Second if that isn’t the most upside down assessment of the Bible I don’t know what is! Disagree with it, reject it, find it silly, find it mythological…but to categorize it that way is just beyond comprehension and not a fair reading of the Bible.
Politics
quote:
“Here is what the former US president George Bush said in an interview in 1987:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
You are too learned to even begin to give that quote any factual basis….that is absurd. I would really like to read that alleged interview. Where can I find it in any mainstream and accepted news format. I just can’t believe he even said that…if I am wrong…well he was a complete moron in saying that…but I don’t think I am wrong.
quote:
“Wasn’t there a judgment a few months ago, against prayers in American schools?
State sponsored prayer has not been allowed in schools for quite sometime. Prayer in public institutions and the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are complex matters to which I think the USA has for too long been on the wrong side.
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted October 05, 2002 02:53 PM |
|
|
I haven't read all of the thread and I'm not going to agree or disagree on people's opinions here. I just want to point several things out.
- Every soldier is someone's sun, someones brother and someones father, someones daughter, sister or mother.
- Wars often kill far more civilians than soldiers.
- It costs years of love, education and material things to raise a person to being a resonsible, kind and compassionate adult. It takes but a few grammes of lead to undo this.
The guy who will never hold a weapon, Nidhgrin.
EDIT: Unfortunately they do. Added em to the enumeration.
____________
~Vegetables don't spam~
|
|
Igraine
Hired Hero
sick of it all
|
|
posted October 05, 2002 02:58 PM |
|
|
Heyy..nowadays women are also in the army you know
____________
the lady of the lake
|
|
tuapui
Famous Hero
Poetic Psycho Baby BlackDragon
|
|
posted October 05, 2002 03:29 PM |
|
|
I think it is a good time to say this. I dedicate this poem to all who died, and those who will die, and all those who had experienced and fought hard to preserve and stand up for what they believe in.
Guns thou they not suffice?
Thou bringeth death and force,
and thy humble heart doth,
wilt change at mercy of thou barrel?
Politics maketh no difference thine,
for thy values is all but statues,
Diplomacy nigh works none.
All is changed by thy bullet fine.
Young men die so, where life ends,
Thy heart doth lie, in deep hate.
Of thy metal that maketh death.
Where hate lies, does death not lie?
And I leave you to ponder, what message this poem tries to bring across. It has many meanings, but I have been sitting here for a moment and placed it in the words you read. War sucks.
____________
<<<Hy
peractive Do not touch.
Highly Psychotically Poetic.
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted October 05, 2002 03:32 PM |
|
|
Beautiful. Nice poem, tuapui. I couldn't have said it any better. (not kidding for once)
____________
~Vegetables don't spam~
|
|
Igraine
Hired Hero
sick of it all
|
|
posted October 05, 2002 03:37 PM |
|
|
Could it be ..Aculias?
____________
the lady of the lake
|
|
tuapui
Famous Hero
Poetic Psycho Baby BlackDragon
|
|
posted October 05, 2002 03:45 PM |
|
|
I think Romana got her head banged against some hard object from the cloning into Igraine
____________
<<<Hy
peractive Do not touch.
Highly Psychotically Poetic.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2002 08:13 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 6 Oct 2002
|
Quote
“just noticed that I haven’t responded to your other posting, Dargon. “
Oh your not really gonna dispute that post…I thought for sure you were going to read it and say “Dargon you convinced me”…lol.
quote:
“And the Old Testament glorifies genocides that are ordered by god (Jahwe), the slaughtering of men, women and children,”
Yes in the old testament there were periods of genocide as there has been in practically every society of humans. “Glorify”….I think that is a mighty long jump.
Quote
“Jesus´ qualifying the woman from Kanaan as dog” and the non-Christian Jews as children of the devi”
I will admit the passage about the Canaanite woman is perplexing, but did you read the whole story…he ended up granting her request….if he was a bigot as you seem to imply that would be inconsistent. Besides the fact that you missed the majority of the NT passages that talk about racial harmony and respect.
Quote
“has not been a fundamental change of mentality between the old and the new books. “
I can address such a fallacy of thought….it is just past response as I would list hundreds of verses that show how incorrect that perception is.
quote:
"leaving out the end of the sentence: , and the wife see that she reverence her husband. “
Yep the Bible does say for wives to submit to their husbands….as well as it tells us to submit to God, submit to authorities, submit to each other. It is only in our overly self-focused societies that we have found submission to be such an awful word.
Furthermore there is a perfect symmetry to the Biblical exhortation… wives submit, husbands love as they love themselves (a very strong command for husbands mind you…the best of us can rarely claim that is an easy standard to apply consistently)….each out does each other…each gives and gives….when each is doing their part it compels their partner to out-give the other…what a great recipe for marital satisfaction that is! It is a balance that is missing in our modern culture so we have a horrific divorce culture to the determent of our children and our general progress.
quote
”woman in the New Testament is not much more than a slave”
That is ridiculous….LOVE your wife as YOURSELF….can you please let me how many slave cultures taught that depth of love for their slaves? There isn’t because it is a contradiction. If you understood ANE culture you would be amazed by what a change of thought and perspective this was. Lets be done with that outrageous allegation.
quote:
“What is the practical use of such an unrealistic demand [golden rule], can it lead to anything but hypocrisy? “
Love your neighbor as your self leads to hypocrisy???? Man there is no winning with you…damned if you do damned if you don’t. You state how inhumane the biblical ethics are and go on to misinterpret most of the Bible, and then when you come to something that is a high ethical value you declare it is nothing but a hypocritical stance? So what is it…does Christianity have inhumane ethics or does it have ethics which are too high for people to live by?
Quote
“the Christians sharing all of their possessions with the starving people in Africa?”
Yes. Glad you asked. We do give an amazing amount to others. Also one might be interested to know that world wide….Christians and Americans are in the top of percentages as far as giving.
Also since when does one have to give all their possessions except in a communist state or in a catholic monastery. Are you saying that everyone should give up all their possessions to be moral or are you just trying to impugn Christianity? Have you given away all your possessions?
Quote
“ Does your Christian fundamentalist gouvernment”
That is absurd…USA does not have a Christian fundamentalist government.
Quote
“Do you love your neighbor to the same degree with which you love yourself,Dargon?”
Yes in fact I have. All the time of course not. I aspire to do it more. I would hope all the world would aspire to do it more as it is the greatest moral/spiritual law save “love the lord your God”.
quote:
“Should not a book that contains godly moral forbid slavery at all?”
Now you are hitting upon something. See I know most of all the difficulties in the Bible to which most you have not hit upon, but instead you tend to distort scriptural passages. Now here you have a point. I would have preferred that the Bible forbid slavery directly. It did not, but it set up ALL the groundwork for it to become so (many verses which say that God wants everyone to be saved, we are not to show partiality, calling slaves “dear brothers”, etc.). An example is Paul who declared in Philemon 1:16 “[Onesimus, a slave is] no longer a slave, but better than a slave, [but treat him] as a dear brother”.
If you know anything about slave cultures you will know that those type of statements were completely lacking from the mindset of slave cultures. Much the same as the USA constitution states all men are created equal….this set the framework for the later abolition of slavery. The USA founding fathers did not start by outlawing slavery….but it was inevitable given the premise that all men are created equal. In much the same manner the Bible set the foundation for the inevitable rejection of slavery by just a sampling of the verses I have mentioned.
First a little background about slavery back in ANE. There were a multitude of slaves for various reasons. Slavery was incorporated for various reasons: Some were voluntarily slaves, others were captured when a country was defeated, others were in debt and paying off their debt through temporary slavery, etc..
Most of the slavery during the Old Testament was not anything like our modern version of slavery where people would travel to distant lands just to capture free people for profit and bring them back as slaves for life. The Old Testament enforced strict protections for slaves such as not permanently harming physically slaves, releasing the debtor slaves every 7-15 years, etc.
The new testament takes it further by challenging the world to treat others with love and dignity. So if you understand ANE culture you would be in awe of what a huge change of world view the Bible brought to the scene.
You make it sound as if the Bible commanded slavery “Go and find people and enslave them for this is the will of God”….but no that never happened….at its worst it tolerated it…but primarily it set up protections for slaves, challenged the mindset of slavery, and in the end inspired Christians to be at the forefront of ending slavery in our modern times.
quote:
“Advancement of humanity has mostly been made against the church, by Humanism and Enlightenment movements.”
Enlightenment was made possible by Martin Luther’s revolutionary acts and the general protestant reformation. The catholic church as many know set up a tyrannical hierarchy which was completely unbiblical. The dark ages produced much more science than the modern man is generally aware of, but still it was greatly stunted by the catholic church’s illegitimate hold on some areas of society.
quote:
“ Science has always been bound and gagged by the church, unless its results fitted into the Christian dogmatic.”
Hmmm that would seem a great contradiction given all the founders of various scientific schools who were all Christians (I have already listed some of them previously). Help me understand that?
quote:
“ People were kept from studying books unless they became monks or priests.”
Please step out from your insistence to focus specifically on the dark ages and the Catholic church….there is so much more history out there then during those times (I think the Catholic church has since reformed itself to a large manner and I consider them Christian brothers). I will be the first to agree with you…the Catholic church was completely wrong back in those days….I am a protestant and we were the MAJOR movement that assisted in the release of that iron grip….we were “protesting” thus we are called protestants. So please stop mixing up the Catholic church back in the dark ages with the Christian church in general and protestants specifically.
quote:
“Let’s not forget that they also murdered 100 millions of native Americans.”
First that number is nothing but delirious in its inaccuracy. Second you are saying the pilgrims killed 10 million….you must not be aware of who the pilgrims at that time were…..don’t stereotype….not every American was a puritan. It was the pilgrims who first befriended the native Americans (and vice versa). Third, as PH mentioned….a majority of Indians were killed by disease. Fourth, many other countries appeared in North America and killed Indians (French, Spanish, British, etc.). Fifth, Native Indians were not a homogenous group and often killed each other. Lastly the whole world population in 1700’s is estimated by UN and US census to be 600-679 million….so about 1/6th of the world population was in North America at that time by your calculations…that is ridiculous.
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
posted October 06, 2002 08:19 AM |
|
|
Why did this thread turn into a debate about Christian history, philosophy, and mythology; and American history?
____________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
~ Hanlon's Razor
|
|
tuapui
Famous Hero
Poetic Psycho Baby BlackDragon
|
|
posted October 06, 2002 08:23 AM |
|
|
Here's a funny item to cool off the discussions in here. When someone dies they see a bright light. And with this bright light, different people see different things. Here is a quote from MSN news...
Quote:
In Western societies, the bright light is often accompanied by visions of deceased relatives, idyllic gardens, and a convivial bearded man in flowing white robes—all standard images of the Christian heaven. Dying Hindus in India, by contrast, typically picture the afterlife as a Kafkaesque bureaucratic office. Fading Micronesians have been known to describe a bustling, skyscraper-filled metropolis.
lol i like the one on kafkaesque bureaucratic office
____________
<<<Hy
peractive Do not touch.
Highly Psychotically Poetic.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2002 08:24 AM |
|
|
Heyyou
Interesting how that progressed Yep all sorts of divergent topics have arisen here.
PrivateHudson
Thoughful posts...sorry m8 nothing to debate with you about I will try harder...lol.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 06, 2002 04:49 PM |
|
|
|
Damn it must say something cotroversial..........
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 06, 2002 08:12 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 6 Oct 2002
|
Oh wow, so much to get around to responding to. Here goes. I'll keep writing until I get bored.
Dargon - tip. It's part of the price of going out to dinner. Waitpeople get really screwed a lot of the time, especially when the manager gives them more tables than one person can reasonably handle. The result is that they're harried all night and get crappy tips to boot.
In response to Dargon's post entitled "UN authority" (pg.10)
The point really isn't who provided the most troops or who wrote the checks. The point is how was the war originally justified. Whatever the numbers are, the war was framed as a glorified UN peacekeeping mission (and before anyone says anything, I'm well aware of the irony between the words "war" and "peacekeeping"). Since we claimed to be acting as part of/ in the name of the UN and the "new world order" or whatever the exact terminology was, then the victorious party was the UN.
If a detective, acting as a member of the NYPD tracks down and apprehends a murderer, he can't take the law into his own hands if he feels the court system doesn't hand down a harsh enough sentence. He did all the work and was responsible for the success of the investigation, but it was not him that was authorizing the punishment of the murderer, it was the state. Similar situation with the US and the UN relationship during the first gulf war. If we used the UN to give us authority to attack, we can't then turn around and say the UN is a non-entity.
As to your statements regarding empty figurehead. You are right at a certain level. I feel this is unfortunate and I think the UN can and should be so much more. However, I'm sure you feel differently about that and I'd rather not open up yet another argument in this thread.
Property
I justify property rights on a solely practical basis. When you don't protect property rights, you end up with virtually no productivity and ultimately a might makes right sort of mentality that you see in places where warlords control things by virtue of the ever popular argument "I have more guns than you have, therefore what's yours is mine."
If people know that their property rights will be protected, they tend to be more productive and the end result is that we get to enjoy things like computers. And lattes. While relaxed property rights work on extremely small scales, such as co-ops, the co-ops tend to jealously protect their possesions from outsiders, so that's not really a relaxed property right, it's just changing who or what ultimately holds those property rights.
This doesn't mean I'm an objectivist or anything. I don't think there's anything noble about self-interest, no matter how enlightened people try to claim it is. However, I will admit that, as long as properly monitered, self-interest has undeniable benifits and property rights are a prerequisite for the kind of self-interest that capitalism glorifies.
Does that mean it will always be this way? I don't know, maybe somebody will come up with something better when our society has changed or when things are so automated and mechanized that it's actually silly rather than admirable for people to work in traditional production, but that's probably quite a ways in the future.
Christianity : Good or Evil
I don't think that christianity is inherently good or evil. It comes down to some people are asses and some are pretty nice and some think they're being nice but they're really being asses. I could probably come up with "good deeds/bad deeds" lists for just about any group -- Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Men, Women, Homosexuals, Professional Atheletes, Scientists, Businessmen, Lawyers, even politicians.
I will say that Christianity seems to be the only religion that thinks they have the right to come to MY home and tell me that my beliefs are wrong. Of course, the flip side of that is, if they honestly believe that I'm condemning myself to hell with my beliefs, than it would be evil of them NOT to come and try to convert me. It's still annoying.
I will question a few, scattered points, though:
Slavery- remember, Christianity was used to defend slavery, as well.
Art - I'm not sure if Jesus is the most represented figure in art. This is certainly true in the western world, but, for instance, the Buddha may be actually have been represented more overall. I know that wasn't your point, I just wanted to nitpick. On a side note, if anybody ever has the opportunity to visit Ethiopia, I encourage you to visit the Ethiopian Orthodox churches. A black jesus, really great to see after all of the blond hair, blue eyed (aryan?) jesuses you normally see in renaisance art.
"100 million natives" - the number, of course is absurd, but that really isn't the point. The point is that a lot were killed. Of course, I don't think that's any more representative of christians or the white man or whatever than OBL is representative of islam or arabs.
I would like to point out that one of the things with the Bible that people seem to forget is that, is that the versions that everybody read are translated and have probably lost quite a bit in the translation. That doesn't affect the "Bible as metaphor" groups, but I do find fundamentalism hard to understand in light of this. I mean, it's one thing to say "God said it, I believe it," it's quite another to say "God said it, some dude wrote it down, the scrolls were lost in a cave for a thousand years, then it was dug up and partially pieced together, and some guy translated it into latin, eventually somebody translated it into English and I believe it." At least the Quran is honest enough to say that it's only valid in the original arabic.
Wolfman's analogy
Ghandi managed to get India free from colonial rule by getting people to, every time they were punched in the face, get back up and go right on refusing to fight.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2002 11:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hitler USED religion to suit his purposes in the extreme sense of the word.
We´ve been here before, I already quoted the diary entry of G.Engel about a private talk with Hitler, that clearly indicates his catholic Christian belief.Quote:
He didn’t even have anything close to a scriptural mindset and he knew it…thus he hated Christians…because the majority of Christians know that the whole Bible was written by JEWS, JEWS were God’s chosen people, and as mentioned before Jesus was a JEW.
Again you say that Hitler can´t have been a Christian because he was antisemite, so I´ll give you a more detailed answer this time. In 1543, Martin Luther, the founder of your protestant religion wrote a book that was titled "About the Jews and their lies." He also called out for the burning of the synagogues and the homes of Jews. Please stop trying to tell me and other readers here that the Jewish roots of Christian religion caused them to have a brotherly status in history, because this is a slap in the face of every Jew, and the historical suffering of their people. Ever since the death of Jesus (who actually was the first one to label those Jews who did not convert to Christianty "children of the devils"), Jews have been persecuted for being the "killers of Christ". At the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, Jews were decided to be forbidden to hold public offices, to appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday and more. Look the catholic website http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/12ecume5.htm for more informations. These catholic laws have been valid until the 19th century. Here I quote the rabbi Dr.Alexander Karlebach from Jerusalem (I´ve translated his words from German into English): For us Jews it is an outrageous insult that Christians from so-called Christian countries, who have been responsible for 2000 years of Jewish suffering, including the murder of 6000000 Jews in Europe, now come to us with blood on their hands and offer us to join their religion. Quote:
I acknowledge that Luther despite his great wisdom and world changing revolutionary actions had some anti- semantic views which again if you read the Bible can never makes sense.
Luther´s antisemitism makes alot of sense if you consider the bible passages that I showed you, from the "children of the devil" to the "synagogues of satan".Quote:
What legitimate historians recorded that he burned witches? I have never heard that?
I don´t know what you consider a legitimate historian, here´s a text trom the Christian website http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/witches03.htm:
The Malleus Maleficarum was used eventually by both Protestant and Catholic witch hunters. Even Martin Luther followed the principles of the Malleus, though he himself was seen as an enemy of the Church. It´s funny that they say "even Martin Luther", a man who approved of the burning of Jews.Quote:
There is a continuum between fatalism and free will….it is not an either/or issue.
... because you want it to be so? If every thought, every action, every breath, every scratching the arse of yours in the future is irreversibly foreseen by some god, where is that freedom that you claim to have? In that case, your influence on your life and your decisions is nothing but an illusion.Quote:
Personally I ascribe to foreknowledge of God…which affords immense free will.
No, it just affords an immense indoctrination from earliest childhood.Quote:
You missed the point of the passage. They said they were children of Abraham (which if you know Jesus’ genealogy he also was a direct descendent of Abraham as all Jews were).
I missed the point? What are children of Abraham who deny the godliness of Jesus other than what we now know as Jews?Quote:
He was saying that they do not live as children of Abraham because Abraham recognized God as his father….so instead they were following the devil who encourages others to deny that Jesus is God.
Exactly, Jesus said that the Jews were following the devil, because they did not accept him as god´s son.
Quote:
As you know from your reading of the Bible, Jesus never denied Abraham nor did he never stop trying to save Jews.
save = baptizeQuote:
The bible teaches that anyone, Jews or gentiles, who does not believe he is God is being deceived by Satan.
I couldn´t have said it better.Quote:
You are distorting the passage. Jesus came to fulfill the law to show its true purpose….
So when he says that he has come to fulfill the purpose of a book that glorifies various genocides, the killing and enslaving of men, women and children, he actually means a message of humanity and love. Don´t you see that this is just wishful thinking?Quote:
many times he showed what the true intent of God was all along (the old covenant leading to the new covenant)….look into how he interpreted vengeance, divorce, adultery, anger, swearing in a court of law, etc.
You mean, instead of executing sinners outright, he instead promised them eternal torture in hell?Quote:
I am curious have you ever read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation or only read books that pull out specific verses that miss the context and totality of the writing?
I have been a Christian until the age of 18, and as such had gone through alot of bible teachings and other forms of Christian indoctrination.Quote:
And if you have….have you ever attempted to read the Bible in its whole with an objective mindset versus reading it to prove an agenda?
As an atheist, my reading the bible is not coerced into either turning every single inhuman message into some abstract positive interpretation or dismissing them as being "not at the core of its teachings".Quote:
A threat? That is one of the most popular misunderstandings about the Bible. It is interesting how you interpret a spiritual fact as a threat. ... Those are not threats….according to Scripture they just ARE…they are spiritual givens…and since God exalts freedom of choice….he allows us to make the choice.
So if someone holds a gun to your head and asks you to hand him all your money in order to keep him from pressing the trigger, this is not a threat but only a given fact. You have the free choice to either have your head blown away or not. Dargon, I really do respect your abilities in other areas of thinking, but your dialectics here, the way you try to turn the threat of eternal torture into a positive message is intellectually dishonest to the extreme.Quote:
Also again you did not show ANYWHERE where Jesus encouraged CURRENT abuse, murder, etc. You only pointed to verses that indicate the spiritual laws of what will happen AFTER death.
Only?? What could be worse than eternal torture. But of course I did show you such a passage, here it is again: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Matthew10:33-35
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2002 11:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Here is the gospel in a nutshell 1. we are all sinners
Why does an almighty god create sinners?Quote:
3.Our sin separates us from God
God created us like this, so it should rather blame itself than us!Quote:
4. Jesus died to atone or pay for our sins
5. By accepting his payment, our sins are covered
An almighty and all-loving good needed to have its son cruelly tortured to death, in order to forgive us our sins? Sins that god itself has created us with?Quote:
6. God wants a real relationship with us, we have free choice
The free choice between belief and eternal torture, thank you.Quote:
There is a logical sequence…
Yes, and it´s the logic of a despot and a tyran.Quote:
As you mention those are very high estimates (much higher than from my reading). But lets even use them…my point still stands….the total of those three outlandish figures is 41 million over 7-800 years by your account….my point was in the less than 100 years 3 non christains killed 116-126 million. Again none of the deaths/murders are excusable but I mention it only to put things in perspective.
I´ve already said enough regarding your labelling the Nazis "non-Christians", who were supported by the churches and inspired by the likes of Martin Luther. But even if we disregard this fact, don´t you see how pointless your numbers game is? Does the morality of a genocide become better, just because there were fewer humans living on the planet when it happened? Many centuries where the church commited the worst crimes against humanity, and you wipe that away by pointing at the world wars I and II and saying:"In those 31 years there were more people killed."
Quote:
“What I value is not atheism as such, but the relative freedom of mind. I won’t teach my children to be atheists.”
Sounds like relativism to me….which of course is a belief and world view that you are teaching your children.
You´re saying "I have to make my children believe in a world of all black and white, because otherwise they will think it´s all grey. You seem to think that education and indoctrination are the same thing. No, there´s more than just fundamentalism and relativism.
In East Germany, the political education begun at an early age, they were taught that their highest purpose was to serve their country and its political system. In West Germany on the other hand we did not speak mantras like "I believe in the rightfulness of democracy and human rights." every day, in fact there was no early education on politics at all. Later, maybe at the age of 14, we were taught how our political system works.
Now, did we all become politically indifferent, relativistic? No, most of us found that democracy is a good idea.Quote:
First how does that correspond to your “its ok if my kids become conservative Christians” attitude you just motioned? You would be ok with your kids believing in inhuman ethics?
As long as they don´t hurt anyone with what they do I´m okay with friends of mine who believe that the bible´s ethics aren´t inhuman. And as I respect children as human beings, of course I would not treat them differently. What would be the alternative? To implant my own beliefs into my children so deeply, that they maybe never become able to criticise them?
Quote:
quote: “Here is what the former US president George Bush said in an interview in 1987:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
You are too learned to even begin to give that quote any factual basis….that is absurd. I would really like to read that alleged interview. Where can I find it in any mainstream and accepted news format. I just can’t believe he even said that…if I am wrong…well he was a complete moron in saying that…but I don’t think I am wrong.
It´s hard to find a news format that is acceptable for you, if it says something that you don´t like to be true. Here´s one of the links: http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page50.html
Let me quote some more informations about time and place of this interview, which happened on a press conference:
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush. Followed by the interview that was quoted above. I suppose this is all made up and part of a hate-campaign, because George Bush would never say such a thing?
____________
|
|
madmartigan
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
who will never walk alone
|
|
posted October 07, 2002 03:54 PM |
|
|
In Q'uran (I dont know if I spelled this right, but I mean the holy book of the muslims by Q'uran) the God, Allah, (who is believed to be the author of the Bible at the same time) is, too, referred as the Almighty - who knows what has happened, is happening, and will happen. Q'uran also forces you to believe in unchangeable FATE which is created the by the almighty Allah.
If GOD knows what sins a certain individual will commit, is it possible for that person to change what GOD (who knows what has happened, is happening, and will happen) knows? If you do not commit the sin, it obviously will become heresy. That is, since GOD knows you will be a sinner even before you commit the sin; not committing the sin will be denying that "GOD knows what will happen", and henceforth is not an option for the individual.
If it is in his FATE to commit that sin, how is it possible to change the fate of that person?
Furthermore, in Q'uran it is said that "man" commits sin on his own "free will". GOD gave men "free will" to make his choice between the good and the evil. What good is a "free will" when you cannot change the FATE which is given to you by GOD?
"MAN WILL BE PUNISHED IN HELL FOR HIS SINS"
Why punish the individual who had no choice but to commit the sin?
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
|
posted October 07, 2002 04:14 PM |
|
|
I am God.
____________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
~ Hanlon's Razor
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 07, 2002 05:41 PM |
|
|
I would just like to say this about martigan's post:
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
But seriously, I don't believe in pre-determination simply because I don't believe in god, Which makes it handy that I am not an american (oh hang on according to GWB's father I couldn't be an american, phew)
What really annoys me though is the way christians try to enforce their beliefs on others, like we "heathens" MUST be saved. After all christians have the right way, theirs will lead to salvation, they know the TRUTH. Sure not all are like that, but I am sick of religion trying to insist on me being wrong. I happen not to believe in god, but I couldn't give a damn whether or not anyone else did or didn't. It's personal choice, plain and simple. On that basis if I ever have another damn Mormon or jehovas Witness come up to me I will ram their damn bible down their throat.
And this thing about heaven if you follow these beliefs, hell if you don't is something I have one hell (no pun intended) of a problem with. My personal belief is that IF god exists, would it not make more sense to judge people on their actions and intents than whether or not we did or did not believe in him? The way I see things to truly believe in something you have to experience it. If someone dies without having experienced it does that mean they are doomed due to their lack of experience? I would imagine an all caring god to judge more on actions and intentions above all else.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted October 07, 2002 06:05 PM |
bonus applied. |
Edited By: Romana on 9 Oct 2002
|
Blah, blah, blah. What started out as an interesting thread has been reduced to a boring theologic discussion. Lews and Dargon, if you can't stay on topic, take a hike from this thread and start another one.
You can title it, "Pontificating jibber-jabber about religion" so that myself and the others know to steer clear of it.
*Yawn*
One more thing before I get to the topic on hand.
Dargon, waiters and waitresses, known heretofore as servers, earn much less than the minimum wage. Their employers do that not only to keep the price of their food down, but also because of the tradition of tipping.
The government taxes servers based on a percentage of their tips. Also, most servers have to tip out their busboys, bartenders, and sometimes even the hosts. All of that is based on the total amount of food and beverage that the servers have sold on a given night.
So, if you decide to stiff a server because you aren't happy with the service, you have effectively forced your server to pay for your right to eat at the restaurant.
If you aren't happy with the service, you should still tip 15% and complain. And if you like the service, tip at least 20% and give a few nice words.
Back on topic.
There are a few of us here at HC, myself included, who would bear the brunt of an offensive against Iraq.
Their opinion is far more relevant than the chicken hawks who are so quick to send us to fight.
Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector AND a former marine, is against going into Iraq. That opinion alone is good enough for me.
Does Saddam present a clear and present danger? Yes he does.
Is he in violation of the UN accords? Yes he is.
Has the UN allowed him to be in violation of his terms of surrender? Yes it has.
Did my president do the right thing by adopting Secretary of State Colin Powell's strategy of presenting our grievances against Saddam to the UN? Yes he did.
Should the UN adopt our recommendations to allow unfettered access for UN weapons inspectors to any place within Iraq? Yes it should. It's the only way to be reasonably sure that Iraq is in compliance with its terms of surrender.
Will the UN security council adopt our recommendations? Probably not. Russia can be bought for Georgia but France has been in collusion with Iraq ever since before Desert Storm. I'm guessing that they'll be the ones to block the recommendations.
The problem of Iraq is and should be the UN's. But, if the UN won't enforce its own rules, then it will fall upon my country to get rid of the problem of Saddam, possibly with England and Israel in tow.
There is one thing that consistently incenses me here about our resident Europeans. Where were the complaints of American military power when the USSR was menacing your borders?
When the Soviet bear basically imploded and left my country as the lone military superpower what gave you Euros the right to hiss and spit and tell us how to do things?
Do you think that you can preen your feathers, strut around, and force us to listen to your-- and I use this term loosely--wisdom?
When the EU decides to put together a military that can do the things that the US does AND becomes willing to use it, then it can help dictate policy as a peer and not some annoying gnat.
Until then, keep your peacekeepers ready and wait for the men to do the job.
edit by Romana: for bringing the topic back and still managing to be funny..LOL
ps: MOD ABUSE
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
