NationStates Jolt Archive

This hypocrisy is enraging. It gives my religion a bad name. Christians should be humanitarian, compassionate, and value human life. But then you have people like Wilgrove who desire constant carpet bombings. Dammit, can someone give me a clear explanation, because I just don't understand this disgraceful behaviour.

I'm not saying that all Christians should be on the same page, politically, as me, but there are somethings I just don't understand.

This hypocrisy is enraging. It gives my religion a bad name. Christians should be humanitarian, compassionate, and value human life. But then you have people like Wilgrove who desire constant carpet bombings. Dammit, can someone give me a clear explanation, because I just don't understand this disgraceful behaviour.really, how many American Christians advocate these types of actions?

This hypocrisy is enraging. It gives my religion a bad name. Christians should be humanitarian, compassionate, and value human life. But then you have people like Wilgrove who desire constant carpet bombings. Dammit, can someone give me a clear explanation, because I just don't understand this disgraceful behaviour.Because Christianity has always been inherently hostile to "the others". The whole love-thy-neighbour-thing is intimately connected with certain conditions.
.

really, how many American Christians advocate these types of actions?

around 2004, I'd say about 50 million.

Because Christianity has always been inherently hostile to "the others". The whole love-thy-neighbour-thing is intimately connected with certain conditions.

You don't know what you're talking about. A Christian should always try to love and aid his fellow man (and woman) not matter the race or religion.

Matthew 5:44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:44;&version=31;)

around 2004, I'd say about 50 million.
Probably. 60 million people voted Bush in 2004. Let's say 10 million were atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc.

We may also say that perhaps 20 or 25 million of the Christian voters were not very practicing Christians. That still makes a hell of a lot of people.

You don't know what you're talking about. A Christian should always try to love and aid his fellow man (and woman) not matter the race or religion.

Matthew 5:44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:44;&version=31;)

Seems historically, he knows precisely what hes talking about.

Seems historically, he knows precisely what hes talking about.
I don't think that Christians should try to follow what the worst Christians of the past have done, but rather they should follow Jesus Christ Our Lord.

You're also conveniently ignoring the millions of good Christians that have lived through the ages. Bigot.

I don't think that Christians should try to follow what the worst Christians of the past have done, but rather they should follow Jesus Christ Our Lord.

You're also conveniently ignoring the millions of good Christians that have lived through the ages. Bigot.Christians of the past? What about the wars led by the Superchristian in the White House? And do you know what a bigot is at all?
.

Christians of the past? What about the wars led by the Superchristian in the White House? And do you know what a bigot is at all?
.
It's bigoted to use Bush as an example of all Christians... all 2 billion of us. But it is the Bush-types that I'm complaining about.

It's like a moderate Muslim who berates terrorists, would you just tell him, "shut up, you're all terrorists anyway!!"

I don't think that Christians should try to follow what the worst Christians of the past have done, but rather they should follow Jesus Christ Our Lord.

You're also conveniently ignoring the millions of good Christians that have lived through the ages. Bigot.

Good Christians?

You mean like ones that call complete strangers they know nothing about "Bigot"?

You are equally conveniently forgetting the even greater number of ones that murdered in the name of the very Lord you so easily espouse.
If you'd like to get technical with me, I encourage you to do so, but lets not forget the millions and millions of innocents that were killed all in the name of your religion, since it began.

You seem to forget that it is human beings who are leading your Church, and therefore, they fuck up all too often.
This means mistakes get made all the time.

Crimes get covered up.

The topic of this thread has to do with Christians advocating brutality.

Perhaps its the inner rage they seem to possess.

The kind that makes them instantly resort to name-calling.

"Render unto Ceaser, what is Ceaser's", Christian.

around 2004, I'd say about 50 million.Probably. 60 million people voted Bush in 2004. Let's say 10 million were atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc.

We may also say that perhaps 20 or 25 million of the Christian voters were not very practicing Christians. That still makes a hell of a lot of people.so a vote for the person is proof that they support the actions that person did or will do... and not possibly that the other choices were not better in the voters mind. I see... nice generalization there.

I don't think that Christians should try to follow what the worst Christians of the past have done, but rather they should follow Jesus Christ Our Lord.

You're also conveniently ignoring the millions of good Christians that have lived through the ages. Bigot.

If these good Christians failed to stop the actions of the violent ones, they
deserve the blame. A philosophy that purports that all man are brothers
must, by definition, accept collective blame for the worst of its followers.

Violence that has resulted from ALL such philosophies is actually the direct
result of supressing individuality of humans rather than some unintended side
effect. Christianity is to blame for the violence of its followers because it
asks men to treat each other as brothers -- not despite of it. Men must
negotiate either through trade or through the muzzle of a gun, blade of a sword, etc. Treating each other as brothers means forgoing the pettieness of trade... Which forces even the pettiest of disagreements to fall apart into
violence.

so a vote for the person is proof that they support the actions that person did or will do...Of course.

and not possibly that the other choices were not better in the voters mind.Is that not the same?
.

well, first of all, who's Wilgrave?

And, second, most "Christians" who allow or advocate war do so with the logic that it is better to be killed doing what you believe is right then to sit idle while many more die while you could have stopped it.

Abortion bombers argue this way, Bush argued this way, the 50 million that voted for Bush in 2004 argue that way.

so a vote for the person is proof that they support the actions that person did or will do... and not possibly that the other choices were not better in the voters mind. I see... nice generalization there.

Not entirely a generalization.

The war had been going since 2001.

Voting for Bush, was quite surely a vote for a continuation of his agenda.
That must have been obvious to anyone voting for him.

This is not to say that this is the only reason why anyone voted for him, but what I said is nontheless true.

Not entirely a generalization.

The war had been going since 2001.

Voting for Bush, was quite surely a vote for a continuation of his agenda.
That must have been obvious to anyone voting for him.

This is not to say that this is the only reason why anyone voted for him, but what I said is nontheless true.actually, no. the war in 2001 was in Afghanistan. not Iraq.

Is that not the same?
.nope. it just showed not everyone believed that Kerry or Nader could do the job better than GW Bush.

not that they supported advocate brutal wars.

Why do so many American "Christians" advocate the most brutal wars?
Why do so many Brits have bad teeth?
Why do so many Middle Eastern "Muslims" advocate the most brutal wars?
Why do so many Black Americans eat fried chicken?
Why do so many bigots hang out in internet forums?

I agree wih the OP. So many Christians rule their lives by the proverbial and literal book, and don't realize that the Bible is a collective of guidelines, not absolute truths. I don't mean to offend anybody but am merely making a generalization that most extreme Christians probably have no idea what they are talking about. Doesn't it seem funny that the ones who present the most convincing arguements don't bring the Bible in as the answer to all opposing arguements?

This is why I am a Unitarian. Religion should be about acceptance and tolerance, not wars that could be better managed by three-year-olds saying "I'm right, you're wrong."

I apologize if I have wronged anybody. I don't mean to make enemies, just get my thoughts out there. Savvy? =)

I agree wih the OP. So many Christians rule their lives by the proverbial and literal book, and don't realize that the Bible is a book of guidelines, not absolute truths. I don't mean to offend anybody but am merely making a generalization that most extreme Christians probably have no idea what they are talking about. Doesn't it seem funny that the ones who present the most convincing arguements don't bring the Bible in as the answer to all opposing arguements?

This is why I am a Unitarian. Religion should be about acceptance and tolerance, not wars that could be better managed by three-year-olds saying "I'm right, you're wrong."

I apologize if I have wronged anybody. I don't mean to make enemies, just get my thoughts out there. Savvy? =)

actually you worded it better. yes, there are Christians who support brutality, cover up crimes and appear to be hypocrits. but to say that GOOD Christians do this... (as was noted in the thread that this ideas sprouted from.)

it's like saying only GOOD MUSLIMS are terrorists. a statement that is also wrong.

actually, no. the war in 2001 was in Afghanistan. not Iraq.

Actually, yes.

"The War on Terror" was only started in Afghanistan.
It quickly spilled over to Iraq in March of 2003, with "Shock and Awe".

Well before the Nov elections.

Actually, yes.

"The War on Terror" was only started in Afghanistan.
It quickly spilled over to Iraq in March of 2003, with "Shock and Awe".

Well before the Nov elections.

so you are saying there is a valid tie between 9/11 and Iraq?

Iraq was invaded for several reasons (both mentioned Offically and otherwise.) but the supposed ties with OBL was only mentioned, the main push was the stated presence of WMD's.

actually you worded it better. yes, there are Christians who support brutality, cover up crimes and appear to be hypocrits. but to say that GOOD Christians do this... (as was noted in the thread that this ideas sprouted from.)

it's like saying only GOOD MUSLIMS are terrorists. a statement that is also wrong.

Thank you. These things are what bother me most about religion, I think; that people take God so seriously as to believe that this entity would justify your killing of another living, breathing human being. It just doesn't make sense. =/

Well, almost every religion is based on fear - the fear of death, the fear of unknown, the fear vanishing. The fear is the road to the cruelty, and therefore it's no wonder that cruelty and religion have always stood aside.

there is a certain type of Christian, it appears more prevelent in the US, who are profoundly not in any way shape or form Christians.

the american right has shaped branches of prostestantism to fit their greed as the lifetyles and attitudes of most right wing americans are incompatible with christian teachings. so the teachings got changed.

pat robertson is as christian as my arse.

nope. it just showed not everyone believed that Kerry or Nader could do the job better than GW Bush.

not that they supported advocate brutal wars.But they in fact supported brutal wars by electing GW Bush. And they knew it.
.

This hypocrisy is enraging. It gives my religion a bad name. Christians should be humanitarian, compassionate, and value human life. But then you have people like Wilgrove who desire constant carpet bombings. Dammit, can someone give me a clear explanation, because I just don't understand this disgraceful behaviour.

I'm not saying that all Christians should be on the same page, politically, as me, but there are somethings I just don't understand.

As long as there are humans on this planet there will be wars fought. It has been like this from the beginning of time and will remain so until D-Day. Yes, it would be nice if we ALL could just get along. Unfortunately, this is the real world where people disagree. Anything mankind fears, mankind destroys. It is part of our nature.

Also, it isn't only the christians either, it's the muslims too, and others. War, if you look at the entire history is in our blood and is part of human nature.

I don't feel that it is fair to only blame wars on the christians.

As long as there are humans on this planet there will be wars fought. It has been like this from the beginning of time and will remain so until D-Day. Yes, it would be nice if we ALL could just get along. Unfortunately, this is the real world where people disagree. Anything mankind fears, mankind destroys. It is part of our nature.

Also, it isn't only the christians either, it's the muslims too, and others. War, if you look at the entire history is in our blood and is part of human nature.

I don't feel that it is fair to only blame wars on the christians.
So... wars ended 60 years ago? :p

So... wars ended 60 years ago? :p

here's a link for you........

http://www.t21.ca/wars/

Also for the OP, it isn't only American Christians either. War is a "world's problem".

here's a link for you........

http://www.t21.ca/wars/

Also for the OP, it isn't only American Christians either. War is a "world's problem".

but most other war starting nations dont have a man professing to be religious as their leader....

but most other war starting nations dont have a man professing to be religious as their leader....

having a religion and in our case, christianity, isn't a bad thing. Christianity gives people Hope. Hope is not a bad thing. I see no wrong in us having a President who is Christian. I think it's a very good thing.

here's a link for you........

http://www.t21.ca/wars/

Also for the OP, it isn't only American Christians either. War is a "world's problem".
Your sarcasm/humour detector is broken.
It has been like this from the beginning of time and will remain so until D-Day.

I don't know how many "Christians" actually do support brutal wars, etc.

But I have a strong suspicion that where a lot of people's negative impression of Christianity comes from are a noisy group, possibly the minority, (I hope it's the minority), who posture and rant and use rhetoric to puff themselves up and look larger.

My _concern_ is that because there's so many of these noisy people running around telling people that to be Christian somehow means hating, killing, persecuting, or bigotry, that people will come to believe it.

Most Christians I know seem to believe that if you are a bad Christian you'll go to hell or remain dead for eternity when you die, or that God will punish you. That probably leaves a lot of people _afraid_ to be "bad Christians."

If you compound that with people who tell them, basically, that God wants them to think something, and that there's something wrong with them if they don't believe it, and they'll be punished forever for not believing it, I think that's a really bad mix.

I'm also reasonably convinced that's _not_ supposed to be the point of Christianity.

But some people will say anything to gain power over others, or to surround themselves with a group that makes them feel safe, or powerful, or right, or better.

I don't think a lot of people actually _read_ their own holy book, and even when they do, I don't know how well they comprehend it... but since the average reading comprehension rate among people (at least in my country) seems to be appalling, I shudder to think about it.

People like to believe in things that make them feel good, especially if it doesn't seem like they have to do any real work to make them feel good. I see people driving SUVs drop off tiny sacks of stuff at recycling centers. I also see people who proudly say that because they've accepted Jesus, all their sins are washed away, and then they run around still being basically crappy people.

I see a "hard sell" tactic among disreputable preachers, who intimate that you are basically stupid, lazy, evil and doomed if you don't believe _exactly what they tell you_, but that as soon as you do believe what they tell you, that you're suddenly taking the smart course.

This isn't Christianity as practiced by my _friends_ who are Christians. I have good friends who are Christians, who not only _talk_ about love, good works, and tolerance, but they practice it. But they're not noisy blowhards, and they're not on TV, and they don't believe as they do because they want people to send them money.

People will use _anything_ in order to boondoggle other people into doing what they want. It should come as no surprise that people will disguise hate speech with religion.

It isn't all Christians who behave this way. It may not even really be that _many_ of them. But the ones who have the most vicious, greedy, and hateful things to say are loud about it, and they say it on TV, and they scheme and make powerful friends. Why? Because the only reason anyone pays any attention to them at all isn't because they have a good message - it's because they spend a lot of money and time getting their message out.

A cartoonist (http://www.somethingpositive.net) I like recently wrote a short letter on the subject, which included:
People assume most Christians are heavy-handed, pushy, intolerant bigots bent of dominating any other culture or idea and supplanting it with their own whims because, for the most part, the ones who speak up the most ARE heavy-handed, pushy, intolerant bigots bent on dominating any other culture or idea and supplanting it with their own whims. It sucks. It's horrible. And it's the what everyone of any faith, political idea, or lifestyle has to deal with. People always focus on the loud minority who ruins everything. And like any other group, the only way you can combat this is making your views and, in this case, your kindness and actual testimony louder than the hateful prattle of those hurting your beliefs.

I agree with him, and feel he said it better than I ever could.

having a religion and in our case, christianity, isn't a bad thing. Christianity gives people Hope. Hope is not a bad thing. I see no wrong in us having a President who is Christian. I think it's a very good thing.

your president claims to be a christian. yet he advocates war and the death penalty. he presides over a government of greed and lack of charity to the poor and needy. the american system is based pon capital and ursury which is anti-christian.

the point of the thread is questioning whether people like bush who call themselves christians actually are.

i believe not.

Your sarcasm/humour detector is broken.

I wasn't being sarcastic or funny. It's the truth. War has existed since the beginning of time. For the OP to make a topic that insinuates that the "American Christians" are mostly responsible for "brutal wars" is ludicrous.

Wars are very bloody, and can be some what outragious. Soldiers are under all types of high stress, in war zones people are trying to kill each other. In that type of atmosphere can cause not so normal things to happen and cause the brains to think in a strange or different way than normal. It would be nice to have world peace. However, in reality, wars will be fought. Reality, wars are ugly.

Define "brutal".......What do you think should happen during wars? Should the troops of any nation hold the hands of their enemies singing, 'this is a small world after all'.

Wars are not pretty and it is NOT only the "American Christian"'s responsible for the "brutal wars".

@Canilatria: I have no reason to assume that the "silent majority" has any different thoughts than the "vocal minority" who also expresses those thoughts. I have every reason to assume that Christianity has been a flawed concept from the get-go.
.

snip
Nope, it's definitely broken. I was simply making a sarcastic reply to your use of 'D-day', nothing more.

your president claims to be a christian. yet he advocates war and the death penalty. he presides over a government of greed and lack of charity to the poor and needy. the american system is based pon capital and ursury which is anti-christian.

the point of the thread is questioning whether people like bush who call themselves christians actually are.

i believe not.

Well, you are free to think what you want. President Bush is a true Christian. I have a strong belief in God and Jesus Christ. I also agree with the Death Penalty. The Bible says that any man that takes the life of another man will ultimately receive the same treatment seven fold. Basicly if you kill a person you can expect to be killed by man sevenfold. It also states that people need to respect and obey the laws of their land. In America, the Death Penalty is in the books.

If a guy murders a kid or any person brutally, should get the death penalty. I only wish the Death Row would atleast cut the wait time in half. I support the victims rights more than I do these murderous beasts. I find it sad how these civil rights and human rights people support these murderous thugs more than the victims. We shouldn't pamper these guys.

Old saying, "an eye for an eye......"

Nope, it's definitely broken. I was simply making a sarcastic reply to your use of 'D-day', nothing more.

oh Okay. :D I'm just typing. I have a pretty bad headache. So I may not be thinking too clearly, close but ........ ;)

(Lack of sleep, and still excited about that Brooks and Dunn Concert last night, the first concert I ever went to. Too much wooing.) :D

. I find it sad how these civil rights and human rights people support these murderous thugs more than the victims. We shouldn't pamper these guys.


in that case you are profoundly not a christian. you may believe yourself to be, but you arent.

you dont have the capacity for forgiveness. or an understanding of the commandments.

herein proving the point of the thread. you cannot support the death penalty and oppose measures to help the poor and say you are following jesus

in that case you are profoundly not a christian. you may believe yourself to be, but you arent.

you dont have the capacity for forgiveness. or an understanding of the commandments.

herein proving the point of the thread. you cannot support the death penalty and oppose measures to help the poor and say you are following jesus

I disagree with your point regarding the Death Penalty. When did I ever say I oppose measures to help the poor.

In regards to the poor, I am all for helping the ones who are trying to lead and have a good life. I am all for helping the ones willing to help themselves. I am NOT for helping the ones who are bent on taking a criminals life or choose to be crack heads or the likes. I am NOT for helping the poor who refuse to help themselves and who are determined to live off of others including the government.

As for judgement, it is not your decision or your call. I will have my time in front of the Ultimate Judge. I am human. I do NOT live a perfect life and no matter how hard I try I will not be able to acheive for the simple fact, I am human. Humans are sinners. This is why God brought Jesus to us. As Jesus was being crucified He prayed to the Heavenly Father saying, Please forgive them for they know not what they do. As for forgiving, you have Absolutely no idea who I am or what I do or know anything else of me. I am a forgiving person. My life has been filled with adventure. The only way I possibly could have survived was having God beside me and in my heart. I am a Survivor. This is my past.

God has always had a strong presence within me and has always been with me. Today, God has blessed me with so much. For this is the day that the Lord hath made.

But they in fact supported brutal wars by electing GW Bush. And they knew it.
.

True. And I personally know people who voted for Bush because they saw Iraq as prelude to Armageddon. And by that I litterally mean they voted for Bush because they believed he'd help bring the Second Coming.

If these good Christians failed to stop the actions of the violent ones, they
deserve the blame. A philosophy that purports that all man are brothers
must, by definition, accept collective blame for the worst of its followers.



Yes. When i commit murder i will of course expect every christian to be sentenced and jailed along with me.

I hear the Nazis did wonders with collective punishment. Two thumbs up!

@Canilatria: I have no reason to assume that the "silent majority" has any different thoughts than the "vocal minority" who also expresses those thoughts. I have every reason to assume that Christianity has been a flawed concept from the get-go.
.

Well... there's certainly some reasons _I_ am not a Christian. : ) And only some of those reasons have to do with not believing in the mythology and cosmology.

I do have to assume that there's something about the belief system itself, or it's method of being spread, that makes it _susceptible_ to certain sorts of bad behavior.

I suspect that the fairly common Christian belief that implies you'll be punished... a whole lot... for not believing is part of it. I just don't trust anything that tries to threaten me into right action. And I think that's the sort of thing that can cause _many_ people to miss the real point, which is the "right action," itself.

I also think that it's not possible to spread around a book filled with plagues, punishment, hellfire and brimstone, and then only later says "forget all that, be nice to everybody," without someone getting a little... confused.

People are also going to be, in the main, more likely to be moved by what someone tells them, and what common rumor says, than what's written down... especially if they're not a good or fast reader.

And I think people _misunderstand_ a lot of stuff that's actually _in_ the book.

This is not the same as finding the religion worthless. And if it's flawed... well... what isn't? : )

Heck... I've heard of atrocities committed in the name of all sorts of religions. Hell... in Tibet, a country that used to have a buddhist theocracy, apparently it was okay to rip someone's tongue out for saying immoral or seditious things... and we're talking _buddhists_ there!

I do think that all, or at least most, religions came into being as a way to try and teach people to "live right," (for differing, but not always _so_ different values of right.) Most of the major religions today have stuff in them telling you to avoid doing things that break society down (murder, theft, lying, etc.)

But that doesn't mean everyone always gets it right, or even that any of these things are right or wrong merely because a religion says so.

What I do know is that I have a lot of friends who _are_ Christians, and they don't preach hate. In fact, they often go out of their way to do good works, and spread kindness of variosu sorts, and they _rarely_ mention religion at all. Heck... people who proselytize annoy me, and I don't hang around with them. But these people tell me that they learned these behaviors that I respect from both their own contemplations, and from their churches, and familes, and their holy book. So the thing can't be completely broken, because some people come away from it thinking that it's telling them to be decent to each other. And yes, while you can find passages in the bible saying it's okay to kill someone for picking up firewood on the sabbath, you can find a later passage that says that loving your neighbor should be the basis for all other laws or commandments, because when you love your neighbor, you won't want to steal from him, or kill him, or even place judgment on him.

Any religion we have, I believe, is going to be a product of people's nature, not just a cause for their actions. Whatever Christianity, or buddhism, or any other religion are, they are because of what people have in them. Spreading the messages in those complex meme systems will indeed cause more people to commit behaviors based on those systems... but they _came_ from people to begin with.

Or if by some chance some divinity did come down and inspire one or more of them, they've certainly been filtered through humanity.

In other words, what I'm saying is that the problem isn't religion. The problems related, or seemingly related to religion are a symptom of how human beings are built, how they learn, how they act and react.

They do make convenient excuses for rotten behavior by some of their believers (who may or may not even really know that much about their own religion that's accurate). But they also make a convenient target for outside bigotry and intolerance and judgment.

I rarely blame Christianity for actions that I don't like, that are perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians. I blame the _people_ who perform those actions I don't like, because I see other people read and believe in the same book, and _not_ act like jerks.

That doesn't mean I don't think that the religions passed down to people (along with any other idea system they're handed) don't often inspire behavior I don't like or think is wrong. I'm not stupid. : )

Heck... I _really_ get the heebie-jeebies whenever people go on with all those analogies about shepherds and sheep... for one thing, I know that a shepherd's job isn't to look out for the sheep's well-being - it's to keep anyone else from eating the sheep before they're taken to the slaughterhouse. And I don't like a world that's populated by sheep that do what shepherds tell them, when the shepherds often intend to basically use them. I think that's a poisonous idea and symbol system if I ever saw one.

I think that it would be better if each person were taught to be in charge of their own moral development. I'm more comfortable with the risks inherent in that, than in any system where people are told to be homogenous.

But I also think that it's a bit of a perversion of Christianity when people think that holiness comes from authority figures. But I suspect that the idea system is woefully susceptible to that.

But heck... my immune system is susceptible to a few things that might kill me, where someone else's would take care of it. It still basically works though, and is better than not having one at all. : )

By the same token, my personal philosophy probably allows me to more easily handle certain questions and problems that would be more difficult for a person with a different one. At the same time, I think it's highly likely that people get some good things from Christianity that I don't get, because I don't believe or function the same way. But I also think that a world containing both them and me is a healthier one.

I disagree with your point regarding the Death Penalty. When did I ever say I oppose measures to help the poor.

In regards to the poor, I am all for helping the ones who are trying to lead and have a good life. I am all for helping the ones willing to help themselves. I am NOT for helping the ones who are bent on taking a criminals life or choose to be crack heads or the likes. I am NOT for helping the poor who refuse to help themselves and who are determined to live off of others including the government.

As for judgement, it is not your decision or your call. I will have my time in front of the Ultimate Judge. I am human. I do NOT live a perfect life and no matter how hard I try I will not be able to acheive for the simple fact, I am human. Humans are sinners. This is why God brought Jesus to us. As Jesus was being crucified He prayed to the Heavenly Father saying, Please forgive them for they know not what they do. As for forgiving, you have Absolutely no idea who I am or what I do or know anything else of me. I am a forgiving person. My life has been filled with adventure. The only way I possibly could have survived was having God beside me and in my heart. I am a Survivor. This is my past.

God has always had a strong presence within me and has always been with me. Today, God has blessed me with so much. For this is the day that the Lord hath made.


how do you reconcile the death penalty with the basic tenets of christianity, namely turn the other cheek and thou shalt not kill?

is the pope wrong to oppose capital punishment?

how do you reconcile the death penalty with the basic tenets of christianity, namely turn the other cheek and thou shalt not kill?

is the pope wrong to oppose capital punishment?

No the pope is not wrong in opposing capital punishment, It's his opinion which he is entitled to.

With regards to the Bible, I believe we all know that it is filled with contradictions. Mainly, because it was written by man. Yes the Bible says turn the other cheek and thou shalt not kill.....If you go to Genesis you will read about how Cain killed his brother Abel and how God banished him from the Land and warned how if you kill you shall be killed by seven fold.

This hypocrisy is enraging. It gives my religion a bad name. Christians should be humanitarian, compassionate, and value human life. But then you have people like Wilgrove who desire constant carpet bombings. Dammit, can someone give me a clear explanation, because I just don't understand this disgraceful behaviour.

I'm not saying that all Christians should be on the same page, politically, as me, but there are somethings I just don't understand.

Because they are not truly Christian. Ironically, they call the rest of us who don't agree with OORAH! KILL 'EM ALL!!!! folks, "un-American."

Good Christians?

You mean like ones that call complete strangers they know nothing about "Bigot"?
Why are you hijacking my thread? If your want a vehicle to irrationally label all Christians, then create your own.

I'm asking why so many American Christians seem to contradict the example of Jesus Christ.

so a vote for the person is proof that they support the actions that person did or will do... and not possibly that the other choices were not better in the voters mind. I see... nice generalization there.
How could anyone who disagreed with the Iraq war possibly vote for Bush?

Violence that has resulted from ALL such philosophies is actually the direct
result of supressing individuality of humans rather than some unintended side
effect. Christianity is to blame for the violence of its followers because it
asks men to treat each other as brothers -- not despite of it.
Violence is a human flaw. It has nothing to do with what religion or ideology the human in question adheres to. Christianity is a religion that encourages its followers to renounce violence. Violent Christians are violent despite their religion, not because of it.

And, second, most "Christians" who allow or advocate war do so with the logic that it is better to be killed doing what you believe is right then to sit idle while many more die while you could have stopped it.
I don't believe that the Iraq war has prevented any deaths. Hussein was done with his genocide programmes, and you can't bring back the dead.

But my real question is of those Christians who not only advocate such wars in the first place, but that also scream for ever more brutal and lethal tactics to be used. I'm not trying to judge them, I'm just trying to understand them.

Why do so many American "Christians" advocate the most brutal wars?
Why do so many Brits have bad teeth?
Why do so many Middle Eastern "Muslims" advocate the most brutal wars?
Why do so many Black Americans eat fried chicken?
Why do so many bigots hang out in internet forums?
The "new thread" button is your friend.

I agree wih the OP. So many Christians rule their lives by the proverbial and literal book, and don't realize that the Bible is a collective of guidelines, not absolute truths.
I can't see how someone could read the New Testament with absolute literalism and believe it to be a pro-violence diatribe. BTW, the OP is me and I am Christian too.

the american right has shaped branches of prostestantism to fit their greed as the lifetyles and attitudes of most right wing americans are incompatible with christian teachings. so the teachings got changed.
I agree. Most of the same people are those who insist on driving an SUV and destroying the Earth that God created. :(

Well, almost every religion is based on fear - the fear of death, the fear of unknown, the fear vanishing. The fear is the road to the cruelty, and therefore it's no wonder that cruelty and religion have always stood aside.
As if atheists didn't commit the most brutal programmes of genocide in history. :rolleyes:

Also, it isn't only the christians either, it's the muslims too, and others. War, if you look at the entire history is in our blood and is part of human nature.

I don't feel that it is fair to only blame wars on the christians.
I'm not going on a Gibsonesque rant ("Christians are responsible for all the wars in the world, grrr"). I am Christian myself, and very anti-war. I believe that violence is just one of the worst of many human flaws that Christians should try to transcend and avoid, not celebrate.


Also for the OP, it isn't only American Christians either. War is a "world's problem".
It's Americans who support it most fervently though. In my experience, almost all European Christians have an anti-war mindset, as do the Christians of Latin America and Asia.

having a religion and in our case, christianity, isn't a bad thing. Christianity gives people Hope. Hope is not a bad thing. I see no wrong in us having a President who is Christian. I think it's a very good thing.
Being a Christian is good. Being a hypocrite is not good.

but most other war starting nations dont have a man professing to be religious as their leader....
This thread isn't about Bush in particular, it's about his supporters.

around 2004, I'd say about 50 million.

And yet there are 300 million people living in the US.

If these good Christians failed to stop the actions of the violent ones, they
deserve the blame. A philosophy that purports that all man are brothers
must, by definition, accept collective blame for the worst of its followers.

Violence that has resulted from ALL such philosophies is actually the direct
result of supressing individuality of humans rather than some unintended side
effect. Christianity is to blame for the violence of its followers because it
asks men to treat each other as brothers -- not despite of it. Men must
negotiate either through trade or through the muzzle of a gun, blade of a sword, etc. Treating each other as brothers means forgoing the pettieness of trade... Which forces even the pettiest of disagreements to fall apart into
violence.

Then you are also saying that all moderate Muslims are responsible for terrorism.

Well, you are free to think what you want. President Bush is a true Christian. I have a strong belief in God and Jesus Christ. I also agree with the Death Penalty. The Bible says that any man that takes the life of another man will ultimately receive the same treatment seven fold.
The Bible also says that those without sin should cast the first stone.

If a guy murders a kid or any person brutally, should get the death penalty. I only wish the Death Row would atleast cut the wait time in half. I support the victims rights more than I do these murderous beasts. I find it sad how these civil rights and human rights people support these murderous thugs more than the victims. We shouldn't pamper these guys.
You're only saying that because of your lust for vengeance, which you really should not give into.

I don't see how the death penalty is going hard on them. If you ask me a life in prison is worse.

Old saying, "an eye for an eye......"
Makes the whole world blind.

in that case you are profoundly not a christian. you may believe yourself to be, but you arent.

Let us not be judgemental now.

In regards to the poor, I am all for helping the ones who are trying to lead and have a good life. I am all for helping the ones willing to help themselves. I am NOT for helping the ones who are bent on taking a criminals life or choose to be crack heads or the likes. I am NOT for helping the poor who refuse to help themselves and who are determined to live off of others including the government.
And how do you propose doing that? Eliminating welfare, education and healthcare I'll bet. Eliminate those, and you're cutting off channels for those who want to help themselves.

If you go to Genesis you will read about how Cain killed his brother Abel and how God banished him from the Land and warned how if you kill you shall be killed by seven fold.
IMO that means that it is God's job to punish murderers. The Death Penalty is playing God.


I suspect that the fairly common Christian belief that implies you'll be punished... a whole lot... for not believing is part of it.
The Christian belief is that if you don't believe in God, you will be eternally separated from Him. Which is what most atheists believe anyway. It doesn't mean you get tossed in a fiery pit and prodded with red-hot forks.

As if atheists didn't commit the most brutal programmes of genocide in history. :rolleyes:


And could it have been stop with believing in this "almighty" god of yours?

And could it have been stop with believing in this "almighty" god of yours?

No, actually. That's the point of free will...and we have no idea what purpose that action might have served in the long term, so it's impossible to speculate.

And, if it is not too much to ask, could you give some examples of those atheist who have have committed crimes against humanity.

Umm...Josef Stalin? Mao Zedong? Pol Pot? Kim-Jong Il and Kim Il-Sung? Erich Honecker, Nicolae Ceaucescu, or any of the leaders of the Communist bloc?

Ever since they became more than a small, highly marginalized cult, Christians have been coming up with a whole host of excuses for ignoring or marginalizing the verses advocating non-violence.

Once "just war" entered the lexicon as something other than a contradiction, there was no stopping its exploitation by bloodthirsty leaders.

Umm...Josef Stalin? Mao Zedong? Pol Pot? Kim-Jong Il and Kim Il-Sung? Erich Honecker, Nicolae Ceaucescu, or any of the leaders of the Communist bloc?

As a trotskyan I agree for mentioned before, but I prefer word "stalinist" for them. After all, is killing the part of people that opposes communism/communists equality or fraternity? For many communism represents only highly advanced state capitalism, which it isn't. (I went pretty much off-topic, didn't I)

As a trotskyan I agree for mentioned before, but I prefer word "stalinist" for them. After all, is killing the part of people that opposes communism/communists equality or fraternity? For many communism represents only highly advanced state capitalism, which it isn't. (I went pretty much off-topic, didn't I)

Well, of course. Stalinism is arguably the most accurate label for these governments, although some of them also fell more in line with the policies of the Brezhnev government in the 1970's onward.

My criticism is of the leaders of these parties and their governments as they existed, not the ideas in themselves. Really, political affiliation has nothing to do with it; it's just the fact that the USSR and its allies along with China and the other Asian "Communist" states were all atheist that really matters.

If these good Christians failed to stop the actions of the violent ones, they deserve the blame. A philosophy that purports that all man are brothers must, by definition, accept collective blame for the worst of its followers.

That doesn't follow. I'm not to blame for the actions of my brother, at least if I acted to prevent them - even if I ultimately failed to do so.

Violence that has resulted from ALL such philosophies is actually the direct result of supressing individuality of humans rather than some unintended side effect.

What does asking people to treat each other as siblings have to do with suppressing individuality?

Christianity is to blame for the violence of its followers because it
asks men to treat each other as brothers -- not despite of it. Men must negotiate either through trade or through the muzzle of a gun, blade of a sword, etc.

Do you have any actual evidence for this?

Treating each other as brothers means forgoing the pettieness of trade... Which forces even the pettiest of disagreements to fall apart into
violence.

Really? So every time you disagree with someone you treat decently, you try to kill them? That may be true in your life, I don't know, but it certainly isn't true in mine, nor in the lives of the vast majority of people with whom I interact.

Stalinism is arguably the most accurate label for these governments, although some of them also fell more in line with the policies of the Brezhnev government in the 1970's onward.

"Stalinist" is actually a pretty bad label, because it lumps together all kinds of varying post-Stalin tendencies among the "Communist" bloc.

The real trouble is coming up with better ones - making the distinction between those who went with Khrushchev's reforms and those who didn't might be a start.

Umm...Josef Stalin? Mao Zedong? Pol Pot? Kim-Jong Il and Kim Il-Sung? Erich Honecker, Nicolae Ceaucescu, or any of the leaders of the Communist bloc?
Don't forget Hitler.

Ever since they became more than a small, highly marginalized cult, Christians have been coming up with a whole host of excuses for ignoring or marginalizing the verses advocating non-violence.

I love how American atheists so often ignore the fact that most Christians in the world are anti-war.

I love how American atheists so often ignore the fact that most Christians in the world are anti-war.

Against this war, yes.

How many of them are pacifists?

Well, you are free to think what you want. President Bush is a true Christian. I have a strong belief in God and Jesus Christ. I also agree with the Death Penalty. The Bible says that any man that takes the life of another man will ultimately receive the same treatment seven fold. Basicly if you kill a person you can expect to be killed by man sevenfold. It also states that people need to respect and obey the laws of their land. In America, the Death Penalty is in the books.

If a guy murders a kid or any person brutally, should get the death penalty. I only wish the Death Row would atleast cut the wait time in half. I support the victims rights more than I do these murderous beasts. I find it sad how these civil rights and human rights people support these murderous thugs more than the victims. We shouldn't pamper these guys.

Old saying, "an eye for an eye......"

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
Gandhi said that.And Gandhi is smarter than you.

I love how American atheists so often ignore the fact that most Christians in the world are anti-war.

What I don't get from that quote is how one can claim that a religion including 2 bilion people is a small marginalized cult, especialy give the influence some versions of it have on one of the most powerful nations on teh planet.

What I don't get from that quote is how one can claim that a religion including 2 bilion people is a small marginalized cult, especialy give the influence some versions of it have on one of the most powerful nations on teh planet.
You misread.

Against this war, yes.

How many of them are pacifists?
It's hard to tell. Most would support wars of self defence, for example the movements throught Latin America in the 20th century.

I expect that that's as far as most Christians would go. There are also many absolutely pacifist Christian groups who would not fight even in self-defence. The Quakers are probably the most famous of these groups.

Aggressive, militarist Christians are in the minority. They may not even be a majority in the USA.

What I don't get from that quote is how one can claim that a religion including 2 bilion people is a small marginalized cult, especialy give the influence some versions of it have on one of the most powerful nations on teh planet.

"Ever since [Christianity] became more than a small, highly marginalized cult"

Please do read carefully before commenting on a post.

I'm asking why so many American Christians seem to contradict the example of Jesus Christ.
one wonders in fact why the teachings of Jesus are so (mis)interpretable that they spawned at least a halfdozen major branches that are all convinced the others are false religions. it seems the poor americans didn't really stand a chance.

How could anyone who disagreed with the Iraq war possibly vote for Bush?
because tax cuts are more personal than war? because abortions are more personal than war? because the major issue in the midterms was still the national economy, with Iraq second?

Being a Christian is good. Being a hypocrite is not good.
and there, sir or madam, is the key to your question. there is no reason to believe that being a christian, as opposed to a good person, is a good thing. all religious wars are fueled by that statement, and variants thereof.

Also, I would suggest you learn the concept of illustrative ironies, because you have misinterpreted a great many of them in this thread. also, in general, General cannot be expected to stay precisely on topic for more than 3 pages. you would do well to remember this before accusing others of threadjacking and making snarky remarks about getting one's own thread.

"Ever since [Christianity] became more than a small, highly marginalized cult"

Please do read carefully before commenting on a post.

Whoops, sorry:(

"Stalinist" is actually a pretty bad label, because it lumps together all kinds of varying post-Stalin tendencies among the "Communist" bloc.

It's mainly a placer for lack of a better term.

The real trouble is coming up with better ones - making the distinction between those who went with Khrushchev's reforms and those who didn't might be a start.

I imagine a key one would be the pro-Kosygin and anti-Kosygin divide during the 1960's, with emphasis on the fact that Brezhnev was an opponent of the reforms and Khrushchev a supporter and go with it from there.

However, that only covers the economic side of the issue in terms of the military-heavy industrial vs. light industry/consumer goods debate, as well as the debate over centralized and decentralized economic planning that played a role in Khrushchev's ultimate downfall.

one wonders in fact why the teachings of Jesus are so (mis)interpretable that they spawned at least a halfdozen major branches that are all convinced the others are false religions. it seems the poor americans didn't really stand a chance.
Good point, I mainly think cultural differences are to blame. The US egotistical culture has overidden even the word of God.

because tax cuts are more personal than war? because abortions are more personal than war? because the major issue in the midterms was still the national economy, with Iraq second?
That doesn't excuse anything. Voting Republican is voting for war and they knew it.

and there, sir or madam, is the key to your question. there is no reason to believe that being a christian, as opposed to a good person, is a good thing. all religious wars are fueled by that statement, and variants thereof.
Being a Christian and being a good person are not mutually exclusive. Do I look like the type of guy who would advocate a religious war?

in General cannot be expected to stay precisely on topic for more than 3 pages. you would do well to remember this before accusing others of threadjacking and making snarky remarks about getting one's own thread.
We're only halfway into the second page.

That doesn't excuse anything. Voting Republican is voting for war and they knew it.
i didn't say it excused anything: I said that voting for a set of ideologies in a two-party system is considerably complex. I am not aware of any passage in the bible that says war is less desirable than abortion. And if you throw a let's-kill-the-heathens bit into the mix, as a I believe Pat Robertson is fond of doing, then voting Republican is not a choice, it is the only choice. For hardcore Christians.


Being a Christian and being a good person are not mutually exclusive. Do I look like the type of guy who would advocate a religious war?
I'll paint you with the same brush I paint everyone who says "Being Christian is good." You may not start a war, but that ideology does. Anyhow, according to dogma, being a Christian and being a good person are mutually exclusive: only Christians get into heaven, not do-gooders.

We're only halfway into the second page.
Ah yes, well I'm guessing you're showing considerably more posts per page than I am. Since I've never seen a cohesive General thread past three of MY pages, we'll agree that I'm right, since this is in the middle of page 5.

However, that only covers the economic side of the issue in terms of the military-heavy industrial vs. light industry/consumer goods debate, as well as the debate over centralized and decentralized economic planning that played a role in Khrushchev's ultimate downfall.

I was thinking more along the lines of Khrushchev's de-Stalinization, resulting (nominally anyway) in the Sino-Soviet split and in other splits within the world's pro-Soviet Communist parties.

Politically, that was one of the factors behind the skepticism towards the Eastern European "Communist" bloc on the part of the radical New Left, behind (again, nominally at least) the Cultural Revolution, and behind the diminishing of the power of Communist parties in Western countries.

I was thinking more along the lines of Khrushchev's de-Stalinization, resulting (nominally anyway) in the Sino-Soviet split and in other splits within the world's pro-Soviet Communist parties.

My knowledge falls more on the economic development and economic history of the USSR, so that's the side I'm more knowledgeable about. However, they're both important and go hand-in-hand; greater decentralization in the economy helped to loosen the political and social side, and vice versa.

Politically, that was one of the factors behind the skepticism towards the Eastern European "Communist" bloc on the part of the radical New Left, behind (again, nominally at least) the Cultural Revolution, and behind the diminishing of the power of Communist parties in Western countries.

It was, along with other things like the interventions in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia all contributing to that same skepticism.

@Canilatria: I have no reason to assume that the "silent majority" has any different thoughts than the "vocal minority" who also expresses those thoughts. I have every reason to assume that Christianity has been a flawed concept from the get-go.
.

You know, if someone had made that statement about Islam, you'd have a raging fit.

But, by that token, because the huge majority of Muslims prefer not to say anything about the radicalized minority of their religion, then they too must simply agree with that minority?

If people cannot generalize about Islam, you sure as hell cannot generalize about Christians or Jews, or Hindus, or Bhuddists, or........

But, by that token, because the huge majority of Muslims prefer not to say anything about the radicalized minority of their religion, then they too must simply agree with that minority?
This is true, after a fashion. Suicide bombing is prohibit by Islamic law on multiple levels, but is apparently accepted by the majority. That is not to say the practice itself is accepted, but the majority do not apparently oppose its use based on Islamic law. To be precise, indiscriminate killing and suicide were specifically banned by Mohammed, and yet many Muslims are content to view suicide bombers as martyrs, sidestepping the latter issue. Don't know what the defense for indiscriminate killing is, except that it was accepted in Palestine long before the current fiasco.

If people cannot generalize about Islam, you sure as hell cannot generalize about ........
there is already a thread about infinity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506779). Please stay on topic :).

At any time deciding what merits "true christianity" will always be an exercise in futility.

If people cannot generalize about Islam, you sure as hell cannot generalize about Christians or JewsOf course I can. What defines them is their belief in the one Jewish deity and the attitudes, values, and rules that come with that. The various interpretations are rather marginal. What difference does it really make that Jews believe in a corrupted perspective of Yah and that Christians believe in an incarnation of the Jewish god and that Muslims believe in a messenger sent by the Jewish god? It is all the same view of a god and thus the same idea/ideology they believe in and it is the same questionable set of rules and doctrines they live by. This ideology was set up to unite a small and rather insignificant group of people (with a fondness for fabricating and writing down stories) in the shadows of the real super powers of ancient times. This ideology is inherently presumptuous, racist, and hostile, and although it has cooled somewhat in recent centuries, folks will return to old methods as soon as they believe to be unresisted or morally superior (the latter would of course mean all the time).
.

To the OP- I'm a Christian and don't advocate the war at all.

Of course I can. What defines them is their belief in the one Jewish deity and the attitudes, values, and rules that come with that. The various interpretations are rather marginal. What difference does it really make that Jews believe in a corrupted perspective of Yah and that Christians believe in an incarnation of the Jewish god and that Muslims believe in a messenger sent by the Jewish god? It is all the same view of a god and thus the same idea/ideology they believe in and it is the same questionable set of rules and doctrines they live by. This ideology was set up to unite a small and rather insignificant group of people (with a fondness for fabricating and writing down stories) in the shadows of the real super powers of ancient times. This ideology is inherently presumptuous, racist, and hostile, and although it has cooled somewhat in recent centuries, folks will return to old methods as soon as they believe to be unresisted or morally superior (the latter would of course mean all the time).
Duntscruwithus was commenting on the political correctness of insulting one religion over another.

Anyhow, your post is nonsensical.
a) Christianity and Judaism -I cannot speak for Islam- do not share a belief in the same God. By definition, Jews cannot accept that God is capable of having a child without the occurrence of the End of Days. Also, the Christian God is decidedly nicer than the Jewish one, who enjoys a good smiting from time to time.
b) The ideologies may well have been established to unite a small group of people, but insignificant? I think not, since Islam swept its part of the known world to become the one of the most powerful religions in the world within a century.
c) The rules of each religion are not even close to the same. I suggest you read something of them before generalising.
d) Religion is not inherently presumptuous, racist, or hostile. Its interpretation may be, but that is a fault of organised religion. Some religions may include text such as "There is only one true God, etc" however this was a comparatively late innovation, as most early religions were perfectly willing to accept others' Gods as real.

Duntscruwithus was commenting on the political correctness of insulting one religion over another.

Anyhow, your post is nonsensical.
a) Christianity and Judaism -I cannot speak for Islam- do not share a belief in the same God. By definition, Jews cannot accept that God is capable of having a child without the occurrence of the End of Days. Also, the Christian God is decidedly nicer than the Jewish one, who enjoys a good smiting from time to time.
b) The ideologies may well have been established to unite a small group of people, but insignificant? I think not, since Islam swept its part of the known world to become the one of the most powerful religions in the world within a century.
c) The rules of each religion are not even close to the same. I suggest you read something of them before generalising.
d) Religion is not inherently presumptuous, racist, or hostile. Its interpretation may be, but that is a fault of organised religion. Some religions may include text such as "There is only one true God, etc" however this was a comparatively late innovation, as most early religions were perfectly willing to accept others' Gods as real.Correctness is more important than political correctness.

a) Of course they do. Yeshua is the alleged incarnation of Yahweh/Elohim, just as Allah (al-Ilah) is the selfsame as Elohim.
b) The ideology/religion at hand was created by the Jews. Christianity and Islam are merely offshoots of Judaism. And against Persians, Egyptians, and Romans Jews were a tiny minority and thus politically and culturally insignificant. If Herod had not built Caesaraea, Samaria and Judaea would not even have had any economic significance.
c) The rules are those given in the Torah. Although some may have been arbitrarily ignored or mitigated, they are basically the same in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (about who god is and what is wrong and right to please the god)
d) The Religion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims is inherently presumptuous, racist, and hostile. Read the Bible and the Qur'an on which these religions are built. Unfortunately the religion(s) based on these books do not share any earlier and also coeval religions' willingness to accept others' gods as real.
.

I'm going to start by saying my experiences are only of American Christians. So with that said I'm leaving Christians outside of America alone.

What I want to know is why so many Christians quote the Old Testament more often then the New Testament? I thought Christianity was more about the testament of Jesus's example? Which by in part was radicaly different than the Old Testament teachings. Yet more often than not I see Christians ( in America ) quoting from the Old Testament rather than from the New Testament. Seems to me they want to be Jewish.

I also want to know why Christains ( once again American Christians ) feel the need to instead of taking responsibility for their actions, blame it all on the devil? Which also goes along with why do Christains feel that just because they say they believe in Christ they can act as irrisponsibly as they want and still think they're going to make it to Heaven?
I also want to know why I should fear the Devil? For it is in my opinion that if I have obsolute faith in God I have no need to fear the Devil. I also want to know why it is that the Devil is put on the same pedistal as God. To do so is to start believeing in polytheism, which to me is blasphamis and lacks true faith in God. Why do Christians also feel the need and desire to convert everyone? Christ never said anything about going out and converting people, Paul did. And while , yes Paul had a vision I don't believe this visionmentioned anything about being domineering, aggressive and overwhelming with missionary practices.

I also don't see the need to intermingle politics with religion.

Christianity is a nice religion, but it's followers fuck it up. I'm sorry if I'm gernerlaising, but in my experience I can count the number of good Christians on my hand, while I need a few more limbs to count the number of bad Christians I've encountered.

I'd also like to apologise if I hyjacked your thread, Ardee Street, I figured it went with the subject matter. ;)

Well, the scripture Yeshua was referring to was of course the Tanakh which later became the OT in Christianity, as the NT did not yet exist of course. And since Yeshua is the incarnation of Yahweh (after Christian lore), there is really no point in distinguishing between the scripture he believed in and the scripture that was later written on him.
.

Correctness is more important than political correctness.

a) Of course they do. Yeshua is the alleged incarnation of Yahweh/Elohim, just as Allah (al-Ilah) is the selfsame as Elohim.
b) The ideology/religion at hand was created by the Jews. Christianity and Islam are merely offshoots of Judaism. And against Persians, Egyptians, and Romans Jews were a tiny minority and thus politically and culturally insignificant. If Herod had not built Caesaraea, Samaria and Judaea would not even have had any economic significance.
c) The rules are those given in the Torah. Although some may have been arbitrarily ignored or mitigated, they are basically the same in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (about who god is and what is wrong and right to please the god)
d) The Religion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims is inherently presumptuous, racist, and hostile. Read the Bible and the Qur'an on which these religions are built. Unfortunately the religion(s) based on these books do not share any earlier and also coeval religions' willingness to accept others' gods as real.

a) you point out yourself that these are alleged links. They exist in theory, but dissemination of the texts proves that the Gods are not the same. christianity is much more complex than an offshoot of Judaism, because it incorporates so many pagan influences. Since I am essentially atheist, my position stands on the assumption that the beliefs of the followers define the god, i.e., the god does not exist without followers. Thus, given how much the Christians had warped the Jewish God by the ~8th century, they are not the same. The obvious differences is Kashrut and circumcision. The Christian God does not require these physical covenants with God's people; this God instead requires emotional covenants, in the form of confessions and the like. As well, I am not aware of any NT commandment that requires Christians to actively study and debate NT, instead, the Christian God demands that Christians adhere to a hierarchy of holiness. Granted Judaism has High Rabbis, but the edicts of High Rabbis would never be taken as law as are the Pope's.

b) the jews were insignificant, granted. But I was pointing out that the Muslims most certainly were not.

c) As I started to discuss in (a) the rules were not merely ignored or mitigated, they were whole-heartedly warped. For this, look no further than the Inquisition. By the Dark Ages, Jews and Catholics were completely estranged by their views of what constitutes appeasement of God. Another example is the use of icons: to Jews, their use is a violation of the First Commandment. Similarly for Islam: Mohammed issued many edicts of Allah that were completely foreign to both Christianity and Judaism.

d) I have read most of Torah, in Hebrew in fact. I already pointed out that the One God bit was an aberration. The fault in your argument was to criticise religion, not Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

so you are saying there is a valid tie between 9/11 and Iraq?

Yes. I am doing just that.

But perhaps not in the sense that you think I am.


Iraq was invaded for several reasons (both mentioned Offically and otherwise.) but the supposed ties with OBL was only mentioned, the main push was the stated presence of WMD's.

Thank you, Tom Brokaw.

I am implying that the invasion of Afghanistan, and Iraq, were part of the same agenda, by one administration.
I just so happens, that one was a perfect exscuse for the other.

However, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so if you wanna continue this discussion, create a new thread.

Why are you hijacking my thread? If your want a vehicle to irrationally label all Christians, then create your own.

I'm asking why so many American Christians seem to contradict the example of Jesus Christ.

and I, am calling your bluff.

It seems as though you should ask yourself that very same question.

It was you who initiated name calling right away, once I sided with another poster who suggested that historically, Christianity cannot make a claim to be a religion of peace.

It was you who ignored the rest of my post to you, wherein I make every effort to remain on topic, and yet, now you accuse me of attempting to hijack your thread.


All the hostility is coming from your end.

Dont you see?

Here you are asking why cant Christians be more like Jesus, and it was you who started the fighting.

Perhaps Christians do hateful, war-like, and evil things, becuase they are all people, and these are all human traits.
You can insist that Im a "bigot", and "hijacking your thread", but I see this as someone showing you that you are guilty of the very same thing you question in others.


I think Jesus would tell you to let go of your hate.

So would Yoda, for that matter.

You mean like ones that call complete strangers they know nothing about "Bigot"?

He is calling you biggoted because you refused in previous posts to recognise that the Chruch has done the world a great deal of good


You are equally conveniently forgetting the even greater number of ones that murdered in the name of the very Lord you so easily espouse.
If you'd like to get technical with me, I encourage you to do so, but lets not forget the millions and millions of innocents that were killed all in the name of your religion, since it began.


He's not forgetting that at all. That is what this entrie thread is complaining about

Well, of course. Stalinism is arguably the most accurate label for these governments, although some of them also fell more in line with the policies of the Brezhnev government in the 1970's onward.

My criticism is of the leaders of these parties and their governments as they existed, not the ideas in themselves. Really, political affiliation has nothing to do with it; it's just the fact that the USSR and its allies along with China and the other Asian "Communist" states were all atheist that really matters.

I agree with you. There are certain similarities between christianity and communism. For example, both of them have become so twisted, not only cause of the time, but, the cause made by leaders who have wished to keep their people more strictly in their grasp (kings dictators etc.). Either Jesus, Marx or Engels probably would not recognize anymore their ideologys as their own or would not accept what has "made in their (or their ideologys) name".
Perhaps its the fate of everything that wishes only good... to become only the tool of those in power to gain more power and, thus, to make only evil to those who believe in in it and to those who don't.:(

a) you point out yourself that these are alleged links. They exist in theory, but dissemination of the texts proves that the Gods are not the same.That is simply not true. Yeshua or his followers never worshipped any god other than the Jewish one, and Christians have done that ever since.
I point out that these are alleged links because there is just no evidence that Yeshua is indeed the incarnation or even prophet of any god, but nevertheless this is what Christians believe.
If it were not the same god there would be no point in Yeshua being the anointed one (Messiah/Christos).

as for the rest: meh :rolleyes:
.

Okay well somebody earlier had mentioned something regarding Christians, Republicans, and War. I'm not going to search for it in this thread so I'm just going to give that person a run down of some facts and hope he realizes that the Christian Republican Presidents aren't all war mongers like some people think.

Democrat War Time Presidents:
President James K. Polk War with Mexico of 1846
President Woodrow Wilson WWI
President Franklin D. Roosevelt WWII
President Harry Truman ended WWII, other wars: Korean War and the Vietnam War.
President John F. Kennedy the Vietnam War
President Lyndon Johnson esclated US involvement in the Vietnam War.

Republican Presidents during War Time:
President Abraham Lincoln Civil War
President Dwight Eisenhower ended the Korean War.
President Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War.
President George H. W. Bush Desert Storm
President George W. Bush War on Terrorism

So as you can see the run down of the specific wars during these Presidency how can you justify the Democrat Wars over Republican Wars. Which are Christian Wars and which aren't Christian wars.

I'm not sure but I felt I should correct the poster who stated that it's the Christian Republicans being war mongers. You Decide.

I am not aware of any passage in the bible that says war is less desirable than abortion. And if you throw a let's-kill-the-heathens bit into the mix, as a I believe Pat Robertson is fond of doing, then voting Republican is not a choice, it is the only choice. For hardcore Christians.
The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion, and it says somethings about war. Both are murder and I don't support them.

I'll paint you with the same brush I paint everyone who says "Being Christian is good." You may not start a war, but that ideology does.
How does the Christian "ideology" start wars? Some Christians may start wars, but so do people of every major religion. It's a human flaw that they should not be proud of.

Anyhow, according to dogma, being a Christian and being a good person are mutually exclusive: only Christians get into heaven, not do-gooders.
Rubbish; if being a Christian and being a good person were mutually exclusive, all Christians would be bad people.

I personally don't think that it's fit for humans to say who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. In any case, "hell" is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. Which is what atheists want. Hell is not a fiery pit with demons and pokers.

It seems as though you should ask yourself that very same question.
My failure to produce satisfactory answers is why I'm asking the forum.

It was you who initiated name calling right away, once I sided with another poster who suggested that historically, Christianity cannot make a claim to be a religion of peace.
Pointing out your obvious and self-confessed bigotry against Christians is not name-calling.

It was you who ignored the rest of my post to you, wherein I make every effort to remain on topic, and yet, now you accuse me of attempting to hijack your thread.


All the hostility is coming from your end.

Dont you see?

Here you are asking why cant Christians be more like Jesus, and it was you who started the fighting.

Perhaps Christians do hateful, war-like, and evil things, becuase they are all people, and these are all human traits.
You can insist that Im a "bigot", and "hijacking your thread", but I see this as someone showing you that you are guilty of the very same thing you question in others.


I think Jesus would tell you to let go of your hate.

So would Yoda, for that matter.

To the OP- I'm a Christian and don't advocate the war at all.
So am I.

You are equally conveniently forgetting the even greater number of ones that murdered in the name of the very Lord you so easily espouse.
How do you know that even greater numbers of Christians killed people?

If you'd like to get technical with me, I encourage you to do so, but lets not forget the millions and millions of innocents that were killed all in the name of your religion, since it began.
How exactly am I trying to forget that? This whole thread exists to ask why any Christians support the killing of innocent people.

You seem to forget that it is human beings who are leading your Church, and therefore, they fuck up all too often.
This means mistakes get made all the time.
Religious leaders are not gods, I don't forget that.

The topic of this thread has to do with Christians advocating brutality.

Perhaps its the inner rage they seem to possess.
Inner rage is by no means a Christian trait. However, Christians should not express that inner rage through crimes against other people, instead they should channel it constructivley.

The kind that makes them instantly resort to name-calling.
See above.

I also don't see the need to intermingle politics with religion.

Christianity is a nice religion, but it's followers fuck it up. I'm sorry if I'm gernerlaising, but in my experience I can count the number of good Christians on my hand, while I need a few more limbs to count the number of bad Christians I've encountered.

I'd also like to apologise if I hyjacked your thread, Ardee Street, I figured it went with the subject matter. ;)
Not at all; your post is a good one. How have you found that proportion of good to bad atheists in America? Because one of the things I have noticed is that the atheist Left in America often (not always) acts more Christian IMO than the Christian Right.

Okay well somebody earlier had mentioned something regarding Christians, Republicans, and War. I'm not going to search for it in this thread so I'm just going to give that person a run down of some facts and hope he realizes that the Christian Republican Presidents aren't all war mongers like some people think.

-snip-

So as you can see the run down of the specific wars during these Presidency how can you justify the Democrat Wars over Republican Wars. Which are Christian Wars and which aren't Christian wars.
I think all US presidents except for Theodore Roosevelt (whose wars weren't on your list) have claimed to be Christian. However, none of these wars were actually religious wars (á la the Crusades).

I don't think that the Democrat wars are more justified. I obviously don't like the Republicans but I don't like the Democrats either. However these days voting Republican in America seems to be voting for war. Maybe more wars. Note that the most recent Democrat on your list is from the 1960s.

duh, its simple. take this equation

More Wars+ violence = More death alround = more souls for god in heaven = more slaves for god.
+
When the war ends = baby boom and large population and conflicting growth =

More Wars + more violence.....and so the cycle continues...

I think all US presidents except for Theodore Roosevelt (whose wars weren't on your list) have claimed to be Christian. However, none of these wars were actually religious wars (á la the Crusades).

I don't think that the Democrat wars are more justified. I obviously don't like the Republicans but I don't like the Democrats either. However these days voting Republican in America seems to be voting for war. Maybe more wars. Note that the most recent Democrat on your list is from the 1960s.

Do you truly think that President Bush is fighting Wars due 100% on his religous beliefs? Do you truly believe that President Bush is on a crusade to fight against the jihadists? Now I heard that this war in Iraq was over Oil, and over religion, that it is a crusade of Christians vs the Islams, and so on, or is it all of the above? Why can't people make up their minds.

Anyways, to Update my list on US Presidents, their religions, and Party affiliations:

US President-----------Party--------Religion--------War
John Adams---Federalist---Unitarian---Quasi War undeclared War by sea, US vs France 1798-1800
James Madison---Democratic/Republican (No affiliation with todays Republican Party)---was raised by the Church of England which at this time was the state religion of Virginia---War of 1812
Martin Van Buren---Democratic/Republican, Democrat, Free Soil---Dutch Reformed---Aroostook War an undeclared, bloodless N. American War.
William McKinley---Republican---Methodist---Spanish/American and Phillipine/American Wars.
James Carter---Democrat---Baptist---Intervention in the USSR/Afghanistan War.
Ronald Reagan---Republican---Presbyterian---escalated and ended the Cold War.
George H. W. Bush---Republican---Episcopal---Invasion of Panama that deposed the Gen. Manuel Noriega. earlier mentioned Desert Storm.

Earlier posted Presidents religions:
James K. Polk-------Methodist, Presbyterian----Democrat
Woodrow Wilson---Presbyterian------Democrat
Franklin Roosevelt-----Episcopal--------Democrat
John F. Kennedy------Roman Catholic----Democrat
Harry Truman---Baptist-------Democrat
Lyndon Johnson-----Disciple of Christ----Democrat

Abe Lincoln-------No Affiliation-------Republican
Dwight Eisenhower---Presbyterian----Republican
Richard Nixon----Quaker------Republican
George W. Bush-----United Methodist----Republican

Now please tell me again out of all of our US Presidents which one has had a religious war, crusade? I know of none. No US President has ever declared a religous war. Just because President Bush speaks openly of his religion and because he says, "God Bless America" does NOT declare a Crusade. We are NOT at war with the Muslims, We are at war with muslim extremists. Terrorists.
George W. Bush-----United Methodist----Republican

As for Teddy Roosevelt, please tell me which war he lead or partook in as President. I knew in 1906 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his mediations with Russia and Japan over their war.

I like apple juice.

I like apple juice.

I am eternally grateful to you for saying that. The most insightful post on this thread, IMO.

The Christian belief is that if you don't believe in God, you will be eternally separated from Him. Which is what most atheists believe anyway. It doesn't mean you get tossed in a fiery pit and prodded with red-hot forks.

I've done a lot of interfaith work over the years, and attended religious services from many Christian and non-Christian faiths.

I can emphatically tell you that very many Christians do _indeed_ believe that you roast in eternal torment, are consigned to the outer darkness, have devils and demons create ingenious tortures, are frozen in ice for all time, remain dead and in oblivion for eternity, or any of a number of other unpleasant things.

And each of these groups insists to me that their version is the right one, and that the other Christians who think differently have it wrong, or aren't real Christians.

My point isn't even whether it says it in the bible or not. The idea of punishment for not being a Christian (or for not being a good one), is pretty endemic in a lot of people's perception of the Christian faith... and I mean people who consider themselves Christians.

You should go to a Revival sometime, or turn on Trinity Broadcasting, or some of those other religious channels.

I'm not saying I think it's correct, or that I believe in that sort of thing. I'm not even a Christian. I'm saying that if you don't believe that lots and lots of Christians have some form of hellfire or damnation as part of their core religious beliefs, you haven't gotten out much. ; )

Coyote

Well, I'm Christian and I don't believe that everyone who isn't a christian will suffer and go to Hell.

I believe that as long as you do right by God, you're ok. God is the Ultimate Judge. Not the Christians as a whole. God also says not to Judge others for He is the Ultimate Judge. God will determine and seperate the Good from the Bad as He sees fit, not the Christians or Muslims or anyother religious character. The Pope himself doesn't have the power to swear you into Helldom. I'll let God be the Judge.