Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/20/2001 8:48:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 9:00:09 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
...and the people imagine a vain thing?' Psalms 2:1. It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that some there are on this Board who are at a loss to put the proper perspective on what a great debt is owed by this country and its citizens to the religion known as Christianity. So, to cut to the chase, let's all get out our history books and review of little of our Past. Our Glorious Past. I will lead you there, but I cannot make you think - you must do that for yourselves. The site to which you are directed is one at the Library of Congress. This is the site: [url]http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/[/url] Go there my children, read, learn, study, weep, and know how much you were loved from the very beginning. Loved enough that others would lay down theirs lives for you, your children, and your children's children. From the very beginning of Our Republic. Hurry back, and share what you've learned with the rest of the class. And yes, there will be a test afterwards, it will be the test of eternity, and whether what we have now, is something that we can keep, or something that we will fritter away. Eric The(RighteousnessExaltethANation!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 8:55:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 8:51:59 AM EDT by garandman]
Eric- Its the difference between "can't" and "don't want to." Should we as a nation acknowledge the Divine Providence of the Almighty in the founding of our nation and His sustenance of it even up to today, and embrace the Scriptural heritage our nation was founded on, we would have to surrender ourselves to the demands the Almighty places on how we live our lives. And we simply "don't want to" do that. No serious student of history can deny that we were founded as a nation that feared God.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:01:30 AM EDT
If that's true, [b]garandman[/b], then I think it's high time to forever ban that 'God Bless America' business, 'cause if they don't mean it, He ain't gonna do it! So next time someone says 'God Bless America' to me, I'd like to have a good retort ready for them. Eric The(SoLet'sThinkOfOne)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:08:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: If that's true, [b]garandman[/b], then I think it's high time to forever ban that 'God Bless America' business, 'cause if they don't mean it, He ain't gonna do it! So next time someone says 'God Bless America' to me, I'd like to have a good retort ready for them. Eric The(SoLet'sThinkOfOne)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
And get this "In God We Trust" business off our coins. EVERYBODY knows we trust more in the coins than in Him. If God can do anything, He can SPOT a phony.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:11:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 9:05:06 AM EDT by DriftPunch]
what a great debt is owed by this country and its citizens to the religion known as Christianity.
View Quote
Well, at least this started out as an intelligent thread. Yes, this country has a strong christian heritage, and guess what, it's still mostly populated with christians! Just because christianity in America it isn't as evangelical as it once was, you guys are bent. Settle down, you've now seen one possibility of where this type of religious student movement can lead...
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:12:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: If that's true, [b]garandman[/b], then I think it's high time to forever ban that 'God Bless America' business, 'cause if they don't mean it, He ain't gonna do it! So next time someone says 'God Bless America' to me, I'd like to have a good retort ready for them. Eric The(SoLet'sThinkOfOne)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
And get this "In God We Trust" business off our coins. EVERYBODY knows we trust more in the coins than in Him. If God can do anything, He can SPOT a phony. For our new slogan - How about we go with "God, don't bother us - we're partying" or "God Bless us - just don't expect anything in return" or my personal favorite "The 'Notion of a being big enuf to give us good stuff but NOT big enuf to have created us, or aided in the founding of this nation, or write a Book about Himself or that should be allowed to establish rules to live by' Bless America.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:18:45 AM EDT
That DJOAS comment really pi**ed you off, didn't it? I do not deny that Christianity had a great deal to do with the formation of our nation. I do not deny that religion (loosely defined as a belief in a being or beings that have control over Man) has had major influence over all cultures throughout history. But I disagree that it is a [i]requirement[/i] of good government. The problem our culture has, Eric, is that we've systematically stripped God (and the inhibitions that having the Big Guy staring over our shoulders fosters) from our lives, but not replaced him with anything except "if it feels good, do it". Your position is, without religion, we're doomed. Mine is, without replacing the morality that has always been religiously based with something that isn't, we're doomed. You have faith that God exists, and that therefore Satan and Hell exist. I don't. My morality has to be based on something other than "God told me so, and if I don't obey I'll go to Hell." Unfortunately, the same holds true for the sociopath whose morality is "you're not me, therefore you're not important". We need a [i]common[/i] morality, and Christianity provided that for nearly two centuries, but the general belief in God is fading, and morality with it. Moralities work when they are not destructive to societies. Morality to date has always been attached to a cultures dominant religion. But when religion goes away, it is not a given that morality has to go with it. It is possible to have a system of morals [i]not[/i] predicated on religion. Finally, if the nominally Christian portion of the U.S. population (ostensibly the vast majority, though I doubt even you would confer upon many the mantle of "moral beings") rises up and insists, Spanish-inquisition style, that the Christian ethic be restored to the population, how do you think that would be accomplished within the framework of the Constitution, and just how successful would it be? Religious fanatacism is defined as doing what you just [i]know[/i] God would do, if He simply understood the situation.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:19:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: If that's true, [b]garandman[/b], then I think it's high time to forever ban that 'God Bless America' business, 'cause if they don't mean it, He ain't gonna do it! So next time someone says 'God Bless America' to me, I'd like to have a good retort ready for them. Eric The(SoLet'sThinkOfOne)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
And get this "In God We Trust" business off our coins. EVERYBODY knows we trust more in the coins than in Him. If God can do anything, He can SPOT a phony. For our new slogan - How about we go with "God, don't bother us - we're partying" or "God Bless us - just don't expect anything in return" or my personal favorite "The 'Notion of a being big enuf to give us good stuff but NOT big enuf to have created us, or aided in the founding of this nation, or write a Book about Himself or that should be allowed to establish rules to live by' Bless America.
View Quote
Personally my favorite is "God who?"
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:27:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 9:26:08 AM EDT by gardenWeasel]
Is this a Jeremiad? (If you don't know what I mean) [url]http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/34-jer.html[/url]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:29:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 9:25:28 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By KBaker: Your position is, without religion, we're doomed. Mine is, without replacing the morality that has always been religiously based with something that isn't, we're doomed.
View Quote
It may help to realize that based on the traditional biblical worldview, theres NOT much difference between those two "positions." "Religion" (for lack of a better word) and morality are INSEPARABLE.
. My morality has to be based on something other than "God told me so, and if I don't obey I'll go to Hell."
View Quote
Please eloborate. based on SPECIFICALLY what??
Moralities work when they are not destructive to societies.
View Quote
That is an IMMENSELY subjective standard. Some view preaching the gospel of jesus Christ as harmful to society. Some view the fact that gov't leaders are not FORCED to swear allegiance to jesus Christ as harmful to society.(My view is that they are BOTH wrong) There HAS to be an ABSOLUTE standard. What would you propose??? 50% of the voting population + 1 individual is NOT a viable answer.
Religious fanatacism is defined as doing what you just [i]know[/i] God would do, if He simply understood the situation.
View Quote
For MOST situations, we DO know EXACTLY what God would do, since He showed us in the Bible. When God acts, He ALWAYS understands the situation.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:43:05 AM EDT
Post from KBaker -
That DJOAS comment really pi**ed you off, didn't it?
View Quote
Of course it did! But I removed it from this thread because I promised you I would. If it ever appears again, it will be simply because someone copied it before it was deleted. The problem in replacing 'no morality' with 'some morality' is that Christianity didn't spring up overnight. Nor did it disappear overnight! It took an awfully long time for it to develop as a philosophy by which people could live their lives, and rule their nations. It is, however, still present in this country. A much easier thing to accomplish would be to 'fix it' rather than 'replace it.' I mean the churches are already here - they're just becoming more and more empty! Something needs to fill them up again. Sept 11 did its part, now it's up to men and women of good will to finish that repair work. The creation of this Nation was the work of Church-going folks. The movement to abolish slavery in this nation was the work of Church-going folks. The Civil Rights Movement was the work of Church-going folks. If there is any movement in this country that will ever lead us anywhere of value, it will be one that is started in Churches. Of this you can be certain! More people will attend Churches this next Sunday, than will attend [b]all[/b] of the professional sporting events, in all sports, for the entire year! And that holds true of any Sunday, not just the one after Thanksgiving! Eric The(NowThat'sUnityWeCouldPutToGoodUse)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:45:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 9:40:23 AM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By garandman: It may help to realize that based on the traditional biblical worldview, theres NOT much difference between those two "positions." "Religion" (for lack of a better word) and morality are INSEPARABLE.
Originally posted by KBaker: My morality has to be based on something other than "God told me so, and if I don't obey I'll go to Hell."
View Quote
Please eloborate. based on SPECIFICALLY what??
View Quote
Based primarily on "the only sin is in hurting another unnecessarily". Sorry if that's too "gray" for you. It works for me. It covers "thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not commit murder", etc. and still allows for those times when a little homicide or theft may be necessary for survival. It does skip the "thou shall have no other gods before me" as unnecessary.
Moralities work when they are not destructive to societies.
View Quote
That is an IMMENSELY subjective standard. Some view preaching the gospel of jesus Christ as harmful to society. Some view the fact that gov't leaders are not FORCED to swear allegiance to jesus Christ as harmful to society.(My view is that they are BOTH wrong) There HAS to be an ABSOLUTE standard. What would you propose??? 50% of the voting population + 1 individual is NOT a viable answer.
View Quote
And there's your problem. You cannot have an ABSOLUTE standard. At best you can have a standard agreed to (but not necessarily followed) by the vast majority ("If I'm not caught, it didn't happen" is a pretty common rationalization). When that standard drops to a simple majority (or your 50% + 1 example) the society dissolves in civil war. Or simply dissolves. How else do you account for the myriad "Christian" religions? Are they ALL right?
Religious fanatacism is defined as doing what you just [i]know[/i] God would do, if He simply understood the situation.
View Quote
For MOST situations, we DO know EXACTLY what God would do, since He showed us in the Bible.
View Quote
Thus Jihad, Crusade, and Inquisition are justified. So too, flying airplanes into buildings. You know full well I was not speaking of "living a life of God", I was speaking of forcing your version of such a life on others. (Edited to correct quotation problems)
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:47:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 9:43:20 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By KBaker: Thus Jihad, Crusade, and Inquisition are justified. So too, flying airplanes into buildings.
View Quote
Even the MOST casual reading of the Scriptures will condemn Jihad, Crusade and the Inquisition. Flying planes into buildings??? I think that covered in the Ten Commandments. You'll get NO argument from me that on a large scale, "religion" causes abuses that CANNOT be tolerated. But adherence to the Scriptures, TRUE adherence to the Scriptures has NEVER EVER resulted in anything akin to Jihad, or the Inquisition. NEVER. Read the Book. You'll see.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:54:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Even the MOST casual reading of the Scriptures will condemn Jihad, Crusade and the Inquisition.
View Quote
Therefore the Pope was in error? Are we now hurling stones at other sects of the same religion? A whole bunch of people, apparently perfectly moral within their religions, disagreed with you Garandman. What I'm afraid of is a resurgence in this country of fundamentalist Christianity by a population that has [i]demonstrably[/i] proved that it doesn't even [i]casually[/i] read the Bible (or much of anything else) who can be lead by some charismatic individual to do things that would make the Inquisition look like pikers. We already have one example in recent history. A supposedly Christian nation systematically wiped out some 12,000,000 people at the suggestion that they were somehow "not human". You may blame that on Satan, but I blame it on humanity.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:00:53 AM EDT
But I disagree that it is a [i]requirement[/i] of good government. The problem our culture has, Eric, is that we've systematically stripped God (and the inhibitions that having the Big Guy staring over our shoulders fosters) from our lives, but not replaced him with anything except "if it feels good, do it".
View Quote
So, give us a solution, what would you suggest replace having 'the Big Guy' staring over our shoulders - Big Brother? - and IMHO you have determined a large cause of the problem here, that we've stripped God from our lives.
Your position is, without religion, we're doomed. Mine is, without replacing the morality that has always been religiously based with something that isn't, we're doomed.
View Quote
The problem isn't replacing morality, as that would most likely be best remaining mostly unchanged. The real problem is that most people (not necessarily you) can't get away from the notion that because the laws forbidding stealing can be connected, no matter how thin the thread, to the commandments or Mosaic law or something in the Bible, we can't possibly have a law like that (I know, it's an exageration, but it's not that far off for some)
You have faith that God exists, and that therefore Satan and Hell exist. I don't. My morality has to be based on something other than "God told me so, and if I don't obey I'll go to Hell." Unfortunately, the same holds true for the sociopath whose morality is "you're not me, therefore you're not important".
View Quote
So - not to be belligerent or anything, but simply out of curiousity, on what [b]is[/b] your morality based?
We need a [i]common[/i] morality, and Christianity provided that for nearly two centuries, but the general belief in God is fading, and morality with it.
View Quote
Yes, a common morality will work, but as mentioned, there are some to which anything having a commonality to Christianity is anethema, no matter how tenuous the link may be.
Moralities work when they are not destructive to societies. Morality to date has always been attached to a cultures dominant religion. But when religion goes away, it is not a given that morality has to go with it. It is possible to have a system of morals [i]not[/i] predicated on religion.
View Quote
I would [b]almost[/b] agree with this, except that usually what happens is that somehow, for some reason, the institution that dictates that morality, or the people 'pushing' for that morality at some point (not right away) [i]become[/i] the new religion.
Finally, if the nominally Christian portion of the U.S. population (ostensibly the vast majority, though I doubt even you would confer upon many the mantle of "moral beings") rises up and insists, Spanish-inquisition style, that the Christian ethic be restored to the population, ...?
View Quote
First, if the nominally Christian portion of the U,S, population would become less nominal in their practice, they wouldn't [b]have[/b] to rise up and insist in Spanish-Inquisition style (Not the comfy chair!) that the Christian ethic be restored. It would simply happen. Imagine what the effects of the vast majority of people actaully [b]practicing[/b] what they believed would be. Even the ACLU would have to at least admit there is something about these people that is truly good.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:05:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: Therefore the Pope was in error? Are we now hurling stones at other sects of the same religion? A whole bunch of people, apparently perfectly moral within their religions, disagreed with you Garandman. We already have one example in recent history. A supposedly Christian nation systematically wiped out some 12,000,000 people at the suggestion that they were somehow "not human". You may blame that on Satan, but I blame it on humanity.
View Quote
"By their fruits ye shall know them." ANY nation that tries to exterminate 12,000,000 is CLEARLY not a Bible obeying nation, no matter WHAT they call themselves. KB - You statement smacks of willfull blindness. Because someone calls themselves a Christian, you AUTOMATICALLY believe that they are, and then smartly proceed to debunk Christianity based on their actions that are CLEARLY in violation of the Bible?? Come on. get real. You are smarter than that. If "they" are in line with scripture, then they are right. If they violate Scriopture, they are wrong. The Pope is NOTHING more than a man like me. He too MUSt follow the dictums of Scripture. I hurl stones at no one or no sect. I apply the ABSOLUTES of Scripture, and let the chips fall where they may. And YES, historically it WAS indeed the Roman Catholic Church that initiated and carriedc out BOTH the crusades, AND teh Inquisition. That's NOt throwing stones, that's acknowledging historical FACT.
What I'm afraid of is a resurgence in this country of fundamentalist Christianity by a population that has [i]demonstrably[/i] proved that it doesn't even [i]casually[/i] read the Bible (or much of anything else) who can be lead by some charismatic individual to do things that would make the Inquisition look like pikers.
View Quote
This sounds like the creation of boogeyman that doesn't really exist. But i will keep an open mind. Name SPECIFIC names and I will address their violations of Scripture, if any. All this being said, you will find it interesting I am AGAINST teh establishment of CHristianity as the "official religion."
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:14:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: Thus Jihad, Crusade, and Inquisition are justified. So too, flying airplanes into buildings. You know full well I was not speaking of "living a life of God", I was speaking of forcing your version of such a life on others. (Edited to correct quotation problems)
View Quote
I dont' think you understand the problem here - it is one of application of scripture to [b]one's own life[/b]. If one reads the Bible, and applies the principles found therein to ones own life, then there would be no Jihad, Crusade (or at least the atrocities associated with the crusades), or Inquisitions. And yes, the Pope was wrong. I'm sorry to all the Catholoc people out there, but this is not a slam against you - saying it is is akin to saying that I'm to blame for slavery in this country. People are people - they all have fallen short - in otherwords, they all have made mistakes, even the Pope.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:21:20 AM EDT
So, Eric, why [b]do[/b] the heathen rage? [:D]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:32:21 AM EDT
First, if the nominally Christian portion of the U,S, population would become less nominal in their practice, they wouldn't have to rise up and insist in Spanish-Inquisition style (Not the comfy chair!) that the Christian ethic be restored. It would simply happen.
View Quote
That's an excellent point.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:37:19 AM EDT
get over it, guys. not everyone goes to your church. some people choose not to go to church at all. not everyone wants to hear about your religion. we dont want to hear how much more moral or good or saved you are because we dont all share your beliefs. there are lots of people who lead good moral lives who do not go to your church, or any church at all. we've all heard about your religion, thank you. you can be happy now that you've done your duty by promoting your church. we all know where to get bibles if we want them. we can read, and dont need you to interpret it for us.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:47:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: get over it, guys. not everyone wants to hear about your religion. we dont want to hear how much more moral or good or saved you are because we dont all share your beliefs.
View Quote
That's fine. Of course, if you REALLY feel that way, one HAS to wonder WHY you insist on inserting yourself in a discussion where you are SURE to hear about our religion. HMmmmmmmm........ Do what I do with the Babe threads - don't read / look.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:54:00 AM EDT
why do i "insert myself?" because at any given time there seem to be 2 or 3 active religion threads. issues of morality interest me. but i'd rather see some other views once in a while, we might learn something. this constant "soul-trolling" gets annoying. a little more humility would be more becoming.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:19:13 AM EDT
Post from jhasz -
So, Eric, why do the heathen rage?[:D]
View Quote
I haven't a clue. Seems to me the heathen have pretty much been left to their own devices and yet they still rage! I mean we haven't had a decent Crusade (shhh!!) in over 800 years, or a really good Inquisition in almost 400 years. And yet they [u]continue[/u] to rage! We've stopped burning witches (eh, Dacon?), or at least hanging them in that same period as well. Looks to me as if they'd be as happy as ticks. Eric The(AndAsFarAsImaginingAVainThing,Well...)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:30:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: why do i "insert myself?" because at any given time there seem to be 2 or 3 active religion threads.
View Quote
Well, since we are a group of folks that embrace the idea of personal responsibility, I would be inclined to think that if these threads give you heartburn, CHOOSING to look at them makes your heartburn your own fault. Just CHOOSE not to look.
issues of morality interest me. but i'd rather see some other views once in a while, we might learn something. this constant "soul-trolling" gets annoying.
View Quote
Since we are ALL welcome to post here if we abide by the Code of Conduct, I guess you'll just have to accept the fact that for SOME of us, it is both impossible and non-sensical to separate morality from our worldview. Just as I have accepted the fact that Babes WILL be a presence on this thread. Simply stated, I'm not requirng anything of you that i have NOT already done myself.
a little more humility would be more becoming.
View Quote
At least for my part, don't confuse the boldness and dogmatic statements that I make from the Word of God as implying I myself am anything to be given high regard. I am not. But God, and His Words, are. IMO. [:D]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:40:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jhasz:
But I disagree that it is a [i]requirement[/i] of good government. The problem our culture has, Eric, is that we've systematically stripped God (and the inhibitions that having the Big Guy staring over our shoulders fosters) from our lives, but not replaced him with anything except "if it feels good, do it".
View Quote
So, give us a solution, what would you suggest replace having 'the Big Guy' staring over our shoulders - Big Brother? - and IMHO you have determined a large cause of the problem here, that we've stripped God from our lives.
View Quote
Big Brother isn't necessary. YOU are. We've got to get away from the idea that "if I do X God will send me to hell" or "if I do Y Big Brother will reprogram me". Do you see the connection there? It's the word "ME". How about "if I do Z I will harm someone without need"? Hey, I'm the first to admit I'm not perfect at it. The "DJOAS" comment was unnecessary and it did offend, for which I did apologize. (It did inspire this thread, though.) How about a system of morals based on what your actions will mean to OTHER people? How about recognizing that it isn't all about YOU?
Your position is, without religion, we're doomed. Mine is, without replacing the morality that has always been religiously based with something that isn't, we're doomed.
View Quote
The problem isn't replacing morality, as that would most likely be best remaining mostly unchanged. The real problem is that most people (not necessarily you) can't get away from the notion that because the laws forbidding stealing can be connected, no matter how thin the thread, to the commandments or Mosaic law or something in the Bible, we can't possibly have a law like that (I know, it's an exageration, but it's not that far off for some)
View Quote
Quite correct. There is a definite "religious phobia" among some. I don't have that problem, though. I think that generally the morals attributed to the Christian religion are good ones. My point is only that humanity is going to drift away from the idea of God, and we'd better have some way of validating those morals or we lose them (as we are seeing now). (cont'd)
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:41:27 AM EDT
(cont'd)
You have faith that God exists, and that therefore Satan and Hell exist. I don't. My morality has to be based on something other than "God told me so, and if I don't obey I'll go to Hell." Unfortunately, the same holds true for the sociopath whose morality is "you're not me, therefore you're not important".
View Quote
So - not to be belligerent or anything, but simply out of curiousity, on what [b]is[/b] your morality based?
View Quote
See above: Will my actions cause another unnecessary injury?
We need a [i]common[/i] morality, and Christianity provided that for nearly two centuries, but the general belief in God is fading, and morality with it.
View Quote
Yes, a common morality will work, but as mentioned, there are some to which anything having a commonality to Christianity is anethema, no matter how tenuous the link may be.
View Quote
No question
Moralities work when they are not destructive to societies. Morality to date has always been attached to a cultures dominant religion. But when religion goes away, it is not a given that morality has to go with it. It is possible to have a system of morals [i]not[/i] predicated on religion.
View Quote
I would [b]almost[/b] agree with this, except that usually what happens is that somehow, for some reason, the institution that dictates that morality, or the people 'pushing' for that morality at some point (not right away) [i]become[/i] the new religion.
Finally, if the nominally Christian portion of the U.S. population (ostensibly the vast majority, though I doubt even you would confer upon many the mantle of "moral beings") rises up and insists, Spanish-inquisition style, that the Christian ethic be restored to the population, ...?
View Quote
First, if the nominally Christian portion of the U,S, population would become less nominal in their practice, they wouldn't [b]have[/b] to rise up and insist in Spanish-Inquisition style (Not the comfy chair!) that the Christian ethic be restored. It would simply happen. Imagine what the effects of the vast majority of people actaully [b]practicing[/b] what they believed would be. Even the ACLU would have to at least admit there is something about these people that is truly good.
View Quote
I submit, however, that the "nominally Christian" majority of the U.S. does not, in fact actually [i]practice[/i] the tenets of their religion. They may attend church, but that doesn't mean it's more than lip-service to many. There are far too many people out there who want someone, Jehova or Jeb Bush, to tell them how to live, and far too few who want to figure it out for themselves. Martin Luther may have been one of the first who actually wanted the flock to think for itself, but the flock seems to have avoided it in the main.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:52:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
a little more humility would be more becoming.
View Quote
At least for my part, don't confuse the boldness and dogmatic statements that I make from the Word of God as implying I myself am anything to be given high regard. I am not. But God, and His Words, are. IMO. [:D]
View Quote
let's see if ive got this straight. you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. yep, that's humility.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:52:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
First, if the nominally Christian portion of the U,S, population would become less nominal in their practice, they wouldn't have to rise up and insist in Spanish-Inquisition style (Not the comfy chair!) that the Christian ethic be restored. It would simply happen.
View Quote
That's an excellent point.
View Quote
Right-o. But you can lead the horse to water.... You cannot [i]make[/i] people moral. My illustration of Germany is [i]not[/i] out of line, nor the Crusades, nor the Inquisition. A good number of the truly [i]moral[/i] Christians died at the hands of the Inquisition, while the rest of the nominally Christian nation of Spain applauded their deaths in the name of God. Eric, you and Garandman, and I don't know how many others in here are not my concern. I'm concerned for those who followed Jim and Tammy Faye, and Jimmy Swaggert, and Jim Jones, and Moon, and for that matter David Koresh. There's WAY too many people out there who can and do read the Bible and get out of it the idea that killing others in the name of God is A-OK. History is full of examples. "It can't happen here" is not a defense.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:00:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: KB - You statement smacks of willfull blindness. Because someone calls themselves a Christian, you AUTOMATICALLY believe that they are, and then smartly proceed to debunk Christianity based on their actions that are CLEARLY in violation of the Bible?? Come on. get real. You are smarter than that.
View Quote
No, no, Nannete, that's YOUR interpretation of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are millions of people out there who truly think they're "Christians", who attend church every Sunday and holidays, and whatever else, who do what they're told (or don't look and allow atrocity) [i]and still believe they're Christians and forgiven their sins[/i]. I accept that you follow - to the letter - the tenets of your particular sect, whatever it is. But you illustrate one of my points. "The Popes were wrong for the Crusades", you assert. "The Inquisition was wrong", you assert. "The German people in W.W.II. weren't Christians" you assert. To a bunch of Catholics, them's fightin' words. Let's go kill in the name of God! Get my point?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:00:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: let's see if ive got this straight. you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. yep, that's humility.
View Quote
No you don't yet have it straight. Let me help.... "I try to follow the Word of God (admittedly am pretty poor at it) and anyone who doesn't agree with the Word of God is wrong." And YES, its patently arrogant. Arrogant of God to consider Himself right, and anyone who disagrees with Him wrong. You and i are both given teh responsibility / opportunity of choosing sides - our own or God's. Hope that helps.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:04:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: No, no, Nannete, that's YOUR interpretation of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are millions of people out there who truly think they're "Christians", who attend church every Sunday and holidays, and whatever else, who do what they're told (or don't look and allow atrocity) [i]and still believe they're Christians and forgiven their sins[/i]. I accept that you follow - to the letter - the tenets of your particular sect, whatever it is. But you illustrate one of my points. "The Popes were wrong for the Crusades", you assert. "The Inquisition was wrong", you assert. "The German people in W.W.II. weren't Christians" you assert. To a bunch of Catholics, them's fightin' words. Let's go kill in the name of God! Get my point?
View Quote
Being a Christian DOES NOT imply sinless perfection. You CANNOT logically hold ANYONE but God to that standard. And NO, I DO NOT adhere to every tenet of my faith. I am a sinner too. That reality DOES NOT negate teh viability of the Word of God. You simply MUST forget what other people do, and acknowledge YOUR PERSONAL responsibility to Almighty God. Your eternal destiny has NOTHING to do with others actions. And you cannot use them to excuse yourself from your responsibility to God.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:06:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 12:07:33 PM EDT by imposter]
Originally Posted By KBaker: We already have one example in recent history. A supposedly Christian nation systematically wiped out some 12,000,000 people at the suggestion that they were somehow "not human".
View Quote
I suppose you are referring to Nazi Germany. The Nazis were not Christian, and in fact Hitler wanted to eliminate Christianity. He called Christianity the systematic cultivation of human failure. His thoughts in this regard were similar to Nitzche (sp?). He had plans to go after Christianity after the war was concluded. He already had a lot on his plate. Of course, more people were killed nder the auspices of the secular philosophy of communism than have ever been killed in the name of religion. Is this little jihad and anti-jihad we have had going for the past few weeks going to wear out, or is it a permanent feature of the site?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:11:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 12:04:46 PM EDT by shooterX308]
When all of you gentlemen get to the parts about compassion for your fellow man, let me know. Like most religious forums these days, this one seems to be sorely lacking on that subject. shooter Heathen by birth. Fighting the rage by choice.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:13:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: "I try to follow the Word of God (admittedly am pretty poor at it) and anyone who doesn't agree with the Word of God is wrong." And YES, its patently arrogant. Arrogant of God to consider Himself right, and anyone who disagrees with Him wrong.
View Quote
at last, we agree on something!
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:14:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By imposter:
Originally Posted By KBaker: We already have one example in recent history. A supposedly Christian nation systematically wiped out some 12,000,000 people at the suggestion that they were somehow "not human".
View Quote
I suppose you are referring to Nazi Germany. The Nazis were not Christian, and in fact Hitler wanted to eliminate Christianity. He called Christianity the systematic cultivation of human failure. His thoughts in this regard were similar to Nitzche. He had plans to do go after Christianity after the war was concluded. He already had a lot on his plate. Is this little jihad and anti-jihad we have had going for the past few weeks going to wear out, or is it a permanent feature of the site?
View Quote
The nation of Germany was overwhelmingly Christian at the time Hitler took power. It has remained so to this day. A great number of people in Germany actively participated in or allowed to occur the deaths of some 12,000,000 people. I imagine that would have assisted in any plan Hitler had to shame people out of being Christian. The need to be lead + charismatic leader = possibility of something REALLY bad
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:25:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: The nation of Germany was overwhelmingly Christian at the time Hitler took power. It has remained so to this day.
View Quote
Biblically, that is just simply not true. You typing it out 6 more times will NOT make it so [:D] Christ ALONE defines who is a "Christ-ian." You need to line up your definition of "Christian" with His. But even if it were true, it is IRRELEVANT, and does NOTHING to change your PERSONAL responsibility to God.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:29:32 PM EDT
The Nazis were not Christian, and in fact Hitler wanted to eliminate Christianity. He called Christianity the systematic cultivation of human failure. His thoughts in this regard were similar to Nitzche (sp?).
View Quote
Just a point of information: Although Nietzsche attacked Christianity, he also condemned anti-Semitism and German nationalism, two of Nazism's core values.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:31:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 12:25:41 PM EDT by imposter]
Originally Posted By KBaker: The nation of Germany was overwhelmingly Christian at the time Hitler took power. It has remained so to this day. A great number of people in Germany actively participated in or allowed to occur the deaths of some 12,000,000 people.
View Quote
But those people were not Christians. A person could not be a member of the high Nazi leadership and still be a Christian. I doubt you would find that the people guarding the camps were practicing Christians. Again, Nazism was anti-Christian. You can not blame the holocaust on Christianity; in fact, many of the holocoast victims were Christian clergy. Please point out where some Christian Church supported the holocaust. It never happened. True, Christian churches did very little to stop it, but by '43 they were intimitated like everybody else by the Nazi terror.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:39:26 PM EDT
Based primarily on "the only sin is in hurting another unnecessarily". Sorry if that's too "gray" for you. It works for me. It covers "thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not commit murder", etc. and still allows for those times when a little homicide or theft may be necessary for survival.
View Quote
The problem with that standard is that it begs the question of what is "necessary". The perpetrators of many of history's atrocities defended their actions as being "necessary" to advance some greater good.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:58:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Based primarily on "the only sin is in hurting another unnecessarily". Sorry if that's too "gray" for you. It works for me. It covers "thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not commit murder", etc. and still allows for those times when a little homicide or theft may be necessary for survival.
View Quote
The problem with that standard is that it begs the question of what is "necessary". The perpetrators of many of history's atrocities defended their actions as being "necessary" to advance some greater good.
View Quote
Yup. And many did it convinced that they did it with the blessings of their God. What's your point?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 1:08:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 1:03:02 PM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By imposter:
Originally Posted By KBaker: The nation of Germany was overwhelmingly Christian at the time Hitler took power. It has remained so to this day. A great number of people in Germany actively participated in or allowed to occur the deaths of some 12,000,000 people.
View Quote
But those people were not Christians. A person could not be a member of the high Nazi leadership and still be a Christian. I doubt you would find that the people guarding the camps were practicing Christians. Again, Nazism was anti-Christian. You can not blame the holocaust on Christianity; in fact, many of the holocoast victims were Christian clergy. Please point out where some Christian Church supported the holocaust. It never happened. True, Christian churches did very little to stop it, but by '43 they were intimitated like everybody else by the Nazi terror.
View Quote
Yeesh! Would you please re-read my posts and point out [i]anywhere[/i] where I blame the Holocaust on Christianity? What I'm pointing out is what you yourself admit - Christian churches did very little to stop it. People who are living by the tenets of their religion [i]cannot[/i] be intimidated into doing or allowing evil. Therefore, my point is not that Christianity is to blame, it is to illustrate that the [i]majority[/i] of people who believe themselves to be Christian are, as Garandman pointed out in the examples of Crusade, Inquisition, and Holocaust [i]not[/i], no matter how often they go to church or how much they tithe. If a fear of mortal death can prevent their action, then where is their faith in everlasting life? I submit that the majority [i]don't really have faith[/i]. Spiritual faith leads to great courage, courage to liberty, liberty to abundance, abundance to selfishness, selfishness to complacency, complacency to apathy, apathy to dependency, and dependency to bondage, according to the saying. America is, I think, somewhere between apathy and dependency and is headed toward bondage. Bondage seems to be the requirement for renewed spiritual faith. Wouldn't it be great if we could stop the cycle?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 1:15:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By KBaker: The nation of Germany was overwhelmingly Christian at the time Hitler took power. It has remained so to this day.
View Quote
Biblically, that is just simply not true. You typing it out 6 more times will NOT make it so [:D] Christ ALONE defines who is a "Christ-ian." You need to line up your definition of "Christian" with His. But even if it were true, it is IRRELEVANT, and does NOTHING to change your PERSONAL responsibility to God.
View Quote
Garandman, you stand right up and tell all those millions of people who belong to all those myriad churches that they aren't really Christians. They think they are. They think that they're going to heaven. They've been told they are. You disagree. You very well may be right. Actually, I'd tend to agree with you given your interpretation of how the system works. Now, given your extremely narrow interpretation of who is and who isn't a Christian, how many people in [i]THIS[/i] nation are? I think you're making my point for me.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 1:38:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: What I'm pointing out is what you yourself admit - Christian churches did very little to stop it. People who are living by the tenets of their religion [i]cannot[/i] be intimidated into doing or allowing evil.
View Quote
I hate to break it to you, but it is basically impossible to live the tenets of any religion, including Christianity. It is an ideal that can not be met. You are setting an awful high standard for Christians, that they "cannot be intimidated into doing or allowing evil." Most people have enough trouble policing themselves, let alone others.
Therefore, my point is not that Christianity is to blame, it is to illustrate that the [i]majority[/i] of people who believe themselves to be Christian are, as Garandman pointed out in the examples of Crusade, Inquisition, and Holocaust [i]not[/i], no matter how often they go to church or how much they tithe.
View Quote
True, I doubt anyone has acually perfectly followed Christ's teachings. I doubt it is possible. But that does not necessarily prevent them from being a "Christian." I am not really a big theologian, but it is my understanding that a person is a Christian because that person believes in Christ. (?) People are given the ability to seek foregiveness for their sins. This is because they are not perfect, because they will not always live up to the ideal.
If a fear of mortal death can prevent their action, then where is their faith in everlasting life? I submit that the majority [i]don't really have faith[/i].
View Quote
Maybe not perfect faith, but that is what foregiveness and the atonement is for. I wonder if the religous bigotry displayed on this sight (not by you KBaker) has something to do with (1) the fact that no Christian can meet the Christian ideal, and therefore is seen as hypocrite, and (2) some Christians see themselves as saved merely because they call themself a Christian, when they are clearly no better a man than the person they are looking down on. It is pretty ugly dynamic.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 1:51:36 PM EDT
EricTheHun.... I'd love to agree with you except for one tiny detail. There is no god....and without that, Christianity is nothing more than the opiate of the lemmings. Believe in a "god"? No thanks.....I choose to believe in myself.....and it's worked out gloriously so far.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 1:54:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: (cont'd) Finally, if the nominally Christian portion of the U.S. population (ostensibly the vast majority, though I doubt even you would confer upon many the mantle of "moral beings") rises up and insists, Spanish-inquisition style, that the Christian ethic be restored to the population, ...?
Originally Posted By jhasz First, if the nominally Christian portion of the U,S, population would become less nominal in their practice, they wouldn't [b]have[/b] to rise up and insist in Spanish-Inquisition style (Not the comfy chair!) that the Christian ethic be restored. It would simply happen. Imagine what the effects of the vast majority of people actaully [b]practicing[/b] what they believed would be. Even the ACLU would have to at least admit there is something about these people that is truly good.
View Quote
I submit, however, that the "nominally Christian" majority of the U.S. does not, in fact actually [i]practice[/i] the tenets of their religion. They may attend church, but that doesn't mean it's more than lip-service to many. There are far too many people out there who want someone, Jehova or Jeb Bush, to tell them how to live, and far too few who want to figure it out for themselves. Martin Luther may have been one of the first who actually wanted the flock to think for itself, but the flock seems to have avoided it in the main.
View Quote
Once again, no argument, but then, that [b]was[/b] my point [:)] If they actually practiced their faith, there'd bt no need for 'Inquisitions". However, on the following point:
Big Brother isn't necessary. YOU are. We've got to get away from the idea that "if I do X God will send me to hell" or "if I do Y Big Brother will reprogram me". Do you see the connection there? It's the word "ME". How about "if I do Z I will harm someone without need"? Hey, I'm the first to admit I'm not perfect at it. The "DJOAS" comment was unnecessary and it did offend, for which I did apologize. (It did inspire this thread, though.) How about a system of morals based on what your actions will mean to OTHER people? How about recognizing that it isn't all about YOU?
View Quote
This is the crux of the matter. If you relies on yourself to drive the level of morality, you must be capable of holding yourself to that standard! Humans, flawed as they are, cannot. And this is where Big Brother steps in. Since a group of people can't hold themselves to a particular moral standard, the Gov't will make it easy for them...somehow. The problem here is that the people makign up gov't are probably even more flawed that the 'common' man! After all they've actually sought after the power and trappings and (sometimes through graft) the money that goes along with their position. Don't get me wrong, there may be honest politicians out there, but it's been a while since I've seen one [:D] But to summarize on this point, I think the human race is just to selfish to be capable to implement morality on itself without the help of God.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 1:59:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By imposter: I hate to break it to you, but it is basically impossible to live the tenets of any religion, including Christianity. It is an ideal that can not be met. You are setting an awful high standard for Christians, that they "cannot be intimidated into doing or allowing evil." Most people have enough trouble policing themselves, let alone others. (BIG snip) I wonder if the religous bigotry displayed on this sight (not by you KBaker) has something to do with (1) the fact that no Christian can meet the Christian ideal, and therefore is seen as hypocrite, and (2) some Christians see themselves as saved merely because they call themself a Christian, when they are clearly no better a man than the person they are looking down on. It is pretty ugly dynamic.
View Quote
Halleluja! You win the prize (whatever it is). I think the fact that "sin on Saturday, saved on Sunday" has a lot to do with a lack of morality in the general population. People get the faith a lot quicker when death is imminent and possibly arbitrary. When things are great, the need for faith vanishes. But the need for morals does not. My entire point has been that the morals by which we live have been based almost exclusively on Christianity, and we've had it so well for so long that most people give lip-service to their religion without even really trying to live by its tenets. A larger and larger portion of the population finds this hypocritical and rejects the whole shootin' match - in error - thus setting up a conflict of (pardon the pun) Biblical proportions. However, the morals by which even nominal Christians live are pretty good morals. Rejecting them because they are based in religion is stupid. We need to find another basis on which to accept those morals. How's that?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 2:03:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jhasz: But to summarize on this point, I think the human race is just to selfish to be capable to implement morality on itself without the help of God.
View Quote
No offense intended, but with the whole of recorded history to look at, the human race hasn't done a real good job at implementing morality [i]with[/i] the help of God. Maybe we ought to try it on our own? Take the responsibility ourselves instead of foisting it off on a Supreme Being?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 2:07:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 2:01:34 PM EDT by jhasz]
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By jhasz: But to summarize on this point, I think the human race is just to selfish to be capable to implement morality on itself without the help of God.
View Quote
No offense intended, but with the whole of recorded history to look at, the human race hasn't done a real good job at implementing morality [i]with[/i] the help of God. Maybe we ought to try it on our own? Take the responsibility ourselves instead of foisting it off on a Supreme Being?
View Quote
So you would turn your back on God, and expect man to do better? If the human race has such difficulty morally [b]with[/b] His help, I shudder to think of the abyss that mankind would descend in to morally were he to discard his reliance on Divine Providence. Edited to say, BTW, no offence taken
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 2:26:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jhasz: So you would turn your back on God, and expect man to do better? If the human race has such difficulty morally [b]with[/b] His help, I shudder to think of the abyss that mankind would descend in to morally were he to discard his reliance on Divine Providence. Edited to say, BTW, no offence taken
View Quote
I know this is going to be taken wrong, but: "Repeating the same behavior over and over while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity". If you take the first step in considering the idea that just maybe there isn't a Supreme Being (and all that stuff associated with one), then it opens up all kinds of new vistas. Many of which are, admittedly, pretty horrendous (Genghis Kahn comes to mind as an example - he didn't really have a God looking over his shoulder, loving or otherwise). Still, his "morality" worked for his culture - for a while. It is a given that in order to have a nation, the people of that nation must have a common morality. I'm just saying that those of us who have decided that organized religion isn't for us should still have a logical foundation on which to base a system of morals generally equivalent to the one this nation has followed since its inception. If we don't we're going to self-destruct. One of those rules is the tolerance that Alexis de Tocqueville remarked on during his trip through America. We really seem to be losing that one, on both sides.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 2:54:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: Halleluja! You win the prize (whatever it is).
View Quote
Gee, thanks.
However, the morals by which even nominal Christians live are pretty good morals. Rejecting them because they are based in religion is stupid. We need to find another basis on which to accept those morals.
View Quote
I am not sure if you are saying we need to find another basis than Christianity for morals, because if that is the case we would be just as well off reforming Christianity. Again. Christianity is certainly been notable for being able to reform itself in the past (with our without bloodshed). I think that is what this fundamentalist business is supposed to be all about. We have a pretty open and competitive market for sources of moral authority and our society. I do not think there is any one solution to producing ethical behavior. Religion works for some and not for others. But as far as reversing the moral decline in our society, good luck. Nothing lasts forever.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:01:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By jhasz: So you would turn your back on God, and expect man to do better? If the human race has such difficulty morally [b]with[/b] His help, I shudder to think of the abyss that mankind would descend in to morally were he to discard his reliance on Divine Providence. Edited to say, BTW, no offence taken
View Quote
I know this is going to be taken wrong, but: "Repeating the same behavior over and over while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity". If you take the first step in considering the idea that just maybe there isn't a Supreme Being (and all that stuff associated with one), then it opens up all kinds of new vistas.
View Quote
Quite true, however, in my experience, there is a Supreme Being, and I would be denying my self and my experience to say there wasn't - it would be as if you were attempting to force yourself to believe there was a Supreme Being, when you really didn't believe there was. So on this, we shall simply agree, that it is our own world view that shapes our morality - I don't think that it matters [b]where[/b] your morality comes from (to me) as much as whether it parallels my own sufficiently - i.e.: murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc...
Many of which are, admittedly, pretty horrendous (Genghis Kahn comes to mind as an example - he didn't really have a God looking over his shoulder, loving or otherwise). Still, his "morality" worked for his culture - for a while.
View Quote
sounds like you're making my point for me here - are you? [:)]
It is a given that in order to have a nation, the people of that nation must have a common morality. I'm just saying that those of us who have decided that organized religion isn't for us should still have a logical foundation on which to base a system of morals generally equivalent to the one this nation has followed since its inception. If we don't we're going to self-destruct. {/quote] See my statement above in this post.
One of those rules is the tolerance that Alexis de Tocqueville remarked on during his trip through America. We really seem to be losing that one, on both sides.
View Quote
Yep, and I can tolerate your point of view as long as you tolerate mine - just don't expect me to accept your point of view (you know the difference I'm speaking of here, don't you?) And I agree we do seem to be losing that "tolerance" that once was so prevalent. That "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" mentality.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top