|
||
|
Title: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 2:39pm A CHristian terrorist gets Life. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/18/rudolph.sentencing/index.html fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by jcmquix on Jul 18th, 2005, 2:50pm I agree with you Vig.. I am a christian, active in the church. I tell you kinow if I ever know of anyone like this I would report them. I know it will stir alot of hits, but this guy is no Christian. Sorry. I do not agree with abortian, but its not for us to choose. They will have to answer to a higher power, even this guy. No one has the right to take a life, trying to save a life. This guy got what he deserved. PFDAN's to ALL !!! |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Margi on Jul 18th, 2005, 3:19pm am I missing something here? Not once do any of the following words appear in that article: Christian, Christianity, Religion, or Religious. I did a search and they do not appear. Why is this guy being referred to as a Christian? I'd say he's the antithesis by definition. Isn't he just a regular whacko? Why call him a "Christian terrorist?" Kind of an oxymoron, like "Jumbo Shrimp"..... edited to add: just because someone is against abortion, that doesn't necessarily make them a Christian. I'm sure there's lots of other relgions and some atheists/agnostics that are against it too. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 3:47pm well, it doesn't make him a GOOD christian, but christian he seems to think he is and it's what has motivated him... http://www.answers.com/topic/eric-robert-rudolph Are muslim fundamentalists just plain whacko? or do we call them Islamic whackos? |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Margi on Jul 18th, 2005, 3:56pm thanks for digging that up, Vig. Wow, Christian Nazi's/Aryans. I had no idea there even was such a group calling themselves Christian! Talk about hiding under the cloak of Christianity. Makes me so mad! I think there's whacko's in every sector of society. Religion and non-religious. The basic principle of Muslim/Islam is quite peaceful. But those folks don't make the news. Nor do the peaceful Christians or Jews. We only hear about the nutjobs! Sorry - didn't mean to be anal about this - I've just never heard of this guy. Thanks for going the extra mile to explain it to my little pea brain, Paul. ;) |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by sandie99 on Jul 18th, 2005, 3:56pm I agree: keep religion and other actions separate. I never went to Sunday school, but I believe strongly in God and I've read my Bible. I don't go on pushing my religious beliefs to anyone else. This world would be a better place if we would just agree to disagree. :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 3:59pm Many of the KKK were Southern Baptist Christians. In the recent retrial of Edgar Ray Killen, a former Baptist preacher, it was shown that the one holdout juror from his original trial, had voted not-guilty, because: The holdout said she could not vote to convict a preacher. Didn't matter if he was guilty or not to her.... |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by clarence on Jul 18th, 2005, 4:32pm I saw this story, and guys like this make me sad. At the risk of sounding hypocritical, I think he should have got more than he did. Abortion - agree or disagree - no one has the right to take a life in the name of saving life, or in the name of religion. I would not refer to him as a Christian. In my opinion, the term Christian with reference to this guy should be in quotes - at best. on 07/18/05 at 15:56:53, sandie99 wrote:
Ahhh...but you can't keep religion and ethics(the living out of one's beliefs) seperate. Any religion functions as a totalizing world view, and therefore influences the actions of the follower. One's actions reveal his or her religion, and his or her religion should dictate action. This is not to say anybody is perfect, it is to say that Christianity, as well as other faiths, call the believer to perform actions in accordance with the tenents of the faith. Killing people in the name of life is not one of those actions - for Christianity anyway. Casey |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 4:58pm Show me one quote in the new testement where it says its ok to kill and Ill show you 50 from the Koran. People have abused religion since the dawn of time, power currupts, and religion is power. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by thomas on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:06pm on 07/18/05 at 14:39:48, vig wrote:
I don't think funadmentalism is the proper word for these crazies, I don't care what side they are on, Christian or not, extremists maybe but not fundamentalists. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Margi on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:08pm THANK you Thomas! I was struggling with the word "fundamentalists" too. To me, fundamentalism is basic doctrine. And this crap sure ain't basic Christian doctrine! Extremist is a much better way to describe it. I think Vig was right the first time in calling this piece of work a terrorist! |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by nani on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:08pm on 07/18/05 at 17:06:09, thomas wrote:
That's the saddest part...I like to think that God feels there shouldn't be any "sides". :-/ |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:12pm on 07/18/05 at 16:32:51, clarence wrote:
I agree there too, but imagine if you were Islamic.... Could you see yourself saying the same thing about the terrorists? It's the fundamentlist part, not the religion. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:12pm This is also the same guy that did the Olympic bombing, how was that anti-abortion? The guy got his jollys off hurting people and found a cause to hide behind. I wouldnt even call him an extremist. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:18pm on 07/18/05 at 17:12:55, maffumatt wrote:
from Eric himself: "..., the purpose of the attack on July 27 (at the Olympics) was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand." pretty twisted. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Margi on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:23pm on 07/18/05 at 17:08:27, nani wrote:
Paul and I were talking about this very thing off the board today. I believe my words to him were that God is probably saying "keep it up, Buttercup, you ain't EVER coming to the table that I'M preparing for you!" (or words to that effect anyway). He, and He alone, will decide these extremists'/terrorists' fates WAY better than anyone here on earth can. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:24pm pretty twisted indeed, never heard that quote. No matter your political or religious beliefs, this guy is a terrorist and needs to treated as such. edited to add........I agree Margi....... |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by thomas on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:34pm Yes, perhaps "sides" was the incorrect word choice. I think a little "fundamentalism" of any kind would do us all a little good. Pushing the envelope and bending the rules to suit individual wants and desires leads to trouble, no matter what rules or laws we are talking about, would you want to play poker at a table where the rules change depending on who's winning and who's losing? Just some food for thought. I don't believe killing is the answer, unless it is used as punishment for capital offenses. Islam is a very peaceful, inclusive religion, fudamentally. It's the whack-jobs that give it a bad name, same as over here. But the term whacko is used much too often with out merit when referencing American Christians. IMHO. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:45pm I have to disagree. It is only a peaceful religion if you are a Muslim, not only that but if you are from a particular sect. There are a couple quotes that are touted that it a peacefull religion, when the vast majority of the Koran is the exact opposite. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:45pm alright, I'll go with "whack-jobs"! ;;D though I think Religious Extremist is probably the right one. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by thomas on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:55pm on 07/18/05 at 17:45:16, maffumatt wrote:
The Bible has plenty of killing for God as well, but we are supposed to be peaceful as Christians. :-/ |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 5:57pm on 07/18/05 at 17:55:11, thomas wrote:
Show me where in the new testament where it says to kill for God. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by nani on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:00pm It wasn't your use of the word "sides" that I mean, T. Just that religion IMHO has created a divisiveness among us that God did not intend. In many ways, organized religion has gotten our minds off the Big Picture and created havoc. It's about our personal relationship with God and our responsibility to live "right" in the most basic way. You know, that long lost Golden Rule idea.... |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:04pm on 07/18/05 at 17:57:09, maffumatt wrote:
The New Testament? or the Bible? See? We even have our own sects? (not sex, ya pervs) and I think, on the whole, that CHristians are better at not killing than the Islamic extremists... (they might be bigger pervs though) |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:08pm The New Testament The use of this book is what makes us differ from the Jews, and is what makes us Christians. For centuries Christians were considered a sect of Judiasiam. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:11pm on 07/18/05 at 18:08:23, maffumatt wrote:
I'm a Catholic. I was taught from the Old Testament AND the New Testament. Both together comprise the Bible. Not just part of it.... See? Here's a ink to another band of 'whack-jobs' living among us.... http://www.religioustolerance.org/flds.htm |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:14pm • "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah...Whatever ye spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly." (Surah 8:60) • "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Surah 61:4). • "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits...191And slay them wherever ye catch them. and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. 192 But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 193And fight them on until there is no more persecution. And the religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Surah 2:190-193). • "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things," (Surah 9:38-39). • "For the unbelievers are to you open enemies" (Surah 4:101) • "Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (Surah 4:89) • "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war." (Surah 9:5) • "The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira. • "Allah's Apostle said, "A pious slave gets a double reward." Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (i.e. holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave. Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724: Narrated Abu Huraira. • "Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555: Narrated Abu Huraira. • "The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira. • "Allah's Apostle said, "A pious slave gets a double reward." Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (i.e. holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave. Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724: Narrated Abu Huraira. • "Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555: Narrated Abu Huraira. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:15pm 1. Surah 61:4 "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," 2. Surah 2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits...And slay them wherever ye catch them. And turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they first fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more persecution. And the religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" 3. Surah 9:38-39 "O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things," 4. Surah 8:59-70 "Their state is like that of the people of Pharaoh, and of those before them who treated their Lord's signs as lies. We therefore destroy them in their sins, and We drowned the people of Pharaoh; for they were all doers of wrong. The worst beasts truly in the sight of God are the thankless who will not believe; They with whom thou hast leagued, and who are ever breaking their league, and who fear not God! If thou take them in war, then, by the example of their fate, scatter those who shall follow them - that they may be warned: Or if thou fear treachery from any people, throw back their treaty to them as thou fairly mayest, for God loveth not the treacherous. And think not that the infidels shall escape Us! The shall not weaken God....O Prophet! stir up the faithful to the fight. Twenty of you who stand firm shall vanquish two hundred: and if there be an hundred of you they shall vanquish a thousand of the infidels, for they are a people devoid of understanding....No prophet hath been enabled to take captives until he had made great slaughter in the earth. Ye desire the passing fruitions of this world, but God desireth the next life for you. And God is mighty and wise. 5. Sura 9:5 "And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious, merciful. 6. Sura 9:12 "But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ring-leaders of infidelity - for no oaths are binding with them - that they may desist. What! will ye not fight against those Meccans who have broken their oaths and aimed to expel your Apostle, and attacked you first? Will ye dread them? God is more worthy of your fear, if ye are believers! So make war on them: By your hands will God chastise them, and will put them to shame, and will give you victory over them, and will heal the bosoms of a people who believe;" 7. Sura 9:30 "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the Last Day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled. The Jews say, "Ezra is a son of God"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is a son of God." Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the saying of the infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided? They take their teachers, and their monks, and the Messiah, son of Mary, for lords besides God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He! Far from His glory be what they associate with Him! Fain would they put out God's light with their mouths: but God only desireth to perfect His light, albeit the infidels abhor it. He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the guidance and a religion of the truth, that He may make it victorious over every other religion, albeit they who assign partners to God be averse from it. 8. The second best deed is to participate in Jihad (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25, Narrated Abu Huraira) - Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next in goodness? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)." |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:16pm There is no comparison. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by thomas on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:18pm on 07/18/05 at 17:57:09, maffumatt wrote:
It doesn't say it in the new testament. But it sure does in the old testament, and I was brought up by reading both. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by thomas on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:20pm BTW, it is nice that we are all keeping our tempers in check whilst discussing religion, give all of yourselves pats on the backs. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:25pm Ok, were you taught to use all the laws of the old testament? you could say the New Testament trumps the old right? That the message of Jesus is what makes a person a Christian? I like a good debate Thomas, stimulates the mind. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by vig on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:29pm uh, let's see... love thy neighbor as thy brother something like that. One of the best ideas of mankind. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Kevin_M on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:35pm on 07/18/05 at 16:32:51, clarence wrote:
After reading what you reprinted there Maffu, I seem to be confused about the intertwining of religion and ethics. Say if I was atheist or perhaps just not ascribing to any religion, does that mean I have no chance of ever being an ethical person but someone who follows what Matt reprinted can because it is a religion? Religion and ethics, mutually exclusive? Kevin M |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 6:52pm This is my personal belief and you can take it or leave it if you wish. I believe that there is a God whether you call him Yahweh, Budda, the Great spirit, the ancesters, what ever you want to call him. I believe that they are all one and the same. I believe that he made people with free will and a knowledge of what is right and wrong, whether you are a believer or a non believer. You dont have to be religous to be ethical. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Kevin_M on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:00pm on 07/18/05 at 18:52:54, maffumatt wrote:
Well, I just thought, if you were raised in a household that taught you to love and respect each other, treat others... basically the Golden Rule, but there was no actual religion mentioned, being ethical could arise from a setting apart from religion. Kevin M |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:00pm what I reprinted is excerts from the Koran, and is to show that there are alot of examples in the Koran telling its followers to kill in the name of god, where there are few if any such quotes in the new testament. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:01pm on 07/18/05 at 19:00:01, Kevin_M wrote:
I agree with you. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:09pm I think you are attributing Clarences quote to me Kevin....... |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Kevin_M on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:15pm No, no Matt. In just following the thread, I stopped at Clarence's post and wondered. Then when you posted the Koran excerpts, I wondered more about religion and ethics being intertwined. I was having a hard time relating ethics to what was said in the Koran, that part of it anyway. such as: Quote:
Kevin M |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by nani on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:23pm I am not very well versed in the Bible, though I have read the New Testament completely. I'm wondering, where did the justification for the Crusades and the Inquisition come from? |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:26pm fear and ignorance |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Kevin_M on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:31pm on 07/18/05 at 19:23:06, nani wrote:
Justification? Don't know. ::) But the Inquisition was gold grabbing and looting encouraged by a very rich king of Spain (a Phillip with Roman numerals after it, who died broke anyway) so that he could fund and continue the Crusades. Kevin M |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by nani on Jul 18th, 2005, 7:32pm So, would it be fair to say... some kill in the name of God because it is proposed by their prophet... and others do so at their own behest and it becomes acceptable to the masses by stirring up fear. It's really no wonder there is so much conflict in the world. Darn shame, if you ask me. :'( |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by clarence on Jul 18th, 2005, 8:00pm on 07/18/05 at 18:35:19, Kevin_M wrote:
Kevin, I said that religions were totalizing world view systems. An athiest, while not believing in God, still has a world view (the way in which he or she sees and interprets and makes sense of the world around him or her). It is in accordance with one's world view that he or she behaves...regardless of the religion. I was responding to Sandy's comment about wanting to seperate religion and actions, which I think is impossible. Religion, or belief in anything for that matter, leads to action, or at least it should. I guess what I am saying is that whatever one believes in, that person will/should act in accordance with those beliefs. If someone, anyone, has beliefs that they are not consistent with in their actions, we call them a hypocrite. This is especially highlighted when the person is religious. Casey |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by clarence on Jul 18th, 2005, 8:19pm on 07/18/05 at 18:11:50, vig wrote:
Even in the Catholic Church there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is evident in the fact that they call them by two different names. For what it is worth, the way I understand it is that both the New and the Old Testament are authoritative. However, there is a difference. The Old Testament records the history of the Jews. More broadly, it records the history of God's action in the world through the Jews. The New Testament introduces the God-Man Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer of Israel, and, the world. Jesus comes as the fulfillment of the Old Testment history, prophecy, and law. Jesus, as God become Human gives us the greatest picture of God, because He is God with us. Jesus tells us that none of the OT law is nullified, but that it is encapsulated in the 2 greatest commandments: Love the Lord your God with all of your heart. And love your neighbor as yourself. Actually, as I think about it, the heart of the Christian faith is encapsulated in these two commandments. Therefore, you have religion (a belief system) that because of its central tenents, cannot be seperated from ethics. The belief system necessarily, because of its central beliefs, must lead to ethics (by which I mean "how one should live"). The New Testament is a rewriting of the history of God's people in light of the appearance, death, resurrection, and ascension of the story's central character - Jesus. It doesn not cancel what came before it, but, the life and death and resurrectiuon of Jesus, as the climax of the biblical narrative, is the most authoritative for the person who at this point in history finds her or himself within this story. Also, some of the OT laws are specifically cancelled out by New Testament teachings (such as dietary laws - see Acts 10 for instance). As for killing in the Old Testament, that is another question altogether. Murder is not permitted specifically in the 10 Commandments. However, there were times when God commanded the people to go to war. While we may not think this right or ethical at this point in human history, I would question whether we can read our value systems into the actions of people who lived a few thousand years ago. This is not to say that God is inconsistant, but rather that God reveals Godself in different ways to different people throughout history. Casey |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by clarence on Jul 18th, 2005, 8:39pm on 07/18/05 at 18:00:05, nani wrote:
Man, I missed a lot here. Sorry to keep going on. Nani - While I agree with you on one level, I have to disagree on another. I agree that we have lost sight of the Big Picture, that we can't see the "forrest for the trees," or whatever. We tend to concentrate on other people's actions, rather than our own (at least I do). And it is about a personal relationship with God. In the Christian faith it is also about a communal relationship with God and with one another in the Church. The sad part is that the church is so divided that one can hardly speak of it as a unified entity any more. This is difinately a divisiveness that is sad, in my opinion. Another type of divisiveness is, I think, inherent and unavoidable in religion. In fact, in Christianity at least, division is something built into the very fabric of my faith. Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34-39) Jesus did not come to bring a literal sword, but a figural one. Jesus unites to himself, but divides his church from the world (while the church remains in the world). Christ's church should be different from the world, should have different values from the world, and different actions from the rest of the world ...which leads us back to ethics. [Actually, it may be more accurate to say that the church is called to see the world in a different way, etc...This leaves the idea that the church exists within this world, but views it differently, or, has a different world view] Unfortunately, the church often focuses on the actions of others while failing to attend to its own actions. Ok, I'm done. ;) Casey ps - I really love this place. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 8:47pm Well said. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by clarence on Jul 18th, 2005, 9:47pm Did I ruin it? I have had a knack for doing that lately :-/ sorry |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Kevin_M on Jul 18th, 2005, 9:58pm on 07/18/05 at 20:00:25, clarence wrote:
;;D No Casey, that was simple and clear enough for me. I'm through :) Kevin |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Charlie on Jul 18th, 2005, 10:22pm Not gonna get into this other than this post: Religion has a shitty history, faith some but nowhere near as much. Screw this, the guy is twisted. He misread everybody. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by maffumatt on Jul 18th, 2005, 10:47pm human kind has a shitty history, we will always find some reason to kill each other whether it be greed, lust, or even someones tennis shoes. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Topical on Jul 18th, 2005, 10:55pm on 07/18/05 at 17:45:16, maffumatt wrote:
You've never read it, now's your chance. http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html Did you know that it was also based off of stories in the Old Testament? Abraham, Adam and Eve...etc. The religion states to attack those who attack it. Do not attack those that do not attack it. What do they do to attackers of their faith? [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. Remember the showdown at the mosques earlier during the Iraqi war? Someone fired at the mosque. (Maybe even the Iraqi's themselves). Maybe this will help you understand why they went into the mosques. They wanted to provoke an attack to get more people to join with them. Unfortunately, we took the bait. It's the lack of knowledge and understanding that is creating more and more Muslims to turn into terrorists. Most people do not even make an effort to understand them. Fotunately, most muslims do not believe attacking Iraq was an attack on their religion. Fortunately most Muslims believe the attacks on the mosques were provoked. It's strange to find a quote like that below in a religion that is so 'violent', isn't it? [2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. I wish I could say, leave them alone and they will leave us alone. It won't happen as they have some violent fundamentalists misinterpretting the Koran. The key to winning is to eliminate those fundamentalists and we need other muslims to help us do that. The same problem was with Rudolph, there were a few fundamentalist Christians who supported him based off of their interpretation of the bible. It demonstrates that we also have people who will misinterpret what they feel are the writings of God. |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Lizzie2 on Jul 18th, 2005, 11:02pm Well, just going off the original post in this thread about the bomber, the entire situation makes me quite sad....all religion aside. Quote:
Someone once told me they hated the phrase, "It's nothing personal" - when is it ever NOT personal in something like that? Also, they said they didn't like the phrase, "No offense." Just a phrase meant to take responsibility away from a person and make it okay to say something that can be rather hurtful. :-/ (Really - that has not much to do with the article, but rather an afterthought!) One point I'd just like to make, and I'm not saying that anyone here is accusing of this, but I just feel the need to say it. Especially because of a homily I heard in Catholic mass not very long ago: Being pro-choice does not equate to being pro-abortion or even to the idea that thinking abortion is okay. Just that a woman should have the right to make a choice about her own body and that no other person should have the right to make that choice for her. [smiley=twocents.gif] Hugz, Carrie :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by clarence on Jul 18th, 2005, 11:32pm on 07/18/05 at 23:02:16, Lizzie2 wrote:
Carrie, Great post. I really like your insight about "its nothing personal." When one kills people, and leaves others maimed and disabled for the remainder of their lives, inflicting unspeakable horror upon the lives of other human beings, in an act of senseless violence that is completely contradictory to one's stated beliefs, how can that not be taken as "personal." Also, about being "pro-choice," that is a good observation. I myself, as a Christian, hold a similar, if slightly modified, view of this. Which, by the way, often puts me at odds with family and friends. But, oh well. If you've got convictions, you might as well stick to 'em. goodnight all, Casey |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by Lizzie2 on Jul 19th, 2005, 12:59am Thanks Clarence :) I really think that many good points have been made in this thread. :) Beautiful to have a discussion without heated argument and name calling! ;) I consider myself to be a person of deep faith and strong religion, but I do hold true to the stance in pro-choice because I believe that no other person should make decisions for a woman regarding her body. I know that it concerns the life of an unborn child, and I'm even a neonatal nurse - but I just feel that women should be allowed to have freedom and choices about their bodies. I've been at odds with people I'm very close to on a number of issues - including abortion. However, I've found what helps best of all is to know where I stand on the issues. I consider everyone's opinions on topics, and I'm not so cemented in my ways to the point that I won't even consider new viewpoints that come up because they may be viewpoints that I've never thought of before, but I do like that I'm strong in my convictions. It is definitely not easy when some of our stances in life conflict with our own personal religious teachings - no matter what these teachings may have been. I'll never forget being recruited by the Catholic education program to go to a pro-life march when I was very young. I thought it was a great idea at the time. My friend Sharon went to it. I thought, "What's not to like about saving babies!" My mom forbid me to go to it. She told me that I'd understand her decision when I was older and then could make my own decisions - without being dragged into pro-life marches as a child when I didn't even understand all that it was about. I'm really proud of my mom for empowering me to make my own decisions in life. I think it's helped me to become independent and to become strong in my own beliefs. Carrie :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Rudolph Post by sandie99 on Jul 19th, 2005, 1:35am on 07/18/05 at 17:55:11, thomas wrote:
The first time I read it, I was actually shocked about how much killing there is in Bible. Made me wonder why we all can't have one religion: love... The discussion about abortion and also euthanasia are difficult, but important issues. I could never pull a plugg on anyone I love, my I understand very well that people want to have that option to die the way they want to. When my father was in hospital (4 months) I had to think about what if the doctors would want us to decide about his life... It never came to that, but I know that few months more and it would have. He was in lot of pain. Luckily for him he had docs who didn't want him to suffer. When my uncle (who also had brain tumour like my father) was in hospital, his docs wanted his death: they decided that he was a hopless case, so let him starve. You can imagine that when my aunt found that out she caused a scene.... Mention the word abortion and people always have a opinion about it. I think it's interesting that often those who oppose it are those who will never have to truly experience what it's like, men. It's easy to be against abortion when you don't have to ever experiece it personally. I've never been in that situation myself so I cannot say what would I do. But if I was a 14-year-old who has been raped and my family had turned their backs on me, the last thing on my mind would be that "hey, let's protect this new life inside of me!" Absolutely not. |
||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |