|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 372 responses total. |
oval
|
|
response 325 of 372:
| 
Jun 21 01:51 UTC 2002 |
evasive!
|
bru
|
|
response 326 of 372:
|
Jun 21 03:21 UTC 2002 |
remember, the God of the jews is the same God of the Christians. Why would
they care. Okay, so the Jews don't believe Christ is the son of God. They
are still waiting for the SAvior to come.
They want to piss of the Christians. That is exactly how I feel many of these
modern religions come about. They don't really believe in something so much
as hey want to be part of a group. So they "claim" to be druids, even though
they know little or nothing about real druids.
How do you think a Native American Shaman would feel about someone who claimed
to be part indian and worshipped Gitchi Manitou. Just another one of them
false "want to feel better about myself" new age religions. Or would they get
real offended.
Wicca has been around for a while. Does each coven have it's own spells?
Do they very from group to group?
There is a lot more evidence of the existence of Christ than there is for many
other religious figures. Remamber, we have the roman records that correspond
with the biblical statements. We have the Dead sea scrolls which match many
of the books of the bible. Jesus didn't exist in a vacuum.
I understand the wanting to create their own religion. I have thought about
it. That is why I wrote down my core beliefs, to help lock down what I
actually believe.
The reason for my interest in creating my "own" religion is because my
religion left me. It changed from what it was when I was a child, and my
mother was one of the "instigators" of that change.
She actually went to church in the 1950's without wearing a hat! What a
scandal that caused. I am serious. They were shocked!
Religions do evolve, and my core beliefs no longer even match those of my
childhood religion. I have evolved, as it were. But I have expanded rather
than reduced the core of my beliefs. I won't go into that here other than
to say It is different from most christianity. The largest difference is that
I will not put any limits on what God is or what he can do.
If you told me God was a female, or a Doe, or a stone, or a tree, I would say
God can be all of those things adn many more. So the God of the shaman could
be the same God that I believe in. The God of the Druids could be the same
God I believe in. The God of the Wicca could just be manifistations of the
one true God.
Could be, not is.
But we then get back to that awful word, community. What makes a community?
What unites a community? Religion is a big part of what unites a community.
Certainly many communities have in the past had many different churches.
Lutheran, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox all began as
curches related to a specific group in a specific location. But they easily
accepted each other. Well, not so easily sometimes. But by and large they
did. They were all Christian churches, after all. Most of the churches in
this country are indeed Christian.
Thus this is a christian nation. We also accept Jewish synagogues and Islamic
mosques in our cities. When was the last time we here in the us "AS A GROUP"
went out and attacked one of these religions adn drove it from our community?
Even the Wiccan are allowed to remain. "Don't go harping to much on that word
"allowed") While some may choose to shun them, no one has taken a witch out
and hung them in a long time. At least not as a community.
So now it "appears" as if the non-christian religions have decided it is time
to put the uppity christians in there place.
Sorry christians, no more Christmas displays. Don't be saying your ten
commandments out loud in court. Don't you be praying in our city council
meetings. Don't you go telling the sinners that tehy are sinners and asking
them to stay out of your christian organizations.
Soon the christians are going to strike back. They are going to have to in
order to survive, in order to maintain their sense of community. The same
can be said of patriotism. This city has buried their patriotism so deep that
few of the veterans want to live here anymore. This may soon result in a
backlash of conservatism. (I can only hope) I understand they have banned
the veterans from the 4th of July parade for so long that now they cannot find
any veterans organizations to march in it even though they want some this
year.
Community cannot be forced. It is grown. It comes out of shared experiences,
a similar background. If we keep driving wedges between our religions, soon
the community will fragment and no one will be able to live here in peace.
You can see the results of this in Isreal, and they believe in the SAME God.
If one group tries to force its beliefs on another, or if they are seperated
by hatred and isolationist policies, the community falls apart adn cannot
mend.
|
brighn
|
|
response 327 of 372:
|
Jun 21 04:16 UTC 2002 |
Does it really inconvenience a Chrisitan THAT MUCH to be told to say thier
prayer BEFORE they come to school? Does it really break down the sense of
community for a Christian to put their Christmas display up on their own
property, and leave public property alone? And why are these Ten Commandments
so hard to remember, that the Christians have to recite them over and over
in the courts?
I noticed you completely ignored one point of mine, Bruce. Your argument
against the Wiccans and the Druids, before you changed your tune, was
historical inaccuracy. Relying on the Gospel alone, accepting it is fact, few
theologians and historians accept as even *possible* that Jesus was born in
late December. That was a date that was made up by the early Catholic Church,
and yet many casual Christians believe that it's the day Jesus was born.
#324> The First Amendment is clear. The Constitution is also clear. The
minority is not imposing its will on the majority by demanding that religious
displays be kept off of government property. The majority is maintaining its
will by doing so. If the majority in this country decides that it no longer
wishes to live by the Constitution, it can dissolve the document and begin
again; since it chooses to maintain the document, it chooses to honor the
First Amendment. That is not the decision of the minority.
|
brighn
|
|
response 328 of 372:
|
Jun 21 04:19 UTC 2002 |
Actually, Bruce is right about something: Having a religion that is shared
openly, promoted in the courtrooms and the schools, and displayed with pride
*does* foster community. It says, "Hey, all you Lutherans, you belong. Hold
your head up high! Be proud!" It also says, "Hey, JEW! GET OUT! You don't
belong here!" It also says, "Yeah, you, with the rag on your head, and you
in the orange dress, we don't want your kind here! This is CHRISTIAN turf!"
That's what it says, and that's what I hear Bruce saying.
|
oval
|
|
response 329 of 372:
|
Jun 21 04:24 UTC 2002 |
politics/economics are sociopathis enough without getting the cults involved.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 330 of 372:
|
Jun 21 04:45 UTC 2002 |
The main reason the Jews in my example wouldn't raise a fuss about it would
likely be fear of reprisals. (Cf. #328) It's safer to keep your head down
than to get death threats from "people who profess a love of G-d" like you
do when you complain about this stuff in a strongly Christian community.
Hell, look at Bruce's post, where he says Christians are going to strike back
soon. If that isn't threatening, I don't know what is.
|
janc
|
|
response 331 of 372:
|
Jun 21 12:46 UTC 2002 |
> 1. It is not always proper for the minority to impose its will
> upon the majority.
Got a new flash for you: it is also not always proper for the majority
to impose its will upon the minority. That's what the whole concept of
a "right" is about. Even if every other person in the country wants me
to shut up, I still have the right to speak. The concept of majority
rule without the concept of individual rights is not democracy. It's
an abomination.
One of those individual rights is the right to worship as you please.
You and I agree that that means the police should break into
non-christian churchs to halt services. People should also not be
denied jobs because they are the wrong religion. And the government,
which is supposed to be the enforcer of this impartiality, should not
be constantly sending messages demonstrating partiality, like putting
christian religious displays on the city hall lawn.
> 2. It is preferable to live among people who profess a love of
> G-d than to live in a community without discernable positive values.
Yeah, you aren't the only person who thinks that people who don't
"profess a love of God" have no "discernable positive values". When I
was a kid, other kids would tell me to my face that since I'm not a
Christian, I must be evil. Well, surprise, morality does not flow only
from the love of God, no matter what your local priest says. Lots of
atheists are rather nice people. Our local arch-atheist, Rane, for
instance, has spent his life participating in various community service
organizations and helped found at least one. I've never seen anything
to indicate that Christians are one iota more moral than atheists.
I've never seen any evidence that morality flows from faith.
And anyway, the context of Joe's questions was about Jews not atheists.
Why would Jews prefer to live in a community of Christians who love
God, rather than, say, a community of Muslims or Wiccans or Jews who
love God? The subtext of your comment is not only that only people who
love God can be moral, but that only love of the Christian God counts,
and that this should be obvious even to members of other religions.
Well, it's not obvious. It's stupid.
|
gull
|
|
response 332 of 372:
|
Jun 21 13:05 UTC 2002 |
Re #326:
> Soon the christians are going to strike back. They are going to have to
> in order to survive, in order to maintain their sense of community.
Uhm, no. When you're in the majority, and even have a large number of
government officials openly professing (and making decisions based on) your
faith, it's not an issue of "survival", no matter how hard you try to cast
yourself as a victim. The fact is Christian groups have been forcing their
faith on other people for years in public forums, and now that that's
starting to change they're talking like it's the end of the world.
It's mostly the hypocrisy that gets me. You can bet that a lot of the
people who huff about a 'war on religion' when a Christian isn't allowed to
lead a prayer over the PA system at the beginning of a football game would
change their tune if the issue were a Muslim prayer being read.
|
md
|
|
response 333 of 372:
|
Jun 21 13:58 UTC 2002 |
I actually agree with almost everything jmsaul has said in this item.
It's his way of saying it that's embarrassing -- shrill, strident,
paranoid, mean-spirited, humorless. He's the kind of guy you don't
even want in the room when you're trying to talk with creationists.
|
md
|
|
response 334 of 372:
|
Jun 21 13:59 UTC 2002 |
And btw, I agree with janc about the Pagans needing a Pope. I herewith
volunteer for the position.
|
bru
|
|
response 335 of 372:
|
Jun 21 14:11 UTC 2002 |
I have never seen joe shrill or paranoid, or mean-spirited. He is sometimes
humorless (sorry joe) and he is definitely strident in support of his
position.
Most christians I know do know that Christs birthday wasn't on the 25th of
December. The church just chose that date as it was already a celebration
period for most heathens and they were not able to specify a particular date,
not even a year. Quit harping on a non-issue.
|
md
|
|
response 336 of 372:
|
Jun 21 14:22 UTC 2002 |
Maybe I should say the word "paranoid" was just irony (copyright @
James P. Howard, Jr.).
I think Joe *might* be seeing sinister Christian conspiracies trying to
shove their religion down his throat, where all there is is a bunch of
basically decent people who don't question their community's values as
much as the ought to, and who would be genuinely puzzled (and put off,
alas) by Joe's hostility. But this is all probably because Joe is
still young (teens? early twenties?). He will eventually outgrow all
this foolishness, as people do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 337 of 372:
|
Jun 21 14:33 UTC 2002 |
Re your estimate of Joe's age: Um, I don't think so.
|
md
|
|
response 338 of 372:
|
Jun 21 14:41 UTC 2002 |
oops
|
janc
|
|
response 339 of 372:
|
Jun 21 15:02 UTC 2002 |
I think Joe is approximately 40.
But I think we all tend to revert to childhood on this subject. I'm
always reminded of a vaguley familiar kid who came up to me in the hall
when I was a student in Huron High School. "Are you a Christian?"
"No." "So you're Jewish?" "No." "Oh, you must be a devil!" I hadn't
known the list of options was so short. I think my previous response
to klg was, to a degree, a belated response to this kid.
|
brighn
|
|
response 340 of 372:
|
Jun 21 15:46 UTC 2002 |
Raising something twice is "harping"? What are you doing, then, Bruce?
#331> Further elaboration on klg's point #2: THE TALIBAN PROFESSES A LOVE FOR
GOD. When will certain people get it through their skulls that "love for God"
does not imply "discernible positive values." By all means, klg, if you'd
rather live in the community you described, there are some mountains in
eastern Afghanistan which suits the bill.
#334> Um... pagans don't need a Pope, but Wiccans maybe could use one. Popes
go with religions, and paganism isn't a single religion.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 341 of 372:
|
Jun 21 17:12 UTC 2002 |
Re #318: I think most people would agree with all of those things.
However, when you start talking about the inate knowledge that this is
good and this is bad, just how much, honestly, is that the result of
outside stimuli. When you agrue that it is something you are "born"
with, you leave the realm of logical interpretation of these concepts,
which puts them as relative ideals highly subject to interpretation.
Keep in mind that I have no problem with taking this discussion outside
of the "logical" aspect of the good versus evil construct. I think
that in general, this is very much a nature versus nurture/chick & egg
kind of agrument. I do think that in general we do have certain
sensibilities as children that make us cringe at violence, get upset
and/or traumatised at certain events., etc. They may make us scared,
and we would be uncomfortable, but do we really think of them as "bad"
or "evil" the way we come to conceptualize evil as we get older?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 342 of 372:
|
Jun 21 18:56 UTC 2002 |
I'm 36. Like many people on BBSes, I use this as an outlet to go ahead and
rant, so I phrase things in a more extreme form here than I would in a serious
and reasoned discussion. Look -- I'm arguing against someone who honestly
seems to think that Christians are oppressed and need to rise up against the
non-Christian tyranny. It's very hard to treat that argument with any
respect.
Besides, ranting is fun.
|
oval
|
|
response 343 of 372:
|
Jun 21 18:58 UTC 2002 |
.. i do feel sorry for all these white male christians..
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 344 of 372:
|
Jun 21 19:28 UTC 2002 |
The people who run the country are white male Christians: every President
or VP in some 200 years, the overwhelming majority of Representatives, an
even higher percentage of Senators, a slimmer majority of Supreme Court
Justices, Federal Judges, every Attorney General I can think of, etc.).
This despite the fact that white male Christians aren't even a majority in
the country (Christians are, and whites are for a little while). The idea
that a group can be oppressed while controlling the vast majority of
wealth and power in the nation is frankly silly. Especially under the
current administration, which is even more overtly Christian than most.
Bruce really is screwed, though, so I can see where some of his anger is
coming from. It's misdirected, but it's legitimate. Bruce is poor, and
poor people in America get no slack. Bruce is also pretty old to be in
the job market without extensive experience, and older applicants get
hosed in the job search. He thinks he'd do better if he were a minority
or a woman; maybe he would, maybe he'd just do as well as he does now
(instead of the way a lot of places would prefer to treat a Black or
female applicant of his age if the laws weren't there). Anyway, he's got
a solid argument that society is out to get him on those points; the
numbers back him up.
If he wanted to play the self-righteous victim card on those topics, I'd
accept that. 45-year-old impoverished white guys without specific kinds
of job qualifications really are oppressed in some sense. Bruce deserves
better.
However. Christians? Oppressed? Please.
|
lowclass
|
|
response 345 of 372:
|
Jun 21 19:51 UTC 2002 |
Jmsaul, you're STILL seeing Christianity as nothing more than a
established long term attendance record.
One of the more interesting conversations I've had in my 46 years of
life was while delivering flowers for a living. We did the Sunday church
altar arrangements and the Lutheran minister was there. I happened to spot
a box of new bibles (New international version.) and asked if I oculd buy one.
In the course of our conversation, we got "into" the topic of "the faithful.
He stated, to my question, that about 5% of his congregation qualified as the
real deal.
Last I saw. the population of Christians as Us residents was about 1.7
million. What's the total Us population?
|
brighn
|
|
response 346 of 372:
|
Jun 21 20:40 UTC 2002 |
Characterizing Thomas Jefferson as a Christian is a bit misleading (ditto some
of the other early Presidents, but he in particular stands out).
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 347 of 372:
|
Jun 21 20:50 UTC 2002 |
Re #345: I'm talking about affiliation, and prejudice, and privilege. If
I were talking about whether people actually uphold the ideals of
the faith they claim to profess, the non-religious would be in a
huge majority worldwide. ;-)
Re #346: That's why I said "in some 200 years," instead of "ever".
|
mcnally
|
|
response 348 of 372:
|
Jun 21 21:06 UTC 2002 |
re #345: Total US population is probably somewhere between 280 and 300
million people. I'm not sure where you get the "1.7 million" number but
if it's meant to be the population of self-professed Christians in the
United States it's probably off by a couple of orders of magnitude..
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 349 of 372:
|
Jun 21 21:08 UTC 2002 |
Or it's supplied by one of the Christian groups that doesn't consider other
kinds of Christians to be real Christians...
|