Artful Dodger:

> Give some current examples of Christians blowing up planes, gunning down children, shooting rockets at unarmend civilians, blowing themselves up at market, stoning or lashing offenders.

What about a Christian president and his Christian cabinet ordering war planes to another country, then sending 400,000 civilians to their death? Did not George W. Bush said that the US was engaged in a crusade?

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

I suppose there is no contradiction between claiming to be a Christian and then openly advocating a war that kills hundreds of thousands.

Artful Dodger: Yes... who trained these "terrorists" to be such good fighters. We did. We trained them to kill others. Did we wash our hands afterwards?

"The best jules could do was go back in time - way back."

Uganda is a current problem in which many African churches are extreme. We had cases in the UK of Christian abusing children in the name of God, calling them "witches".

A sin is a sin. Making one's enemies sins bigger does not in the eyes of God (as far as I remember from scripture) make yours any less.

Artful Dodger: Still OUR GOD WHO IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE IT!!

4 So Moses said, “This is what the LORD says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.

Our God commits genocide!!??!!

OT or NT .. it's still the same God.

Artful Dodger:

Perhaps I did not make my point clearly. All I said is that fundamentalists interpret scripture literally, and use scripture to justify their actions.

The New Testament has no references to rape or murder being acceptable. There are some references to slavery and slaves submitting to their masters, particularly is some of the writings by Paul.

Christians are different. When a Christian commits a crime, it is seen as external to the religion. He is a sinner, without reflecting on the scriptures themselves.

I will say this. Christian fundamentalists do use the Old Testament as a source of justification for their actions. For example, David Koresh used the Old testament extensively in justifying the sexual abuse of young girls.

A lot of Christians also believe in "biblical inerrancy", the belief that everything in the Bible is accurate, right and true. Many of these people interpreted the Bible to justify things such as the Iraq War and the atrocities that went on there and elsewhere. Christians are not immune to contradictions between scriptures and their actions.

Artful Dodger:

> That's because those like you on the LEFT are so dishonest you'll stretch anything to make your lame points.

And the religious right in the USA does not stretch the truth? How quickly you forget how the USA sees itself as a Christian nation, and how religious leaders in the USA advocated the war. George W. Bush made the war a Christian crusade against "Islamic terrorism", and the religious right bought it. Then, when it was shown that the WMD claims were false and manufactured, the religious right went on to hide their heads in the sand and make lame excuses. Oh, it was OK to take out Saddam and the religious overtones of the Bush admnistration had nothing to do with it. Christianity had nothing to do with it anyway. We just go back to our churches and forget the whole thing, because it was somebody else who did the killing on our behalf. What matters is what Jesus taught, not the fact that before going on the battlefield, our soldiers lowered their head to pray to Jesus.

Here is your assignment. Prove to me that christians are NOT violent and cruel when it suits their political and economic interests. Prove to me that christians don't brush aside their scriptures when it is convenient. One thing is the New Testament, and another is what Christians actually do. Let's conveniently separate the two, then Christianity remains unscathed.

Artful Dodger:

All I can say is if I generalize about Christians fundamentalists, you do so with Moslems. There are good Chistians (the vast majority) and there are a few destructive Christian zealots (like David Koresh).

Likewise there are good Moslems (the vast majority) and there are the zealots who engage in terrorism. If every Moslem were a terrorist, the USA would have no hope of winnig because there would be over 1 billion terrorists against the USA. Islamis terrorists are a small minority of what otherwise is a mostly peaceful religion.

Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists use the literal Interpretation of the Koran as justification for their actions. Likewise, some extremist fundamentalist Christians use the Bible as justification for their actions too.

Christians are not perfect. If they were, Chistians would never commit crimes or sins. They would never contradict themselves. Anybody who even remotely understands the Sermon on the Mount could never justify killing anybody under any circumstances. Yet many Christians have read it and they still justify wars and politically motivated killing (like the killing of communists during the Cold War or the killing of terrorists during the War on Terror). Christians are not immune to brushing aside their most cherished beliefs when politics and economics come into play.

If you as a Christian take a self-righteous stance and point the finger at others (like Moslems), you should not be surprised when others turn around and point the finger at Christians.

"Forget the huffingtonpost link for now, we'll come back to that.

Yes, we should forget it because that is the one where Glenn Beck says that Obama hates black people, but then, he was just ridiculing Obama's daughter. I guess it doesn't count in your eyes."

I just thought.. is this change of subject just leaving this question unanswered??

Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror

"Labeling us, and our acts, as terrorism is also a description of you
and your acts," bin Laden said recently. "Our acts are a reaction to
your acts." In this meandering rumination on modern-day terrorism,
Mamdani takes a controversial step by agreeing with bin Laden, at least
on this point; he argues that groups like al-Qaeda are generally
motivated by legitimate political grievances with U.S. foreign policy.
"In a nutshell," Mamdani writes, "the U.S. government decided to harness
and even to cultivate terrorists" during the latter half of the Cold
War as it sought to roll back the Soviet Union’s global influence. Now,
with that legacy coming back to haunt its creators, Mamdani concludes
that "no Chinese wall divides ‘our’ terrorism from ‘their’ terrorism.
Each tends to feed the other."

Politicizing notions of Islam by differentiating between secular,
Westernized ("good") Muslims and fanatical, medieval ("bad") Muslims,
Mamdani argues, misrepresents the often apolitical character of Islam.
It also dangerously ignores cold war-era American complicity in the
turbulence of the Muslim world through the waging of proxy wars,
particularly the one in Afghanistan in which, says Mamdani, the CIA
created Osama bin Laden.

.......Pilate appears in all four Canonical gospels in association with the responsibility for the death of Jesus. In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands to show that he was not responsible for the execution of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.[4] Mark, depicting Jesus as innocent of plotting against the Roman Empire, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish priestly hierarchy for his death and washing his hands not of Jesus (as in Matthew) but of the Sadducees and of any association with their actions........

(V):

> I just thought.. is this change of subject just leaving this question unanswered??

The answer is that in that particular radio broadcast Glenn Beck was at his worst. There is no way anyone could justify his actions there. It is why the topic was brushed aside. What could anyone say to justify Glenn Beck? Glenn Beck did apologize later. It was the least he could do.

Artful Dodger: No... you brushed it aside. seems you've turned liberal. At least that is what you keep accusing those who do not support you in your opinion. Just as you seem to brush aside that the modern terrorists from Islamic faiths are a creation of America and other western countries, who abused a religion and created terrorists to kill Soviet troops. Blame Raygun and the CIA if anyone.

Übergeek 바둑이: Over here if someone acted like that on a show... sacked. It does not matter about the apology it just is a step to far in terms of bad taste.

But.. I guess the hate of others towards Obama justifies his kid being used in a bad joke, in the minds of those who hate Obama that is.

(V):

Reading a little bit more on the subject, it seems that Glenn Beck has made some mistakes in his broadcasts. It seems that the controversial comments that he made went beyond calling Obama or Sotomayor racist.

In June of 2010 Beck was acused of being an anti-semite, although I am not entirely sure whether the accusation was founded. In one of his radio shows he praised McCarthyism and recommended a book called "The Red network". It was written in 1936 and it is a book about communism and those communists who had "infiltrated" American society. I have not read the book myself, but apparently the book is full of anti-semitism, racism and religious bigotry. Apparently in some passages it even tries to justify what the Nazis were doing at the time. It is an old book, inconsequential in historical terms, but it added to Beck's controversies. I suspect it is a case of Mr. Beck perhaps not reading the book thoroughly and then showing poor judgement.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006070053

In one of his TV shows Glenn Beck insinuated that the Jews had killed Jesus. This prompted a response from the Anti-Defamamtion League:

http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20100805-Fox+News+Channel.htm

Later in 2010 Mr. Beck produced two segments in his show in which he attacks and demonizes George Soros. He called George Soros a Nazi colaborator and the "puppet master" of a conspiracy to create a world government. As a result of the attacks on George Soros the Anti-Defamation League strongly critized Glenn Beck.

The original Beck broadcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkESPAgrJ8w

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5906_52.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/adl-beck-soros_n_782420.html

There have been other instances such as Glenn Beck comparing Reform Judaism to Radical Islam. Glenn Beck has also used comparisons of the Holocaust to other events in the media. For example, he compared the campaign to raise awareness about global warming to the Holocaust. The ADL and a group of over 400 Rabbis raised concerns about the easy way in which he uses the Holocaust to make his political points.

I don't think Glenn Beck is an anti-semite, but he has shown poor judgment and little things have slowly added up to the point where he became a liability to his employers. Glenn beck thrived in controversial topics, and that was bound to offend some people.

Artful Dodger:

"The CBC is anti-American ... Thank God for Fox news ..."

Übergeek 바둑이: By this post and that link Art posted. Glenn is on the left

Artful Dodger:

"The same government that is subsidizing the Bible desecration has also just arrested a Welsh Assembly candidate for burning his own copy of a Quran. No hypocrisy there. None at all."

The man who burnt the Quran is a member of BNP. The defacement of the Bible was part of an exhibition titled "Made in God’s Image"

".....By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

The exhibit, Untitled 2009, was proposed by the Metropolitan Community Church, which said that the idea was to reclaim the Bible as a sacred text. But to the horror of many Christians, including the community church, visitors have daubed its pages with comments such as “This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all.” A contributor wrote on the first page of Genesis: “I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this............”

"You know, all the right has is talk radio. That’s it. When you see the forces arrayed against you that we were just doing the commercial for Freedom Works, that’s what I meant by that. When you see the forces arrayed against you, it is staggering."

Reminds me of...

"...Nazi propaganda strategy, officially promulagated by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, stressed several themes. Their goals were to create external enemies (countries that allegedly inflicted the Treaty of Versailles on Germany) and internal enemies (Jews). Hitler and Nazi propagandists played on the anti-Semitism and resentment present in Germany. The Jews were blamed for things such as robbing the German people of their hard work while themselves avoiding physical labour..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda

Tuesday: What on Earth is “anti-woman”? I have barely gotten over people calling each other “anti-American” and now there are some who are “anti-woman” and “anti-man”?

someone like Margaret Thatcher would do good

Tuesday: Sounds quite anti-white and anti-man.

Artful Dodger:

> Desecrate A Quran, Go To Jail; Desecrate A Bible, Get Subsidized & Have It Displayed As 'Art'

(V):

> ".....By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

Sometimes what passes for art is dubious. I see the point of what the artist was trying to point out to. Man is made in God's image. It seems reasonable to feel excluded from the Bible since the Bible presents a relatively narrow view of right and wrong, and it excludes a large number of people in the world (basicly anybody who does not believe in the Abrahamic God).

At the same time, people write comments that express anger and resentment, without being constructive. If the artist had been smarter, he would have put several sacred texts. Put a Koran next to a Bible, a Bhaghavad Gita, a Book of Mormon, the Digha Nikaya, etc. Then present a juxtaposition: Made in what God's image? If you feel left out by any God in particular, write yourself back in.

Well, religion arises a lot of passion in people. The reason why I never had faith in any God is because while God may have made man in its (his, hers?) own image, man tries to portray God in his own image. In giving to God human qualities, we limit God to our own human foibles (God is jealous, vengeful, wrathful, etc.) We assign to God human limitations and emotions, and thus reduce God to our level. We view God as a petty minded, jealous, selfish individual, rather than as an all-encompassing limitless being who sees beyond the distinctions of organized religion, which is in essence a limiting human construct.

Organized religion reduces God a favoritist being who favours one group of human beings at the exclusion of all others. Those in my religion will go to Heaven. Those outside of it will go to Hell. God will make sure of that, because God, limited as we human beings are, plays favorites in the universe.

In that sense Buddhism is the superior belief system. The ego is the limiting factor, not God. It is the petty atttachments of the ego that limit humanity and make it selfish, jealous, vengeful, wrathful, etc. Our view of God within those limitations is merely a projection of our ego, and not a protrayal of God himself.

Well, it is hypocritical to single out the Bible that way, as it is hypocritical to burn the Koran, or to single out any organized religion. But the artist is trying to provoke a response. Unfortunately, western society is obsessed with religion and the validity of Christianity.

Artful Dodger:

> Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!

Any woman who handles firearms like this deserves to be president:

http://orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/sarah-palin-with-gun.jpg

If you are a terrorist, she will do to you what she did to this caribou:

http://www-hollywoodlife-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/120610_palin_gallery_21239_3773.jpg

More seriously, at this point, it is difficult to say who the Republicans will choose. I would have said that Donald Trump has a chance, but his insistence on the "birther" issue will probably do him more harm than good. The Tea Party people will try to promote Sarah Palin. At the present she is their most widely supported candidate 14% of the Tea Party vote) although 34% of the Tea Party membership is still undecided.

"In a Rasmussen poll taken January 11–14, 2011, Huckabee was even with Obama: 43% - 43%." It seems that Mike Huckabee is the current Republican front runner. I suspect that if the Republicans could have a ticket such as Mike Huckabee for president and Sarah Palin for vice-president, then they would have a very strong position in the next election. It would all depend on whether such a ticket would be acceptable to Tea Party supporters and the genereal Republican membership.</a>

Übergeek 바둑이: Some followers of God do.. some don't. It is in essence a matter of dogma, also as in some cases old fears and grudges. It is not how all God followers feel regarding God or other people.

http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm .... explains more and in certain respects goes away from the standard 'Bible basher' view regarding sin and evil.. or as described in such as Buddhism or Zen as ego. In the past I found most religions complement each other to an honest observer. There again as one who tends to find the likes of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Desert fathers as a more pure form of Christianity without the influences of Roman and Greek Gods imposed on God.

(V):

That makes for very interesting reading. Ramban's (Maimonides) view of the yetzer tov (good impulse) and yetzer ra (evil impulse) makes more sense than simply personifying evil in the Devil and then blaming the Devil for tempting humanity.

Buddhism sees all human actions as arising from the ego. Everything that is constructive and destructive in humanity arises from the need to satisfy our ego and to control the inherent impermanence of the universe. That is more like the yetzer ra explanation in that link. The big difference is that Buddhism sees everything as impermanent and ever changing. The idea of an eternal, unchanging God goes against that Buddhist idea. It is why Buddhism is a religion without Gods. (That does not mean that Mahayana Buddhists do not rever Buddha as if he were a God, but in the Hinayana tradition Buddhism has no Gods.)

For me the problem is not so much in the interpretation fo the Bible, but in how organized religion uses fear of punishment to control people. Organized religion also limits God. "God believes only in those who believe what our religion bleives. The rest are doomed to eternal punishment. Everything that we can know about God is in the Bible. Outside of the Bible all that we have are interpretations, but God gave us only this one book."

To think that the Bible is the only thing we can know about God is very limiting. If God is infinite, then explaining everything about God would require an infinite number of books. One book is at best a starting point. Anybody who claims that they know God from reading the one book is like claiming to know the ocean when all that you have seen in your life is a drop of water. We have read one book, and based on that we tell ourselves that we know God's nature and God's purpose. Then in our limited way we assign to God petty human limitations.

"God accepts my religion but not others." "Our team is the winning footbal team and other teams don't even know how to play the game." It sounds like a very petty view of God to me. If God plays favorites, why make the rest of humanity? Then we contradict ourselves and we say that God works in myseterious ways. With one sentence we say we know God from the one book, and with another we say that we don't understand God. It is nothing but a reflection of our limitations, not God's.

Übergeek 바둑이: It's not that simple. I like how Aristotle talks about an unmoved mover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover


Also Origen... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

(V):

Well, Christian philosphy is in essence stoic philosophy. Origen is proof of that. Stoicism was founded by Zeno, and he saw the universe itself as God. That is in perfect line with the Abrahamic religions and it is why stoicism became so influential on early Christian thought. The unmoved mover that Aristotle presented was also in line with Abrahamic thought. It is for these reasons that Christians adopted Aristotelian, Platonic and stoic philosophies. Once stoicism had taken hold in Christianity, the pagan origins of the philosophy had to be discarded and that was done by Justinian I in 529 BC when he closed all Graeco-Roman philosophy schools. In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism. It took about 800 years for western culture to mature to a point where it could accept Graeco-Roman philosophy without seeing it as some pagan threat to Christianity.

Of course, believing in the unmoved mover, or a similar theistic view of the universe, is an act of faith. Nobody can prove scientifically that there was an "unmoved mover" or a god when the universe was created. As with everything to do with God, faith is the determining factor. Without faith Graeco-Roman (and later Christian) idealism fall apart.

Übergeek 바둑이: I do admit when it comes to physics and the nature of the universe, multiverse, strings, branes, where gravity has gotten to, quantum level physics.... etc.

.... much of the cutting edge of physics now is just theory. When Einstein developed his theory's he knew that at a certain level his theory failed... but we have black holes as a result. A vital part in the creation of galaxies.

But you do have recorded in the Bible something of interest. How did Moses manage to see events that were caused by a volcano before they arrived? Psychic senses?.. a throw back to animal senses?? God??? A mix?

"In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism"

Yes, but we have now thanks to the internet and such old fashioned things as libraries... at least we do have in the UK where one can study history and philosophy of the church(churches) the divisions, relations, wars, mass murders. The lost gospels.. the roots of Moses knowledge of God, etc, etc, etc.

"Without faith Graeco-Roman (and later Christian) idealism fall apart."

Isn't the difference between enlightened and unenlightened a matter of knowing and faith that you can know nothing?

(V): I worked on what i supposed to be the oldest surviving testament of St John. Known as the the St John `s Fragment. Ancient tablets and palm leaves and even I am not convinced o the truth. That is why I am a Humanist. And I prolly seen ancient Bibles that most people will never ever see.

(V):

> I do admit when it comes to physics and the nature of the universe,

We are approaching a level of technology that will make us rethink the origins of life and our relationship to the traditional view of God. There are several research groups who are trying to create an artificial cell. The idea is that if a cell is genetically engineered from the ground up, it could synthesize proteins and chemical substances with medical applications. These research groups are recoding the DNA of those cells and rebuilding the mitochondria, intracellular DNA, etc. It is not a matter of whether they will succeed but rather when. One of these days (probably in the next 10-20 years) we will see the first examples of artificial life. Humanity as the creator of life will make us reexamine how we see God as the only creator of life. This research will pose even greater challenges to traditional religion than things like cloning and stem cells have done. We also have the search for life outside our planet. Scientists have already discovered organic molecules and aminoacids in meteorites. One of these days we will find a bacterion or some primitive unicellular organism. I think religion can cope better with that. God made life outside Earth, why would god limit himself to one planet? We can cope with that, but humanity making artifical life is a different problem entirely. It will be interesting to see how our cultures cope with that.

> But you do have recorded in the Bible something of interest. How did Moses manage to see events that were caused by a volcano before theey arrived? Psychic senses?.. a throw back to animal senses?? God??? A mix?

I think the problem is the same as with most of the Bible. There is no proof of the historical existence of Moses. The historicity of Moses cannot be proved by archaelogical or cross-cultural analysis. The closest I have seen historians come is the excavations of the Hebrew quarters near the delta of the Nile. From what I saw in a documentary, the Hebrew quarters were not very different from the rest of the living accomodations among working-class Egyptians. However, there is no direct link to Moses. His existence (like that of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Saul, David, Solomon, Jesus, etc.) is a matter of faith.

>> "In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism"

> Yes, but we have now thanks to the internet and such old fashioned things as libraries...

When people think of the Dark ages they assume that western culture somehow stopped. That is far from the truth. What obscurantism did is throw away aspects of Graeco-Roman culture that were not in line with the Christian dogma of the times. It does not mean that there was no cultural or philosophical development. It just meant a shift in what was acceptable in late Roman culture. Of course, Graeco-Roman philosophy survived in the libraries and translations of the Arabs. Moslems had a very open view in those days, and they preserved many Greek and Roman texts. Wester culture "rediscovered" (or rather reintegrated) that Graeco-Roman culture during the Renaissance. Today of course we have studied, analysed and superseded Graeco-Roman philosophy.

Is this the religion board or politics board?

Doris:

Unfortunately there is no religion board. There is one in the Debate Club fellowship, but the discussions there are not as freely readable as they are here.

Übergeek 바둑이:   Thank Gawd!

Mousetrap: Studying what it means to be human is what I thought the Bible was about. Philosophy, Bushido, Headology and such as that. But maybe it's just I've read/watched the likes of Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams, Kevin Smith and other great writers.

(V):

... "supernatural being" ... Does God if natural qualify as supernatural.. especially with some church's saying avoid the supernatural??