Often, on these boards, the discussion turns to the history of certain religions and the things that have been done in that religions name.
And as often, we hear the defense of "Oh, but they aren't 'REAL' fill in the blank!" That defense is about as convincing as "I was only following orders."

However, if one labels oneself as belonging to a particular group, then you become laden with ALL the baggage that the label carries, both good & ill.

You work as a mailman? Well then, to the public you are just another potential "disgruntled postal worker", aren't you?
Even though the vast majority of postal employees will never go on a killing spree.

Are you a Police Officer? Well, to the public at large, you are just another cop on the take, looking to beat the tar outr of somebody.
Even though the vast majority of Law Officers are honest, straight up individuals.

Call yourself Muslim? Well then, aren't you just another potential terrorist? Thats what the public sees, even though the majority of Muslims are hard working devout people just trying to get by.

A Christian? Another book burning/banning anti-this and anti-that.
Even though most christians are moral, hard working folk.

The point I am trying to express is that no matter the group, club, profession, religion you belong to, you are immersed in the history of that group. You have to take the slams as well as the kudos.

If a member of a group does something wrong, ACTING AS A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP, then that act taints ALL members of that group.
I'm not saying that all members are the same as the wrongdoer, but that thier 'good' work is negated by the 'bad' work of one or a few members.

And, just because the organization "once was like that but isn't anymore" is insufficient to wipe away the taint. People will ALWAYS remember the one bad apple, no matter how many good ones are around. Which is why a respectable organization will work so hard to undo the evils of its past. You cannot just sweep away the wrongs that were done, you have to acknowledge them, condemn them, and insure that they don't happen again.

As a german I can relate.

I'm carrying the excess baggage of an agnostic>man is that heavy on me shoulders>ouch

The excess baggage of my womanhood is too much to bear too

When people generalize with such notions they should be reminded that those are the very thoughts that lead first to segregation and then to hateful prejudice.
It is no difference than someone saying that you condone slavery because you are an American and Americans used to have slaves. It is ignorance at it finest.
Or if you enjoy Chinese food you must therefore be a communist, because the majority of Chinese are communists.
This type of thinking should not be condoned nor tolerated, people are people no matter what their beliefs are and some of them are nice people and some are not.

Irish

The bible is the biggest segregator of all,In fact there is a whole book written about it>Segregation and the Bible>it still doesn't make it right though,I know.....

Segregation and the Bible

Book by Everett Tilson; Abingdon Press, 1958. 178 pgs.





http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78013214

Not sure who said this:

“if we do not learn from our past, we are doomed to repeat our failures.”

And you are missing my point, old friend.

For example, in the late 1980's, in an adjacent precinct to my own, there were a group of cops who were arrested. They were bent, and working for the bad guys. In fact, the papers dubbed them the "Dirty Thirty" because they worked out of the 3-0 Precinct.
The actions of those individuals smeared the work of the other 30,000 honest cops in NYC. People couldn't look at a badge and NOT be reminded of what a few did.
Could I and my other blue brothers and sisters wave our hands and say "Well, they weren't REAL cops......"
The sad fact of the matter was that they WERE real cops. They dishonoured the badge and everything that it stood for. We had to work real hard to regain the public trust. And everytime there is a "rodney King", or an "Amadou Diallo", or a corrupt cop being arrested, it reflects on us all.

The same applies to any group, affiliation, or religion. The actions of some affect all.

I've always found the excuse of "well they weren't a true christian" a cop out answer for christians who commit terrible acts.

If sin kept one from being a christian then there wouldn't be any . If a man believes in Jesus and yet is a pedophile or murderer is he still a christian ? or not a 'true' christian ?

and by definition a christian is ?? Someone who believes in Jesus as their personal saviour. no where did it say they had to be perfect or guilt free.

People who kill in the name of God ? anti abortionists all the way to presidents who claim God told them too. Not real christians ? or justified ?

As far as I know no one ever was stopped from being a christian because of their deeds. Isn't that what christianity teaches ? or is it hypocritical ?

so yes , real christians commit real crimes , all the time.

Agreed; it’s a strange world we live in when evil men get all the press and attention, and their families friends and colleagues get tarred with the same brush. It is a natural response to disassociate ourselves from such people because in truth there is no excuse for that kind of behaviour. In the case you mentioned with the crooked police I am sure you were ashamed by their action and the only excuse you could give was they were not acting as a policeman where trained or should act. Policemen have a special place in society to serve and protect and most do hold up to the esteem bestowed upon them. It only takes a few to hurt that image. But believe me when I say it is only a bruise to the uniform because at the end of the day the majority will stand proud and overshadow any evil men that infiltrate the honoured profession. And they don’t need the press coverage to prove it

Christians feel the same way when evil men profess love of Christ yet do the work of Satan. Should we make excuse for their behaviour or attempt to disassociate ourselves from their actions? Or should we just throw our arms in the air and apologise for them.
Should we walk away from our faith because some have tarnished the image of our faith?

I am glad you did not hand in your resignation nor give up hope in the honourable majority of your colleagues or the profession. And I would bet you can still stand proud for honouring what you were taught and practice in spite of a few bad apples that get all the attention.

Irish

And so do real Americans, Englishmen, Lesbians, homosexuals, straights democrats, vegetarians and whatever the label, there are good ones and unfortunately there are bad ones.
It is people who label a majority for the actions of a few that are the real problem because they refuse to see beyond their own nose! It just becomes an excuse for not excepting someone different than themselves, intolerance demands labels for everyone in order to disassociate and excuse themselves.

Christianity is simply about forgiveness!

A good man seeks forgiveness because he is sorry he made a mistake, an evil man seeks forgiveness as an excuse to do it again. If God truly knows their heart who will receive the forgiveness?

Irish

yes real people from all walks of life commit horrible crimes. But when a christian commits a crime in the name of God or for God or who claims to be a christian ( like one man did here years ago in Michigan. Shot his neighbors because they were lesbians and spouting the penalty of their sin was to be put to death as per the bible ) Some automatically said " he wasn't a real christian" - But that's just it. He was. He still believed Jesus was his personal saviour. no matter how twisted religion had made him.

I'm not talking about forgiveness . I'm saying yes he was/is a real christian. but when it comes to crimes committed by christians they want to suddenly disown this person , to keep themselves clean so to speak so they say well , he wasn't a 'real' christian. and like I said - if he wasn't because of sin then there is no such thing as a real christian.

You just can't drop someone from the roll call or rather decide who is and who isn't a christian . That's a way of distancing yourself from a truth. That not all real christians are good. That your just like everyone else.




kinda like gay men and pedophila ? even though the bulk are straight men ?

'zandore' "Not sure who said this: “if we do not learn from our past, we are doomed to repeat our failures.”

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Santayana.


Lt Ripley: "... Shot his neighbors because they were lesbians and spouting the penalty of their sin was to be put to death as per the bible ) Some automatically said " he wasn't a real christian" - But that's just it. He was. He still believed Jesus was his personal saviour. no matter how twisted religion had made him. I'm not talking about forgiveness . I'm saying yes he was/is a real christian. but when it comes to crimes committed by christians they want to suddenly disown this person , to keep themselves clean so to speak so they say well , he wasn't a 'real' christian. and like I said - if he wasn't because of sin then there is no such thing as a real christian...."

Going back a couple of your posts: how do you define 'Christian'?

Not familiar with the facts of the case cited, but the man sounds like he was deranged. As were a whole lot of Christians who were in mobs or acted alone and did unspeakable things over 2000 years. Which does not mean that uncountable numbers of people who professed to be Christian did not soberly act with coldblooded 'human' wickedness.

I disagree that the religion had made him twisted, because he was the exception rather than the rule.

Speaking as a Catholic, I would condemn the act and try very hard not to condemn the person [and if the victim were to be a friend or child of mine I cannot answer for how violently vengeful I would be in the circumstances, despite knowing full well the radical forgiveness that my religion demands of me]. I would not brush the act aside or try to deny that the perpetrator was Catholic. And if it is a group of Catholics were taking a wrong path I hope that I would have the courage to speak against what they are doing and try to stop them.

No group of people is without those who make mistakes or who are 'bad eggs'. Again as a Catholic, I am sorry that we are no better.

All we are saying is practice what you preach.........and then again maybe not

Bah. We all know that labeling a person is wrong. Why is it OK to bash Christians when one or a group does something bad? Why not vilify all lesbians because one is a serial killer and commits crimes in the name of lesbianism? It's just stupid. It's stereo-typing and it's discriminatory. It goes both ways as well. Jesus was a great guy, but all his followers apparently are not. Hitler was a twisted freak, yet some of his followers were good people. Maybe we should just vilify all Africans because of the genocide in Rwanda too. It's never ending and just foolish.

Well you know what.....GOD HATES SHRIMP and so should you !!

So please be a good christian & discriminate shellfish


Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is



http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Maybe you should study the Bible more before you start with your propoganda? These things were cleansed later on so we can eat them.

Acts 11:8-9 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

Well, science gave me a good cerebral enema & has cleansed my mind of .........(fill in blank).

Lame.
Back to bible bashing. Well done derailment.

Yeah, i guess it really doesn't need my help, does it ?

It can do this all on it's own.

Trivial aside, Momen

There are at least 50 ways to love your liver

But what if your liver is a masochist ?

Yep. Thoroughly pointless to try to have a discussion that DIDN'T devovle into a brawl over the lefitimacy or not of a belief system.........


Or turn into a yuk fest.

ciao

Sorry you feel that way JMPD1. You could have viewed it as "bumping" the post. People usually get back on topic.

Humor. It's No Laughing Matter

What we call a sense of humor is nothing more than foolish talking or jesting--these things are not funny to the Lord.

Sunday sermon it is ..............ciao

All,

If we're demanding that every group owns up to its dirty laundry, then everybody's got blood on their hands. Atheists have the murderous wonders of communism (among other things). Christians have the Inquisitions, Crusades, abortion doctor murders, and a whole host of other things. Muslims, Hindus, animal liberationists (the Animal Liberation Front being the #1 domestic terrorist group--yes even ahead of the Klu Klux Klan and other racist groups!), folks who've inhabited the southern U.S. for a few generations (slavery and Jim Crow), etc. Basically, if we continue in this vein not only does every group have blood on its hands, but so does every person.

In these discussions of who is culpable for this thing or that thing we seldom recognize that people have multi-faceted identities. For instance, as an African-American I can rant about how up through a few decades ago my people were enslaved, murdered, raped, and disenfranchised by many White Americans. On that score, I'm a victim. But I'm not only a black person, am I? No, I'm also a male and I'm an American. Now things get interesting because we can point to the various ways that males have subjugated women. To get even more specific we can pin-point how black males have subjugated black females. Now I'm doubly culpable as both a male (general) and a black male (more specific). You add my American citizenship to the mix and then we find that as a citizen of a nation that has been involved in a lot of oppression in the world (example: Iraq) I'm not looking so good. Suddenly, my claim to victimhood as an African-American is eclipsed by some of the other facets of my identity. When we think of ourselves only in terms of our self-identifications, it becomes easy to either think of ourselves only as victims or to wash the blood of our groups from our hands. True, some facets of our identity are ordered by more primary facets. For instance, as a Christian I strive to have all facets of my identity submitted to the leadership of Jesus. This does not mean that these facets get obliterated. However, they are ordered by my identity as a Christian (with varying degrees of success and failure, I must admit). While we may consciously self-identify as this or that, we function in a multitude of identities that are ordered by each other at various times.

This understanding should cause us to have humility when passing judgment on this or that group. This is not to say that we ought not to criticize and/or be outraged by human evil as it is performed by groups (be they religious or ideological). I'm merely saying that we should do so with a posture of humility (which does not mean timidity, by the by). For example, many secularists who criticize Christians and Christianity for all the religious wars should remember that 1) atheists/secularists have blood on their hands; 2) they bear more resemblance to some of the war-monger Christians than they may want to admit. If a white, Western atheist told an African Christian of her disdain for Christianity because of some of the Christian participation in the colonialism/imperialism, couldn't the African point out that most colonialism was carried out by people who, due to their European descent, bore more resemblance to the white atheist than to the African Christian? Also, couldn't the African Christian make the case that the white atheist has (in the grand scheme of things) benefited more from said colonialism than has the African Christian? If this hypothetical atheist is honest, she may have to acknowledge that much of the wealth/resources she enjoys as a citizen of a Western nation are linked to the oppression her people inflicted many years before. Arguably, the African Christian is reaping far fewer benefits from such oppression, though (at least in the eyes of the atheist) Christians had a hand in this.

As a Christian, I'm willing to bear the corporate responsibility of the Christian-history-horror-reel. But I want to do this only if 1) we can also accurately talk about the Christian-history-highlight-reel and if 2) all critics (myself included) will acknowledge the multiplicity of their identities. As long as everyone is on a quest to simultaneously play both victim of the world and judge of villains, we will all be blind to the good, bad, and ugly of who we are individually and corporately. We have own ALL of who we are, not just the bits that make us look good. Seeing things this way should make us better critics. Also, seeing things this way can make us more gracious towards each other, even as we levy criticisms.

Good advice mlor, I hadn't realised you were not only such a well read christian but so culinarily aware:)

Despite some other posts to the contrary these "laws" were not done away with. There is one bible passage where it talks about eating whatever your hosts are eating, but this has a specific allegorical meaning and was connected to the movement of the preaching of the gospel from the jews to the gentiles.

Why on earth would the bible (or god) set down good guidelines for healthy eating and then change them. These rules encompass the most modern scientific knowledge on food. Basically, that eating scavengers is dangerous because of their position on the food chain. All the biblical proscriptions relate to animals which it is still risky (healthwise) to eat today. The ideal diet outlined in the bible is fruit and nuts followed by vegetables. Meat is allowable, but not the preferred option, and some foods are highly risky for a variety of reasons. The idea is to maintain a healthy body as the temple of the lord, and so the advice was health related, rather than some religious/jewish peculiarity.

Whoever he was .. he was right !

All,

Using the New Testament elimination of ceremonial purity laws from the Torah to wipe out the moral code won't get anybody very far. It's weird to me that folks use this argument to try to wipe out the bible's obvious prohibition against any and all sexual immorality (including homosexuality). First, wouldn't this open the door to anything and everything prohibited under the moral code? In other words adultery, temple prostitution (which usually went hand in hand with subjugation of women and children in the ancient Near East), incest, and bestiality would have to be allowed as legitimate forms of sexual activity. In fact, with the exception of temple prostitution, all of these are mentioned in Leviticus 18, along with homosexuality.

Also, this places in peril all the moral things that everyone claims to be such a big fan of. For instance, in Leviticus we also find this:
[15] "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. [16] You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord. [17] "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. [18] You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (19:15-18 )

In other words, when Jesus spoke about love for one's neighbor he was quoting Leviticus. There are many things about love and justice (especially towards the poor) in Leviticus. Why not ignore all this as well? Also, we should make the various commands to do justice to the poor and the outcast optional as well.

Aside from all this, it becomes clear from reading Leviticus (and the rest of the Torah) that the moral code was to some extent already in place before God even got around to forming Israel. In Leviticus 18.27-30 Yahweh claims that he is enacting judgment on nations that have reveled in various kinds of immorality. We have some indication that knowledge of Yahweh was in no way exclusive to Israel: Melchizedek, the priest/king of Salem (Gen. 14) knows exactly who Yahweh is, though he refers to him as God Most High; Balaam the prophet prophesies for the God of Israel, and he blesses Israel (Numbers 22-25); and God even speaks of his own activity in the lives of Gentile nations (Amos 9.7-8). What this demonstrates is that knowledge of Yahweh and what he requires is already known long before the Jewish ceremonial law is introduced. So making the performance of moral code dependent on the performance of ceremonial code doesn't get us very far.

Also, we can't equate the two because God made shrimps, ravens, and pigs along with other prohibited things. Actually, these things are good inasmuch as they are created for enjoyment by the Creator. Notice, God never puts down Gentile nations for eating pork or shrimps or ravens or for doing some of the other ceremonial things that the Jews were prohibited from doing. Whenever God levies an invective against Gentiles it is always for immorality, not breaches of ceremonial codes. A God-ordained or self-imposed abstinence from certain good things doesn't not speak to the inherent evil of those things. Adultery is inherently evil. Denying the poor daily bread is inherently evil. Eating shrimp (like this good New Orleans boy likes to do!) is not inherently bad, and it doesn't speak to the inherent evil of shrimp.

Lastly, it is clear from the New Testament that the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus' life/ministry, death, and resurrection makes the ceremonial law obsolete. Also, Israel's unique corporate, national fellowship with God is now open to everyone on the basis of their response to Jesus, God's Son and Israel's representative. Because of Jesus, membership in God's covenant community is relativized and available outside of nationality. The Spirit that Jesus promised and gave accomplishes this by making interior to groups and individuals that which was exterior on the nationalistic level. The moral code, however, is not only still in effect, but it actually becomes more intense because it is now (as the Old Testament prophets Jeremiah [31.31-34] and Ezekiel [26.26-27] foresaw) written on the hearts of those who participate in the New Covenant. This is why Jesus always intensifies the moral code of the Torah. In the Sermon on the Mount adultery is not just having sex with someone other than your spouse; it is even looking at any person with lust in the heart. Murder is not merely about actually killing someone; it is even hating someone in our hearts. Jesus doesn't do this to be mean or to be some kind of weirdo fundamentalist. He knows that it is better to de-activate evil intent rather than merely settle for micro-managing our outward expressions of evil. In light of Jesus' consistent intensification of the Torah moral code, we must ask ourselves if he would permit any kind of sexual immorality. I think the answer is a decisive "no". In Matthew 15.15-20/Mark 7.20-23 when Jesus (in response to the hypocrisy of some of his contemporaries) weighs in on the multitude of immoral acts that issue forth from the human heart, we have every reason to believe that "fornication"/"sexual immorality" (porneia in Greek) includes any and all forms of sexual immorality prohibited in the Torah. There is no way that a Jewish man (and a rabbinical figure no less) speaking to a Jewish audience would mean anything else.

That was an excellent post, macro from a "new" (to this site) and informed writer. Look forward to more of your posts.

I'll still have to disagree with you about the shrimps though. Just as many of gods laws were fundamentally about creating a just and workable society on earth and thus applicable outside the ceremonial circle of jewish ceremonial law, so too (I believe) were his laws on foods to eat. On the ark there were only two of each unclean beast, but considerably more of each beast which was fit to eat (I forget the precise numbers, perhaps 6 or 7,) but the number is mentioned in the biblical account of the flood.

It is one of the complex and inexplicable truths of the bible that all the foods mentioned as unclean are medically, even to day, not as safe, or good for you as the diet originally intended for us; (fruit and nuts, with later addition of grains and vegetables after the fall) or even the diet (including safe meats) which was allowed as a consequence of the flood destroying much of the natural vegetation.

I am particularly aware of this, as a result of a triple by pass. The medical diet approved in the wake of this, for good health, is suprisingly like that laid down by god. Shrimps, sadly, as well as being susceptible to environmental variations in the ecosystem such as heavy metals, are simply too high in cholesterol to be eaten safely. I must admit I have an Australian prawn as a treat at times, but at least I am aware it is not really good for me. (and no, it is not a sin to break dietary rules/laws)

Mr. Walker,

First, thanks for the encouragement. And happy New Year to you and yours!

I don't know if I agree with you about health benefits being behind God's kosher commands. It is obvious that there are some extraordinary benefits to the kosher diet. From your own experience with bypass surgery and subsequent recovery I think you are more acquainted with this than am I. I think we'd both agree that Israel's obedience to these commands marked them as being different from the surrounding nations in the ancient Near East. While I can't figure out why God legislated these specific food commands, we can be sure that Israel's obedience to them (and many other things) signified their distinction from the other nations. Israel was Yahweh's chosen possession, and these ceremonies signified that unique relationship to Yahweh. I think that the health benefits are an added bonus. As I stated before, God created even the prohibited creatures. Thusly, they are good as part of God's creation. Israel's God-ordained abstinence from said foods is linked more to national identity than to the health benefits. I must admit though, that some facets of the health-benefits argument can speak well to God's holistic care (including bodily health) of his people. Many folks (including we Christians) tend to dichotomize spiritual and material/physical, and we can have a blind spot to our physical well-being. Your experiences lend you pretty unique perspective on this score. I'm very happy that you survived your surgery and that you have recovered, and I hope you continue in this. I look forward to continued correspondence with you.

YEAH pretty sure i posted virtually the exact same topic a few weeks ago

Yea its a shame some people cant just ignore what they call bashing and just get on with the discussion at hand...time wasting must be fun for them...you bible basher..blah blahh <--so tiring

Its the crazys that stick out in peoples minds, from the scummy televangelists to islamic terrorists to tom cruise. I think people notice the crazys and make generalizations about that specific group because the moderate (fill in the blanks) are too busy being just that: moderate. They have better things to do than be a nut job, and unfortunately their silence is often taken as consent among the group in the eyes of an outsider. Truth is the moderates really... dont care I guess. Like I said, they have better things to do than condemn you to hell or bounce on Oprah's couch or whatever whatever and whatever.

man is man
be what he be
he is still a beast by nature.
some beasts are passive others are brutes

silence is consent

evil rules when good men do nothing.

look at WWII it was one man and silence that caused its holocaust.

Yes, there are good and bad on all sides.

The main thing is that we don't repeat past brutalities and mistakes.

Absolutely

yet this isn't happening, we re repeating the same mistakes over and over and calling it a day...

MLOR what sides just curious???

"we" in general, NO. Most people cause no harm. It's the few "who are" repeating it over & over and calling it a day. But it is the few who seem to cause the most harm, do they not ? (the extremists)

I honestly don't care much for the catholic church itself, Islam because of their view /suppresion of women, fundementalist/evangelical christianity,cults, They have "the potential" for great harm possibly,not sure.

There are some branches of faith that I find harmless "mostly". I may not like their belief in things I find to be absurd & illogical but yet I don't want to police their minds and tell them what they can believe or think. I may try to encourage them to look at something from a different angle,and look at the facts, yes and sarcastically point out the ironies/contradictions/fallacies of their belief. I can't stand when people deny things that are plainly & practically touching the tips of their nose. I try to shake,rattle & roll them into snapping out of their comfortable mental prison.
There may also be Atheists that would aggressively police the minds/thoughts of believers if they could ?> I don't know> a faith innoculation ? But that would be enslavement of the mind> the irony is that our fantasies/imagination even faith is what makes us so different & amazing from most other animals as a whole ,yes I do see us as animals with a very acute awareness/consciousness of ourselves and that what surrounds us. But we still are animals/mammals on a physical level with a highly developed brain.

All we can do is educate and hope they are actually paying attention and thinking/analysing >and then take it from there. alot of believers BLOCK>I'm not sure if they are aware of this or not. I wonder. I used to also discard/block all info. that went against the teachings of the bible. I was taught that satan is very deceptive and controls a great deal of the world & the media. This made me suspicious of all information & reject facts.
But then I really started to look at the bible with a"neutral" eye and the rest is history.............

you see no covert harm then??? the parent thats wacks the kid cuz thats how its done??thats the majority...

how about the harm of the education system dumbng kids down killing thier passion their curiousity??? how about the religions that say you are less then ??you get my point ... everytime i turn around I find myself involved in something i once thought was okay and see oh boy i have to make some changes.... very few are living lives of no harm..


how does one think?? what is the difference between intellect and intellegensia and how do we cultivate that encourage it...
most people think they are getting a education .. they are getting cloned....you have kids don't you hon???

Look MLOR I am not focusing on you or making this personal i am just curious and you do have things to say so say them... .
why do you say all we can do is this ??? we can do so much yet do so little ..even me its my work to take one thing at a time and clean house... walk my talk ....how about you???

I do agree with the general idea, JMPD, that most people belonging to *insert faith/worldview here* are honest, hardworking, normal people. But I also think it is wrong to label people according to the minority of bad people. To me, a mailman is the guy who brings my mail. To me, a policeman is is the guy who goes out and catches the baddies. To me, a Muslim is a person who has chosen to follow Allah. To me, an Atheist is a person who has chosen to believe in no god or higher power. And to me, a Christian is a person who has chosen to follow Jesus.

I see no sense in labeling a mailman a potential headcase simply because of his profession. I see no sense in labeling a police officer as an overweight and corrupt individual who enjoys way too many donuts (though sometimes it can be funny to see this on films). I see no sense in labeling a Muslim a terrorist. I see no sense in labeling an Atheist as someone who hates freedom and democracy and willing partakers in genocide. And I see no sense in labeling Christians as book-burners who hate anyone who is not them.

It is illogical, and to think otherwise only promotes segregation, generalisation, stereotypes, victimisation, and persecution. But that's what kind of world we live in, I'm afraid. It does seem that people are more comfortable generalising the most heinous acts of a minority as representatives of a whole. It's rather sad when you think about it, really. What does this say about humanity and the human condition? Think about it.

~ Regards, PA

I'm glad that you are in general agreement PA, but you are still missing my point.

To try an explain a little clearer, I am NOT talking about prejudices or segregation or stereotyping.
On another thread about a poor soul who whacked off his hand because he felt it had "the mark" on it.
Is he ill? I think so. Would he have found another reason to do bodily harm to himself? Again, I think so.

BUT, he claims he did it because of the symbolism of a mark. A mark specifically talked about in revelations.
He was acting (presumably) on his delusions with a religious bent to them. If he claims he is christian, would you say he wasn't a "real" chrisatian?

A Hypothetical: A man walks into an abortion clinic, pulls a gun and kills a doctor, a nurse and a receptionist, and then calmly awaits the arrival of the Police.
When arrested, his defense is that "God told him to do it for the babies".
Now, I am not claiming he is 100% sane, but his motivations are driven by his beliefs.

A(nother) hypothetical: A man walks into his local bank, withdraws ALL his life svings, sells his home, his cars and ALL his possessions, goes down to a homeless shelter and hands out $20's and $50's to any who ask for them.
When questioned, he says that god and the bible convinced him that it is better to give than receive and thats why.
Again, not claiming he is 100% sane, but his motivations are driven by his beliefs.

Now, in the two examples, many christians would smile and say "Amen brother" to the donor of the money
but cry "Oh he isn't a REAL christian, about the shooter.

What I am trying to convey is that BOTH men were acting on their beliefs as "christians", and "god told them" what they needed to do. Many on these boards even claim to have convos with god as an active participant.

My point being that the actions of ANY who claim a title will reflect on the group as a whole. And that you cannot accept one while disavowing the other.

Not saying that the group as a whole is 'guilty', but at least acknowledge the persons affiliation.

"Yeah, that guy with the hand? Yep, he's a christian, even goes to my church. But his actions weren't endorsed or provoked. He forgot his meds and no one noticed"

Is better I think than:

"Who? The guy what cut off his hand? Narrr he ain't a REAL christian....."



See what I mean?

^ Ah, I see what you mean, JMPD. There are a few points to iron out though. In the first example, the murderer said "God told me to do it". In the second example, the donor said "The bible convinced me to do it". They are different. The first is claiming divine revelation, the second only that the words of the Bible has convinced them. But that's just semantics - let's pretend that God told them both to do it, or that the Bible convinced both. Then it comes to a matter of consistency with scripture.

Personally, I don't think either position is entirely supportable by scripture. To go out and kill when God says "Do not murder", and Jesus says "Judge not", then that is just plainly contradicting scripture. Pointing to Old Testament scripture of God's judgement does not really work because that would deny the New Testament's edicts that God no longer works in that way. If someone did claim that they murdered an abortionist because God told them to, I would not necessarily say that they are not Christian (it is not my place to Judge), but I would at least say that wherever he got this message from it was not from God (at least, not the God in the bible). Maybe he was crazy and hearing voices, maybe something else.

As for the donor, the only person who was ever asked to give away everything he had was the rich young ruler (in Mark 10), and this was a very specific case because the man was putting his love of money before his love of God. And it would not be appropriate to suggest that because this young rich ruler was doing that then everyone should therefore do it. However, if this person who gave away his wealth did so because it was a barrier to his relationship with God, then it is possible that it was God-inspired. It certainly wouldn't contradict scripture. Was he crazy too? Maybe. But this example does not inherently contradict the Bible (though it may, depending on the motives), whereas the first one does.

Do you see the difference?

Though you are probably correct that if both events actually happened, the Christians would say "Amen brother" to one, and condemn the other. That would be consistent with human nature. All the best, JMPD.

~ Regards, PA

Sheri, hi ! I'm not sure if I understood your post/reply entirely ?

I guess you are referring to life in the U.S. ? Here in Germany we are not allowed to wack or spank our children, it's against the law. And the Christians over here don't hit their children either. You always have some people that will do this & ignore the laws ,regardless.

But i've never heard of anyone hitting their children over here. I've heard of child abuse in the news of course, it happens everywhere.


As far as education over here, I feel it's rather too difficult, rushed through & too stressful on the kids.
Kids have to choose their career path in 5th or 6th grade already, which I think is ridiculous.

Religion is taught in class as an introduction to Christianity but not as a fact. Most parents being Atheist, Agnostics, Pagans don't appreciate this much and frown on it. They feel they should have more mathematics, sciences,more arts or other classes instead but the schools are partly funded by the churches (protestant & catholic) and these are the conditions set by the church , if they are to continue their funding.


Yes, i agree that the kids (even adults) have gradually been dumbed down. But it's not just religion who are resposible, it's the media (MTV), bad role models for kids, television, materialism and schools have to go slower, do to heavy immigration, so that newcomers may keep up.( This was my answer from a school principal, due to my complaints of the poor quality of eduation in the south-western USA)


I also find blind faith in government & religion very harmful. Too many reasons to get into on this thread.

wow , what an interesting post MLOR..

its embarassing here most hit or punish their kids here.. I am one of the few who embrace a non violent ethic of parenting... you haven't been around long enough for the threads but if you ever get a chance look up paretning from the pulpit..



your honesty on the Educational system touches me, i didn't think it was any better any where else we are all in this together , no matter where we are....


I agree with you its a theoretical structure or framework that has lead to very poor models for almost everything... there are a few good things springing up and I am optimistic the way it is now for the sake of our kids is on its way out....the educational system is collapsing so it the religious etc...... eventually things that lead away from that which is natural collapse in on themselves.... history shows us and all we do is repeat it....at this point..but alot of folks are waking up....

i have to tell you the charter (home schooled one) I am in a few days ago went public with its position that non violent parenting is how we are gonna make a difference it begins how we rear our kids....its ll up hill from here..IMO...


In California we suck in some ways but you are a proactive bunch, religious or otherwise we are so diverse we just set it all aside and create ways to better things.. us the people not politics or the systems, the common folks .. so many almost everyone I know .


here i can say i don't bleive in god to a fundie anyone and they could care less, who i am speaks for itself
and vice versa....


we care about making a better world...sorry to derail this isn't about that...

Listen up Sheri...if MLOR sayshere s good and bad on BOTH SIDES..then no prizes guessing she must mean - (shot in the dark here) - The Non religious & the religious .<--you can sum the religious into any given category.if it is linked to a god/gods of some sort..who the heck cares!!!..HONEST

And you are nit picking because......................?? is there any point?? beating around the bush can one look the foooooo!!!