OK, soap box time!

[capt_zman]

I have a couple of thoughts that, after 5 edits and re-edits, feel I have to inject into this discussion. You can agree or disagree, but I really don't care.

I find it extremely hippocritical to put religion before life. I truly believe that we are put on this earth to make sure that life moves on. How can believing in some rhetoric that was spoken 2000 years ago have any value today? The only value I see is the protecting of my family and making sure that my children are given every opportunity to create new life. Once that's complete, my job is complete. Spilling blood over your belief of who is your creator is ridiculous. My creator was my father. Have I met my creator, yes I have. Am I going to meet him after I die, who cares?

Homosexuality falls in the same category. We are most definitely not here to throw anal darts at one another. It serves no purpose other than selfishness.

Death penalty. Looking at the basics of life, if you intentionally rob someone of theirs, you should have to repay with your own. It's only fair.

Maybe I am a militant in what I believe in, but if you try and take life away from me or my family, I'll be the first in line to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[Austpilot]

It seems funny how the only way these faaarkin dyckheads can so called "strike back" is under cover, behind the back acts of terrorism, instead of what a real person who beleives in anything would do - confront the "enemy"head on and accept that you may lose. I guess that shows how gutless and moronic these faarkheads really are. I mean if you have a look at the mugshots published after 9/11 of these tools, they don't exactly look like the sharpest set of tools in the shed. And no - they were not "really smart" to get away with it - just opportunistic, something that a mentally retarded chimpanzee could be.

Nup, lets not keep faarking around. lets get in there and wipe out the Husseins,Bin Ladens, Al Qaeda,jihad obsessed penile implants and give the countries they originate from a giant enema once and for all.

 

[surplus1]

Timebuilder,

Interesting perspectives. Tell me, did "Christians" predate the "birth of Catholicism" or did Catholicism predate your definition of "Christians"? If Christians did not initiate and lead the crusades, who were the people that did? If Christians did not participate in the Inquisition what were the people that did?

I would agree that it isn't a matter of doctrine to give a historical perspective. I would also state that while, as you point out, there are many texts available on religious history they are no different from the texts available on secular history. The view of "history" turns out to be quite different depending on who wrote the text, where it was published and who is doing the teaching. We can reasearch and with enough effort establish many facts however, historical accounts/records are as often as not incompatible with fact. One must be cautious in that regard. I would respectfully submit that if one studies religious history at Oral Roberts University, one's perspective is likely to be quite different from that of one who studies the very same thing at Loyola or Notre Dame.

Here is the most basic guide: Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, since the text gives account of Christ's authentication of scripture. It warns against false teaching (David Koresh, Beny Hinn, Mohammed, the Catechism, you name it). If it isn't a Bible teaching (no praying to statues, Christ's mother, dead apostles, no repetitive mantra-like phrases) it doesn't happen in a Bible church.

Hmmmm.... I'm full of questions tonight. Which Bilble is that that "Christians" believe is the inspired word of God? Is it the Douay version or the King James version? Should I focus on the New Testament, the Old Testament or both? How do I reconcile the conflicts of philosophy and beliefs that exist between the two? Which one is the inspired word of God and which one is not? Should I perhaps read one of the more recent versions to get a more "modern" perspective? What about Mormons, are they Christians?

Who is it that prays to statues and Christ's mother? Is that the non-Christian Catholics? I need to get all these things straight particularly since you started by telling me that I should not make the error of confuseing Catholicism with Christianity. Since according to you, unless I misunderstand, the Chatholics aren't Christians, what are they? Just Catholics?

Maybe now I am more clear as to why I wrote the following:

>>We walk on dangerous ground when we enter into debate over another man's choice of religion, particularly when those of a different regilion decide to tell him what he is or what he believes.

True. In America, we are free to choose or not choose. If a man chooses to call himself Christian, then that means he follows the teachings of Christ. To the best of my knowlege, there is only one source for that particular information. The truth of whether or not he is a Christian was decided before he was born. If he prays before a statue, the Bible, not any human, says he is not following Christ.

Yes, in the United States we are free to choose or not choose. This is true of many other places outside the United States. Our country is not unique in the legal availability of religious freedom.
What is somewhat unique is our concept of the separation of church and state.

Yet, in practical application we may not be as "free" to choose or not choose as many of us believe. Our schools often alter text, delete certain accounts, add to others, change context and do all sorts of other things that adhere to the religious beliefs of those who control them. In yet other cases they are devoid of religious teaching based on the principle of separation in the Constitution, itself carried to extreme.

I would argue that religious extremists have been prevalent throught the recorded history of all religions. Today, most extremists appear to reside in the Islamic faith. Yesterday it was someone else. There are those in this country today that identify themselves as Christians who, extolling their own interpretation of "the Bible" would be quite close to the Muslims were it not for the restraint imposed by our secular State.

My point is that at one time or another fanatics in every religion have been willing to engage in unacceptable behavior under the guise of correcting error among others in the name of God. Most religions have evolved and avoid those practices in the main due, I believe, to the education of their members. Muslims lag behind because the majority of the populations where Islam flourishes are today uneducated and deprived. It is therefore easy for educated leaders to manipulate the masses. Religion becomes the convenient cover for political ambition in that environment.

One problem that I have with Islam in the United States is not directly related to terrorism. I simply find their belief that the religion must be the State, totally incompatible with the American belief that Church and State must be separate. Therefore I do not really understand how an American can also be a Muslim. If as an American you uphold the Constitution you cannot also adhere to Islam. If as a Muslim you adhere to the Islamic teaching how can you uphold the Constitution?

In my simple mind there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two.

Evangelists? If you mean those hucksters that you see on TV, I'm right there with you!!! Unfortunately, they fall into the false teacher category. Stay away from those fruitcakes. Yes, it is entirely appropriate that you say that.

Some of those that I was thinking of aren't necessarily on TV that much. But I won't go there.

The ONLY reason I have tried to explain the differences in beliefs is to explain the factual basics for those that think that clinic bombers, homosexual killers and the Spanish inquisition have anything at all to do with Christ or his teaching.

I understand that the things you reference are not the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, those who carry out those acts nevertheless believe they are adhering to what the Bible teaches them as the word of God. Not much different from Islamics believing they are adhering to the word of Allah as written in the Quran.

All of us need to be thankful, in whatever way we choose, that we have the freedoms we enjoy in America.

Yes indeed and we must defend them. We must also be very careful to ensure that in our effort to defend or freedoms, we do not relinquish them in the name of security.

 

[Timebuilder]

Yikes, Surplus! You write a lot of long, and well written post here on the board. I'll try to answer briefly, and as I can.

>>Interesting perspectives. Tell me, did "Christians" predate the "birth of Catholicism" or did Catholicism predate your definition of "Christians"? If Christians did not initiate and lead the crusades, who were the people that did? If Christians did not participate in the Inquisition what were the people that did?

The first people to call themselves Christians were the Ephesians, a Greek people in the city of Epesus, where Paul had taught before the crucifixtion. The Spanish Iquisition happend much later, led by what was from our perspective, the early Catholic church. The crusades, if I am not mistaken, were led by the knights Templar and some others. Like many mentioned in this thread, and as you pointed out, they THOUGHT that they were acting Biblically. I was only pointing out that according to scripture, they weren't. What text? That's very contoversial, as you might imagine. The New King James, with the old-english words removed (thee, thou, shalt....) is the maiin text in the modern churches I have seen in my travels. Some use the NIV, a more "modern" sounding translation. Douay? Don't know. According to Christ's New Testament teaching, along with Acts and the Epistles, the entire old and new sections are scripture. We are not compelled to do everything the way it was done in the old testament. It isn't always a good idea. In the old times, wives and children could be stoned. The judgement of a "good steward" becomes a necessity.

Your comments on history are good ones. Most people gather information from a number of sources, and propose timelines and theorize about some conclusions. I think Notre Dame would agree that king Constantine had a "miraculous vision" . Whether or not they would refer to the assimilation of other beliefs as being expedient to the birth of Roman Catholicsm is another question. My information comes secondhand from many Catholics I know, some have run the entire 16 year gamut, old school style, with the knuckles to prove it. We have had many hours of spirited discussion.

Praying to statues? I saw news footage of that happening over in Cherry Hill, NJ not many years ago. A statue of the virgin Mary had drawn a crowd who prayed to the statue for several weeks. I have never seen a book labled "bible" where Christ or his disciples instructed followers to pray to Mary, or any "graven image" of Mary. In fact, that practice was specifically prohibited. That's one example of not following Christ's teachings.

What are they? According to the Bible, if a group adds to or takes away from, the scriptures (Mormons, Catholics, for example) they are not following the word (Bible) and are engaging in "cult" activity. That's an area too large for me to cover, especially in an aviation forum. You strike me as a very intelligent guy, so I'll let you pursue that.

The separation of church and state is an interesting point. It has no constitutional basis, but the establishment clause has been interpreted by the supreme court to extend the concept into constitutional thinking. There is no, and never was, an intention of the founders to prevent public officials or private individuals in a public forum from making statements of faith, diplaying religious emblems, singing, praying, etc. The constitution never advocated a religiously sterile environment. In fact, the writings of the founders are quite clear that they believed that democracy only works in a context of free, individual, belief. The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. In order to guarantee freedom FROM religion, religious activity would have to be banned. Establishment of an official religion would REQUIRE not only practice of belief, but proof of practice, so those who stretch this clause are on very shaky constitutional ground. Nothing has ever hapened in the US that even remotely brings the establishment clause into play. We can blame its current prominence on a very liberal court, and Madelaine Murry O'Hare.

Sure, anyone can extoll their own interpretation of the Bible. In order for them to do that, though, they have to ignore or badly misinterpret large portions of it, much like the second grader who loudly announces that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

>>I understand that the things you reference are not the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, those who carry out those acts nevertheless believe they are adhering to what the Bible teaches them as the word of God. Not much different from Islamics believing they are adhering to the word of Allah as written in the Quran.

The difference is that the Muslims have the passage about killing the infidel to back up their heinous acts, and those "nutters" as Austpilot mentioned don't have a scriptural leg to stand on.

>>Yes indeed and we must defend them. We must also be very careful to ensure that in our effort to defend or freedoms, we do not relinquish them in the name of security.

Who was it that said that a nation that sacrifices its freedom for security is worthy of neither? Was it Jefferson? It's that darn CRS again. We must be careful.

Thanks for the workout. I particularly like you posts on the whole RJ mess. You take a lot of time and make a great effort to make your points clear. Who knows where it will end? We'll see.

 

[Snakum]

Christians ... It's my opinion that what often passes for Christianity nowadays should be called 'Paulism', since Paul essentially single-handedly created the 'church'. And when you consider that Jesus' own brother called Paul a liar and a spreader of false doctrine, and he was further suspected to be a Roman spy (saved from a mob of converts by soldiers) .... what should we believe? Jesus was either a militant Jew and a Zealot or a reformist but pacifist Essene, depending on which Qumran scholar you believe. Personally I tend to believe Barbra Therin, because the miracles just don't cut it.

Now Muslims ... they are either a peace-loving people who respect all believers of the book (Old Testament) and believe in Jesus Christ as an early prophet, or a bunch of fanatics compelled by the Koran to kill all infidels.

The Christian bible (old and new testament) is so full of contradictions it ain't funny, the Koran doesn't fair much better (as we've read earlier on this thread). If we look at history over the last few thousand years both are equally guilty of murder, pillage and plunder. Recent history ... both must claim fanatics for the faith - it's only a question of degrees.

So perhaps we shouldn't generalize. Maybe we shouldn't paint all Christians and all Muslims with the same brush. There are a few within each tradition spreading sorrow and discord, but they are the overwhelming minority.

As a great man I think it was Rodney King who said ... "Wha cain't we all jist get along?"

Rev. Thich Minh Thong
(Corporate SE Piston Geek and Rinzai Priest)

PS ... about the TV preachers ... my father is a Southern Baptist minister (like father, like son) and he believes there is a special place in he!! for the Benny Hinns and Oral Roberts of this world. And Benny ... WHAT THE FUX UP WITH THAT HAIR, BRO?!

 

[Timebuilder]

You know what I can't figure out? If Benny Hinn is healing those people, then WHY THE HECK DO THEY FALL OVER???? Is he pushing them?

These guys are cretins who are out to steal your money.