 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 60 Minutes
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: dianavan Date: 12 Feb 04 - 12:34 AM Mark C.: I stand corrected. It was the sacrament that the Cathars opposed. However, the Cathars existed before the church of Rome. It may not have been the first crusade (Albigensian) but it was certainly an early crusade. I think it may have been the first inquisition. Yes. They were Christians but believed in the spirit of Christ. Not that he was ever born as a human being. My point is that so-called Christians have been committing genocide for a very long time. That they do it based on speculation is appalling. Even more disgusting is that they do it to one another. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Big Mick Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:31 PM Amen *snirk*, Art. The fastest way to convince me you don't have the answer is to try to convince me that you have all the answers. I grew up with that bigotry. My own beliefs are divided into two categories. There is my religion, which has to do with community. Then there is my faith, which is a blend of new beliefs, old beliefs, and a sense of awe at the wonder of creation. My faith is based on what I don't know, and one abiding thing that I do know. The Greatest One has created more than any person can understand. It is not about the understanding, rather about the quest for understanding. It is not about standing with a few with an absolute hold on heaven, but rather standing with as many as possible and knowing that it never really ends and what comes after is for all. There are those that believe that Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and anyone who doesn't worship as they do, are lost souls that will never know the Eternal Love that is all around us. In my mind, they that believe that are the lost souls. God must have a helluva sense of humor, eh? All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: harvey andrews Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:47 PM Go Art! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Art Thieme Date: 11 Feb 04 - 05:34 PM Bill, It's the Gospel According To Henny Youngman School Of Philosophy. One-liners all. Saves ink cartridges and can sound o.k. even when it isn't. And it gave rise to the bumper sticker industry. (Those held on more than one bumper on cars I've owned.) The worst example of this school's teachings permeating our whole society has been "sound bites", "spin" and the banter on what passes for "news shows" on television now... Where is Klatu now that we need him?? He robably has been driven completely out of his Gort ! But the R.p.u.e does sound like science fiction to me. This from folks who won't let their kids see Harry Potter or L.O.T.R. As Herb Morrison said on WLS-radio so long ago when a blimp caught fire, "Oh, the humanity." Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Art Thieme Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:49 PM It's all O.K. I really feel that way. But how do we ever get to the place where we respect other's beliefs and agree to co-exist in peace. (If that sounds like Rodney King, so be it.) W've got to get out of each others faces in this world if we are to make it. You cannot find two more different people than Carol and I, but being half way decent and gentle people who don't insist that others do as we do (even though we feel we have more of the answer than not) has made much of the difference. It's Bush's certainty that is so scary---and his insistence, as the head of a very powerful nation, that EVERYONE should glom to the message. To not see the absolute need for a huge separation between church and state is unconcienable in a president and it could easily spell the catastrophic diminuation of all things American that are worth holding close as we incrementally move toward being a theocracy Art--(in the middle of doing the wash and I gotta run now...) Pardon my spelling.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Bill D Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:54 PM I can see *I* need to learn the value of short, succinct lines like Art comes up with ..*wry smile*.... I type for an hour, editing long, and probably boring, analyses, and Art manages to get a lot of the point into a couple of sentences. I do, however, stand by my attempts to point out how to handle the situation when folks insist on "believing what they believe". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Mark Clark Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:31 PM Art & Don, I was writing while I should have been reading. Brilliant! - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Mark Clark Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:26 PM —Historical digression— (i.e., This is way more than anyone wants to know.)Speaking historically, for the first thousand years of Christianity, there was only one Christian Church. This is the Church that assembled the Bible from various Liturgical scripts in wide use at the time of the Ecumenical Councils. After 1054, the Bishop of Rome, representing western Christianity and the largest population of Christians, broke communion with his peers, the other Bishops of the Church, and went his own way. This split was at least as much politically and millitarialy inspired as it was philosophical. Interestingly, the idea of the Crusades was the brainchild of Emperor Alexis I of Constantinople. The Seljuk Turks had taken control of Jerusalem (already under Islamic control for over 400 years) and began preventing Christian pilgrims from visiting the Holy City. Alexis I persuaded the Franks and the Biship of Rome (Pope Urabn II) to help mount a Crusade to “free” the Holy Land. What Alexis didn't figure on was that he would lose control of the whole project in the bargin. Over the span of the bloody Crusades (1095-1291), Christians were killed in numbers nearly as great as Muslims. To the European Crusaders, they were all just Arabs. I'm certainly not the one to decide which groups are Christian and which aren't but I think it's fair to say the the Cathars—however good and devout—wouldn't have been thought of as Christian by either the Eastern or the Roman Churches of the day. Christian groups were those who subscribed to the Nicene Creed or the closely related Apostles Creed and were in communion with each other. There were many religious sects that came to disagree with the mainstream Church on various points and the vast majority of them branched off, directly or indirectly, from what is now the Roman Catholic Church. The major Protestant groups had ecclesiastical or theological differences that often aren't important to individual worshpipers but they were still pretty mainstream from a Christian perspective and the Bible was still understood from a traditionally Christian perspective. From the mainstream Protestant groups came the self-styled self-appointed preachers that evidently just made stuff up (okay, many people believe that everyone just made stuff up <g>) and taught it as religion. The idea of Rapture (see, I'm trying to get back to the subject) came about this way. The notion of Rapture was evidently unknown in any Christian writings prior to 1830. I don't know anything about The Associates for Scriptural Knowledge (ASK), but they have an article titled The Rapture Theory: It's Surprising Orgin that the reader may find worthwhile. Just like the current US President gets to call himself compassionate without generating huge public gufaws, any group can call itself Christian. That doesn't necessarily mean Christian, though. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Rapparee Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:22 PM Even if there are 70 million such people, there are still about 210 million others in the US.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Don Firth Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:05 PM John 11:9-10 Jesus answered, "Aren't there twelve hours of daylight? If a man walks in the day, he doesn't stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if a man walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light isn't in him." Art, good points. "A person will die for an idea providing that idea isn't quite clear to them." That's brilliant! I think I'll have a sampler made of that. It's so pathetically true and it explains so much. Unfortunately, they will also kill for an idea that isn't quite clear to them. And "in the name of nothing concrete at all except some old book." Well, it's even worse than that: this "Rapture" nonsense is not even in the "old book" they claim to run their pathetic lives by. And dianavan, "They were branded heretics and massacred. . . ." The shortest verse in the Bible is John 11:35: "Jesus wept." When those who claim to act in his name just don't get it, there is ample reason for the weeping of Jesus. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: dianavan Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:11 AM Mark: you are absolutely right about the bible being a product of the church. Christian beliefs which have only been produced by the church are too numerous to mention. The Cathars of France were Christian but they wouldn't support the centralization of Christianity. Nor would they take part in the communion practice of partaking in the body and blood of Christ (they were vegetarian). They were branded heretics and massacred by a church which would not tolerate beliefs that were different and threatened their power. This was the cause of the first crusade. This was the first recorded incident of genocide. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Art Thieme Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:46 PM My life will be served best by staying way the hell below you evangelical folks' radar, and that's for damn sure. Remember the old deoderant commercial? "POOF", there goes perspiration?? A person will die for an idea providing that idea isn't quite clear to them.----I don't know who said that first, but current events prove it true all the time these days---over and over and over. Rapture, my ass. More likely, RUPTURE is the right word ! How in the world we've come to a point where so many people who consider themselves inteligent simply put their intellect on the back burner and run headlong into "that good night" in the name of nothing concrete at all except some old book ---- something they have convinced themselves is "the truth" just because they "believe" it and for no other examined reason--just because the Constitution gives them that "right". That has always been completely beyond my comprehension. "POOF"--and all the clothes flutter empty to the ground. ---Hell, Jim Jones and his people, poisoned and dead in the jungle, thought the same way. So did the sad and lonely Waco horde. And so many other groups of humans "who knew"...even in the presence of good evidence to the opposite. But no, I believe it, so it's got to be gospel. (Pardon my word choice.) We have turned the concept of "dumbing down" from a vague idea into a profundity. I saw what looked to me like dumbing down coming---but I figured it'd not get here until long after I'd left this good old mortal coil. But it came deviously, hidden by the mists of unprecedented lulling and numbing technology. I have no answers for a situation that saddens me a lot. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:11 PM There are in fact all kinds of aspects of Nazism which were lifted from various religious rituals, and it was in a real sense a kind of perverted and idolatrous religion. If Nazism had continued, it is pretty certain that this side of it would have been developed, along with extended attempts to crush other religions, which were potentially threats to Nazism, providing an alternative focus for loyalty and devotion. In the final analysis, a good Christian could never be a good Nazi, and a good Nazi could never be a good Christian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: harvey andrews Date: 10 Feb 04 - 06:33 PM . I thought one of the tenents of liberalism was tolerance for other points of view Not ridiculous Doug, the above is what you said. Some views cannot be tolerated if those views are intolerant enough to lead to the persecution of those who don't hold those views. Religions throughout the ages have persecuted, tortured and killed in the name of their belief.It's happening today. I see no difference between the persecuting bigot of faith and the persecuting Nazi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Don Firth Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:09 PM Mark Clark: Well said. Right on the button. And it is typical of you, Doug, to slap a stock label on people who are not quite as conservative as you, but who nevertheless look at things from many disparate viewpoints ranging from moderately conservative to far left, by referring to them as "a bunch of self-professed liberals," whether they profess to speak from any specific viewpoint or not. Cramming all these different viewpoints into the same pigeon-hole is lazy thinking. "Horse pucky!" and "The sky is falling!" and slapping labels on people is not a serious exchange of viewpoints. If you want to be taken seriously, don't just sit back and snipe. You seem like a bright guy. Let's hear some reasonable, cohesive discussion points from you sometime, okay? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: DougR Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:21 PM Hmm. Harvey: ridiculous example. I don't think I've heard ANYONE describe Nazism as a relious belief or order. Typical of you Don, to consider your remarks as logical, and mine as fluff. If Liberals on the forum are uncomfortable being described as such, how would they prefer to be described? As to taking the Bible literally, I don't. I do think it offers some pretty good guidelines for living though. To those who do take it literally, my point of view is that is their right. It is no more reasonable for me to deride their point of view than it is for them to deride mine. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Bill D Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:37 PM way back up there Shilo, while attempting to argue for 'getting along' said: "there are people like the Jehovah's Witnesses and many fundamentalists who spread a false Gospel.." ....and I must ask-just what makes it false? Why is THAT form any more false than YOUR form? They are sincerely convinced that they interpret the scriptures correctly, so why can't they be right? What is the point? The point is, it is a matter of belief -- which usually means a set of concepts and rituals that one is emotionally comfortable with. People ask each other the question "do you believe in God?" (or whatever the relevant term). The operative term is *believe*. If daily messages were written in the sky in fiery letters in all languages, and detailed instructions for behavior given, there would be little need to ASK! ...........Therefore, those Jehovah's Witnesses could be right! Or the Catholics...or the Evangelicals! It is not a matter of majority rule! I am not a 'believer'...but I could be wrong! ...and I could be right. I take my chances, for various reasons I have considered for a LONG while. And if I am wrong, there are a many different opinions about what will happen to me for not being a believer! So...here we all are, 'believing'(or not believing) different things, for different reasons, with different behavior patterns as a result. How can we all live together? I'll tell you how it will NOT work....it will not work if ONE of those belief systems somehow gets control of the educational and governmental processes that affect everyone's daily life! Those who are not subscribers to the 'winning' system are NOT going to be happy! That is why I say above that it is not a matter of majority rule. The implications of this are: if there are 220 million people in the US, and 219,999,995 decide to 'believe' in Evangelical Christianity (or in worshiping Cactus plants over 6' tall, for that matter), the 5 dissenters STILL should not have God (or cactus plants) forced on them by schools, government, their neighbors, their family or anyone else. If very tall Cactus plants suddenly begin issuing orders and doctrine and enforcing it with *zaps* by painful ejected spines, I suppose the last 5 holdouts might be convinced. Yeah, this is a long-winded, semi-facetious attempt to make the point that there ARE serious attempts to co-opt, influence and control the judicial and legislative processes of this country (I am in the US) by religious elements whose position seems to be: "If I am convinced that MY belief system is right, then anything is fair game to institutionalize it!" There are certainly honorable people of various beliefs who are quietly content to believe and worship in their own way without feeling it necessary to prosyletize and convert. Their aim is to be good people and to live harmoniously with other good people, no matter what conflicting belief systems they all have. I applaud these reasonable believers...but I do all this long-winded typing to TRY to make the point that, if we are not careful, the very system that is supposed to allow diversity is in danger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Mark Clark Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:47 AM I'm reminded of the song that goes: “Give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion…” Fact is that the “old time religion” didn't include any notion like rapture. Christianity and the Church got along just fine for the first three hundred years without a Bible as we know it. The Bible, as we have it today, was assembled by the Church! It wasn't as though some guys read the Bible and said “Holy shit! We'd better start a church of some kind.” The Bible is a product of the Church and was never intended to provide the basis for a belief system outside of accepted Christianity of the day. The book often called Revelation is actually The Apocalypse of John. In fact there were many apocalypses from which to choose. The American Heritage Dictionary defines apocalypse as: b. Any of a number of anonymous Jewish or Christian texts from around the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. containing prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous.As the Councils of Bishops debated the relative merits of available scriptures to include in the Bible, there was considerable controversy about John's or any other apocalypse being included. If I remember correctly, the majority were against its inclusion but capitulated in order to get general agreement on the whole Bible. In my own Church (Eastern Orthodox), the Apocalypse of John is the only book in the Bible that is never read in any public service. Yes, it's considered canonical, because its inclusion was agreed to long ago, but it isn't read or taught. Still, the Bible—or even the New Testament—isn't meant to define Christian belief but to incorporate it. The Bible is part of the Tradition (capital T) of the Church. The Bible is defined by the Church, not the other way around. Also note that original Christian theology didn't attempt to decide who got salvation and who didn't. Salvation was/is thought to be only by the Grace of God and humankind must not presume to know the mind of God. As I wrote in another thread nearly a year ago, Many sorts of "fundamentalism" seem to be attracting large numbers of followers these days. But in every case, the fundamentalists who claim unbending devotion to their chosen faith—Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism, Nationalism, Patriotism, Militarism—have, in fact, perverted the central idea that made their chosen "faith" attractive and useful in the first place.My understanding of actual Christians is that they would strive to be Christ-like and certainly wouldn't use any form of coercion, political or otherwise, to achieve their ends. They would teach and serve and forgive and trust God to sort out the rest. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: michaelr Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:32 AM The Resident shouted "I won't lose!!" Such confidence! Could it stem from his friendship with the CEO of Diebold Corp, the Maker of Electronic Voting Machines??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: dianavan Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:10 AM Bush is not a Christian but he wants the vote so he'll be anything they want him to be. That is scary because there are alot of evangilical Christians. Right or wrong they are united. Yes, it will require a big effort on the part of U.S. citizens to bury the hatchet and band together to get this guy out of office. It may take more than that. Unfortunately, I believe that Bush is so sure of winning that it can only mean he has a diabolical plan. If all else fails, he will resort to fear mongering again. Who know what he might have in store for us this time. I'm sure it will be something to convince the American people that he was right about terrorism. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: LadyJean Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:52 AM My ancestors got kicked out of France 400 years ago, for being the wrong kind of Christians. I found a French history text once, published for French children, that explained that it was a good thing that this strange minority was banished from the country, and everyone went to mass. For reasons I have never been able to fathom, I like Pittsburgh. I don't want to be forced from my home for being a mainline Protestant. This will be the 20th year that I will share a booth at Pensic with Karen the witch and Mike the Southern Baptist. We're friends. Mike and his wife are two of the best people on earth. We don't, often, discuss our beliefs. Mike teaches science. It can't be easy for him to be a Southern Baptist, but he manages somehow. Last year Julie, the Roman Catholic joined our crew, and she fits in just fine. We can all agree to disagree. Oh! I get just about every gay in the place, at my table. Mike has never said a word. He's always amused when I say "Darn!" about a good looking gay man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: michaelr Date: 09 Feb 04 - 11:51 PM what do you mean?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 04 - 09:39 PM I think I'd call that a kind dof fundamentalism too, Michael... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: michaelr Date: 09 Feb 04 - 08:15 PM Ok, I'm just gonna say it once, and without hate: Anyone who believes verbatim in the bible is a misguided, delusionary fool. Fundamentalism is a mental disorder. Jesus may or may not have existed, but what's been written as gospel was intended and has been used ever since as a form of mind control ("hey you, if you don't follow my rules, your soul is damned for eternity!") and as such has to be seen as a political tool. The same is true for fundamental islam, and any other close-minded, misogynistic, hateful doctrine being sold as faith today. It is utterly amazing to me that in this day and age educated people still spout forth the evangelical line and purport to believe it. And if there really are 70 million of them in this benighted country, then the other 220 million will just have to exercise democracy (the tyranny of the majority) and make damn sure they don't get their way. There's a great Doonesbury cartoon that came out a few months ago. In it, Mark the liberal radio talk-show host is given the low-down on conservative tactics by his right-wing boyfriend who says: "You liberals are hung up on fairness! You actually try to respect all points of view! But conservatives feel no need whatsoever to consider other views. We know we're right, so why bother? "Because we have no tradition of tolerance, we're unencumbered by doubt! So we roll you guys every time!" Mark ponders this and says, "Actually, you make a good point…" To which his friend replies: "See? Only a loser would admit that!" Garry Trudeau is one of the great sages of our time. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery! (Bob Marley) (and no, I don't think rastafarianism is any different if propounded by bigots.) Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 04 - 07:21 PM Not Evangelists surely? Evangelicals - and only, I am a sure, a tiny sub-section of those. Every religious tradition has it's strange and rather frightening fringe. (The Taliban are a pretty untypical variety of Muslim, for example...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 09 Feb 04 - 06:48 PM Shlio: The KKK is a Christian organization. They believe in Jesus Christ and His salvation, just ask them. Toleration doesn't mean you have to like everybody; it means that you don't punish them, by jail, or lynching, or keeping them in a ghetto -- whatever -- for what they believe or say. However, they might deserve punishing for their actions, and you are allowed to say they are full of crap if you think so. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Mickey191 Date: 09 Feb 04 - 06:46 PM Guest Shlio, The Jesus I base my faith on is a loving God. He accepts us. All of us. Simple as that. The Jesus the Evangelists (as expressed last night) spoke of is a narrow, unforgiving,judgemental God. No room for human frailty, a discounter of good people who, for whatever reason do not pay proper homage to him. Even those souls who have never heard of him will expierence his wrath. This cannot be Christian because it is the very antithesis of Christ. A line from the Talmud: More holy in the eyes of God then lips that pray, are hands that work. Do you think Jesus would agree? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: GUEST,Shlio Date: 09 Feb 04 - 05:44 PM As a newly converted Christian brought up in a non-religious household, I find this frankly confusing. Even with my limited Bible study, I know to love my neighbour, whatever their beliefs. Rather than concentrating on the subtle differences in doctrine, why can't all the Christian sects acknowledge their great similarity - The belief in Jesus Christ and His salvation? Squabbling with each other seems to be such a waste of time. Yes, there are people like the Jehovah's Witnesses and many fundamentalists who spread a false Gospel... But wouldn't it be easier to expose them if all true Christians - who value life whether it's American, Christian, Muslim, Iraqi or pagan - joined together to expose them? Frankly, American evangelists scare me. There are proably plenty of reasons why various christians think that this is impossible - but they should remember that they all identify themselves the same way - as Christians. Now maybe they should act like them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Don Firth Date: 09 Feb 04 - 05:14 PM John Hardly, I assume from your comment that you may believe in the Rapture. I'm always open to learn. If you do believe, and if you have a solid Scriptural basis for the belief, then let's hear it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 04 - 05:12 PM There's fundamentalism and there's fundamentalism. Sometimes the word gets thrown about, just to mean people who are sincere and consistent in their religious tradition, and when the word gets thrown at them it can be a measure of bigotry and intolerance. But sometimes it means ruthless fanatics. A committment to tolerance means being ready to stand up to people like that, whatever label their fundamentalism has - Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Atheist... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: harvey andrews Date: 09 Feb 04 - 03:08 PM So Doug, if you were Jewish in germany in the 30's you would have been exhorting your fellows to be tolerant of the views of Nazis? There are many who see striking parallels between the rise of religious fundamentalism and the rise of totalitarianism.There are many who have written songs and sung songs against this. You'll just have to tolerate their opposition to any religious groups that try to impose their beliefs on the unbelievers. Personally, it appears to me that we are going back to the dark ages and the times of unreason. Battles I thought won will have to be re-fought. The human race baffles me more the older I get. It just doesn't grow and mature in any way except in its technology. It's more than depressing to see superstition and ignorance making yet another comeback. It's like a virus.Only in this case it causes a plague on all our houses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: GUEST,Don Hakman Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:55 PM wait for the animation to begin... http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/judge.gif |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: GUEST,Don Hakman Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:52 PM Now add 43 virgins to the Rapture stew, stir virgorously and it begins to sound familiar. If any of you are familiar with the underground anti McCarthy recording, THE INSPECTOR, then you can see why I am updating it. It does have music but if any of you great musicians here have a performance you think is suitable for interludes , bridges and credits please send a Private Message. Now picture Ashcroft bare naked right after the Rapture trying to reach the FCC to sue God for indecency... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Bill D Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:47 PM " I thought one of the tenents of liberalism was tolerance for other points of view, and that anyone had a right to his/her own opinion and belief." Indeed so, Doug..a fair, reasonable, 'liberal' Democrat should tolerate all religions and allow others their opinions and beliefs....as long as those 'others' do not attempt to declare their opinions and beliefs to be the ONLY valid ones, and to attempt to get both courts and Congress to put in place laws, practices, monuments, rulings and procedures that both implicitly and explicitly favor one set of beliefs over others--or over having none at all! What did that long complex sentence above say? It said, essentially, "freedom OF religion must necessarily imply freedom FROM religion for those who wish it!" If "In God We Trust" is all over our money, and stone monuments of the 10 Commandments are in state buildings, and laws are enacted which promote "faith based" institutions to get special tax breaks and privileges, and presidents use evangelical scripture as part of their justification for waging war, we will be no better than countries which have declared state religions and use that to convince their people that WE are evil! Practice your religion, but KEEP IT OUT OF POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOLS.....TOTALLY!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: GUEST,pdc Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:47 PM Let's hope we don't get too many evangelical pilots -- I'd hate to be in midair when the Rapture came. American Airlines Pilot Plugs Christianity Sun Feb 8,10:40 PM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo! NEW YORK - An American Airlines pilot asked Christians on his flight to identify themselves and suggested the non-Christians discuss the faith with them, the airline said. The case was handed over to the airline's personnel department for an investigation, spokesman Tim Wagner said Sunday. "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," he said earlier. American's Flight 34 was headed from Los Angeles to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport on Friday when the pilot asked Christians on board to raise their hands, Wagner said. The pilot, whose name was not released, told the airline that he then suggested the other passengers use the flight time to talk to the Christians about their faith, Wagner said. Passenger Amanda Nelligan told WCBS-TV of New York that the pilot called non-Christians "crazy" and that his comments "felt like a threat." She said she and several others aboard were so worried they tried to call relatives on their cell phones before flight attendants assured them they were safe and that people on the ground had been notified about the pilot's comments. The pilot also told passengers he would be available for discussion at the end of the flight. Wagner said the pilot had just returned to work from a weeklong mission trip to Costa Rica. What if it had been a Muslim Pilot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:35 PM Surely toleration isn't about concealing the fact you think that something is nonsensical, Doug? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Peter T. Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:29 PM I don't have my Bible to hand, but isn't there stuff in Revelations about people being taken as a sign of the end times? yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: John Hardly Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:17 PM wow Don, I guess your church is smarter than mine. I'll never learn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Don Firth Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:05 PM (". . . a bunch of self-professed liberals. . . ." There you go again, Doug. Dismissing those with whom you disagree by slapping a pre-canned label on them. Poor substitute for rational discussion.) "An estimated 70 million Americans call themselves evangelicals. . . ." I don't think so. I am a member of Central Lutheran Church in Seattle, and as you are aware, the Lutheran Church is one of the main-line denominations in the United States (and the world in general—after all, it was Martin Luther who started the Reformation by nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the cathedral back in 1517). There are some variations in belief among Lutherans, but I don't know of any who believe in this "Rapture" poo-poo. On Sunday, January 11th of this year, I attended the pre-service Adult Forum to hear author and theologian Barbara R. Rossing discuss the matter of "The Rapture." Rev. Rossing has researched this matter in depth, and the results of her research are to be found in her book The Rapture Racket: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation (Listed on Amazon) Those who believe in "The Rapture" are, of necessity, Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists claim to believe in a literal, word-for-word interpretation of the Bible (i.e., God created the world in 4004 B.C., Adam and Eve were real people, Samson did slay 1,000 Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass, and Jesus fed the 5,000 with five loaves of Wonder Bread and a can of King Oscar sardines [or words to that effect]). Rev. Rossing points out that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR A BELIEF IN "THE RAPTURE." Not in The Book of Revelation, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything like this. So where did it come from? By gleaning through the Bible and picking a verse or two here and a verse or two there (all out of context, which is a favorite method of Bible study for these folks), then putting them all together in a whole new sequence and interpreting what these disparate and disconnected verses are supposed to mean (but Fundamentalists insist they don't interpret the Bible, they take it as written). They lean heavily on Matthew 24:29-31, then add a couple of verses from Daniel (Daniel!??), along with a few others they've carefully selected, toss them all into a bucket with some stuff from The Book of Revelation and stir them with a long stick. By this method, if I started with the idea that I wanted to prove that Jesus played the ukulele, I could comb through the Bible and probably come up with enough verses to make a strong case for it. I have taken the liberty of posting the Amazon review of Barbara Rossing's book. Incidentally, the book goes by two different titles. She titled it The Rapture Racket, but someone (publisher? Amazon? I'm not sure) felt that was too inflammatory, so they insisted on calling it The Rapture Exposed. Editorial ReviewsThis "Rapture" business, the Fundies claim, is Biblical prophecy. But remember: Jesus warned us to beware of false prophets. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Nerd Date: 09 Feb 04 - 01:42 PM Hey Bobert, I agree with you. Ironic, though; you would have thought "poofers" would be pro-Gay :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: DougR Date: 09 Feb 04 - 01:34 PM Amos: I guess it all depends on one's definition of "hateful." For a bunch of self-professed liberals, I think most of the posters to this thread so far are anything but. I thought one of the tenents of liberalism was tolerance for other points of view, and that anyone had a right to his/her own opinion and belief. That does not seem to be the case with the majority of posters here. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 04 - 12:57 PM They seem to have got round the last part of that anyway, from what I've heard of the way your civil authorities in places like New York have treated people trying "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: John Hardly Date: 09 Feb 04 - 11:24 AM Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Cluin Date: 09 Feb 04 - 11:24 AM And Harvey, I think I like "bought" better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Cluin Date: 09 Feb 04 - 11:18 AM I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state. All to avoid just the same sort of crap like this from becoming national policy. Hasn't history seen enough intolerance and killing in the name of one religion or another? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Greg F. Date: 09 Feb 04 - 11:16 AM All this bullshit is precisely why the U.S. Constitution mandates a separation of Church and State. A shame the Constitution-and-Bible thumping Republicans (& their 'fellow travelers') choose to ignore that part of what they otherwise pretend is a "holy" document. One more example- as if another were needed- of "Christian"[sic] hypocrisy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 04 - 11:07 AM Perhaps it'd be better to use the term "sectarian right" - I'm sure there are lots of people with relatively rightwing political views, and sincere religious commitment, who wouldn't want to be associated with this kind of thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: mack/misophist Date: 09 Feb 04 - 10:51 AM John Hardly is correct on the matter of hatefulness. After all, it's easy to hate those who behave hatefully themselves. But he's dead wrong on the political side. The republicans haven't pre-empted the religious right, they have suborned the republicans. It started as he says. However, the republicans soon found themselves riding the tiger. Think about it. The religious right is organized, activist, donates time and money, and is not afraid to bend the fair political practices rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: John Hardly Date: 09 Feb 04 - 10:51 AM "With that said, I don't personally know any other Christain who believes in this *poof* thing. Not one. So when I heard that 70 million figure being thrown out I was thinking to myself, "Hey, what's this all about?"." I know them by the hundreds if not thousands. I went to elementary school where it was taught. I went to highschool where it was taught. I went to college where it was taught. I went to seminary where it was taught. I've never been out of a main-line denomination. I've either been in a Presby church (with a Princeton sem grad pastor), Baptist (not southern), Grace Brethern (Mennonite tradition). I have met many people in those settings that are every bit as venomous at the average below-the-line mudcat poster, but I can tell you that they are more exceptional that the norm they are here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 04 - 10:42 AM Hey, in my past postings here at Mudcat I have made no bones about my Faith in Jesus Christ. With that said, I don't personally know any other Christain who believes in this *poof* thing. Not one. So when I heard that 70 million figure being thrown out I was thinking to myself, "Hey, what's this all about?". What I do see occuring in churches is similar to what is going on in society. There is yet another splitting. I remember back in the 60's when so many folks either left the church or found other ones over the issue of Vietnam. What we're now seeing is something similiar over homosexuality and I would guess that the *poofers*, who to me are those professed Christains who practice revenge, judgement and intolerance, are pretty much universally anti-gay/Lesbian. I agree with Guest from ny who feels we would be better off without the Rapture-ist. They certainly aren't paying much attention to the overall teachings of Jesus of love, forgiveness and tolerance. They seem to me to be more like the mob who was about to stone the prostitute when Jesus said, "He who has not sinned cast the fist stone." The scariest part about this entire thing is that the media is so scared of this little cult that has captured the government that they goahead and allow the 70 million number to go unchalleged. In doing sothey are feeding the PR machine 'casue their are plenty of people just vulnerable enough to join something because everyone else is joining. Like I said, we could certainly use JC-2 to expose these wolves for what they are... Which ain't Christain, that's fir sure... Bobert |
