|Merry Christmas kids....||critmass|
Dec 21, 2003 4:42 PM
Dec 21, 2003 4:45 PM
|The real cost of Duyba's lies:
546 grieving families
Total U.S. wounded: 2657
12/20/03, Christopher Holland, 26, Brunswick, Georgia, Army Batt. A., 4th Bat., 27th Field Art. Reg., hostile fire, Baghdad.
May the families, who are Christians, of the men and women who have died in Iraq receive some comfort from the true meaning of Christmas.
|The true meaning of Christmas?||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 6:59 AM
|What exactly is the true meaning of Christmas? The root of one of the world's largest exclusionary religions? The root of anti-semitism and the holocaust? The root of religious conflicts, including the middle-east?
GWB is a Christian, you are a Christian, but my hands are clean.
|please re-reoute post.||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 7:08 AM
|the christian bashing board is over at athiest.com.|
|athiest.com doesn't exist, does it? (nm)||eyebob|
Dec 22, 2003 8:13 AM
Dec 22, 2003 7:23 AM
|Comical and ironic that an atheist would invoke "the true meaning of Christmas" in a sarcastic attempt to denigrate people who, on large, have given their lives and support to ensure freedom of nearly half the planet, including most recently Iraq. Christian men and women largely were responsible for freeing Europe in WWI and WWII, and were largely responsible for the support of the defense of foreign people back home.
The "real cost" of your posts like this are not much more than to make you look bitter and uninformed.
|Not to mention||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 8:13 AM
|Not to mention the liberation of the holy land and the cleansing of the Iberian peninsula.
I know there are no atheists in foxholes, Doug, but I would hope that men and women could fight the likes of Hitler without relying on supernatural scriptures for guidance.
I agree that the original poster is bitter and needs help, but let's not sing the praises of organized religon until their leaders get their pants zipped up. Now I'm sounding bitter.
Dec 22, 2003 8:19 AM
|...to dump all religions and their leaders into one group. makes you post even weaker.|
|not my point||DougSloan|
Dec 22, 2003 8:19 AM
|I didn't mean that the men and women freeing the planet were "relying on supernatural scriptures for guidance." That's far from what I intended. What I meant was that those people were, in fact, largely Christian people, the very people who CM loves to bash. In other words, they aren't all bad, are they? Christians have stepped up and given their lives and livelihood to free the better part of the western world. Acknowledge some credit where due.
Dec 22, 2003 8:37 AM
|Christians have done their part. They can't be all bad. Of course the same can be said about all religions. I even knew a Nazi who was a truly good person (a real Nazi, not the neo- kind).|
|Yeah but...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 8:18 AM
|Christians were the ones responsible for oppressing Europe in WWI and II, unless Germany is a less Christian nation than the US/England/France, etc.? Christs' message seems to have done very little throughout history to stop people from killing or doing other "evil" acts when so inclined (for instance segration in the US south was/is often supported on Christian religious values grounds).
Perhaps the relations between Christians and Muslims today wouldn't be so bad if the Crusades (a Christian initiative) would have never happened. And I suspect the modern day western ideals of freedom probably have little if anything to do with Christianity, but more to do with, ironically, the ideals of the French Revolution and its aftermath and the development of capitalism. The fact that the majority of westerners are Christians is probably almost irrelevant to recent modern history other than for providing fodder for the hateful message of the islamic extremists.
Dec 22, 2003 8:25 AM
|yes, germanys leadership was less christian than the u.s. during ww2.
being a christian doesnt mean you always do everyting right or the way God intended. its an admission that you dont.
Dec 22, 2003 8:34 AM
|I certainly don't do everything right, and freely admit it, but it would take a lot more than that to make me a Christian.
To answer your other post, yes I am lumping all religions together. Are you trying to say one is better than the other? Which one?
Dec 22, 2003 8:38 AM
|how about i just point you back to christians know they arent always right.|
|You are absolutely right.....||Tri_Rich|
Dec 22, 2003 8:56 AM
|What gets lost in this is the question of those who wrap themselves in the language of religion while ignoring the principles of that religion.
Even a complusory reading of either the bible or the Koran should show that neither espouses war or hatred. The men and women who lost their lives in WWII and Iraq fought for their country not their religion.
GWB is just as guilty as OBL of using the language of religion to further political goals. To make matters worse his domestic policy is as opposed to my understanding of Christian principles as possible. Jesus healed the lepers, honored the good Samaritan, and never uttered the phrase "bring it on"!
|You are absolutely right.....||Jon Billheimer|
Dec 22, 2003 9:11 AM
|I agree mostly with what you say about mixing religion and politics. However, I would point out that both the Old Testament and the Koran advocate war and violence against one's enemies in various passages. This violence of course is sanctioned towards heathens, infidels, and those who blocked the Jewish tribes' access to the Promised Land.|
|Of course it has to...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 9:23 AM
|right? It's almost a given that it must. Any state's religion that doesn't allow for violence (even for just self-defense) probably wouldn't remain a state for long which has direct implications for the well-being of the religion as well!
I mean, if there wasn't an aspect of Christian theology that allowed for violence then how could it have ever become the religion of the Roman Empire, or western and Eastern Europe through the middle ages? If all Christians, took the words of Jesus/Bible as the Amish or Quakers have, then we'd all be speaking Russian by now. It doensn't matter that the Quakers probably have it right (well, maybe it matters for their souls) but Christianity needed to find some way to sanction state violence or else it would have never become a state religion! And as you say, the old testament has plenty of justification for war, etc. even if Jesus and the early Christians were not concerned with these matters.
|You are absolutely right.....||Tri_Rich|
Dec 22, 2003 9:32 AM
|Well I will preface this by saying that my reading of the Koran has been years ago, but it is my memory/impression that many of the more militaristic passage could or should be read in a more methaphorical sense as in "use the sword of true to cut down the evils of sin".
The O.T. is a primarily historical text cronicling the early years of the "world". As such it offers little in the way of guidance for Christians. The teachings of the N.T., being the actions and words of Jesus clearly take precedence.
Obviously these are in large part my opinion, and yours may differ.
BTW. I find it ironic that the the capture of Saddam "has made the US and the world a safer place", so the terror threat is raised to High.
|Terror threat raised to High||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 9:47 AM
|I continue to be amazed everyday that passes without a suicide bomber walking into some mall here in the states and blowing himself up.
Al Queada seems to go for the gandiose rather than the continual grind of the Palestinians.
I would assume that a body-bomb is a relatively trivial thing to make, and getting into the US undetected really isn't all that hard if you want to, that Al Queada just must not want to use this tactic.
Does anyone doubt, that a weekly suicide bomber in a shopping area would devestate our economy and way of life. How long do you think it would take for us to get out of Saudi Arabia (the supposed goal of OBL) if it was made clear the bombings would stop if we did so? Al Queada doesn't seem all that tactically bright.
|I just found that funny....||Tri_Rich|
Dec 22, 2003 9:54 AM
|To address your other post...I think Christianity was originally supposed to spread by conversion not conquest. It became "useful" as a state religion because it could be read as don't worry if your life as a peasant is a stinking hell hole because the next is what is important.
Tibet stands as close to a true religious state as we have in the world today, and time will tell whether their religious persistence will result in the ultimate freeing of the country.
|It's probably not coincidental...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 10:26 AM
|that the only state's with true non-violent religions are isolated in the Himalayas! But now the Chinese have Tibet, and doesn't Nepal have problems with Maoist rebels?
There is probably a great degree of truth in what you say as to why Kings in the middle ages found Christianity a useful religion.
|It's probably not coincidental...||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 10:37 AM
|No, it's not a coincedence. Kings found Catholicism (the only form of Christianity before the reformation) to be useful because the Bishops were in charge of the society.
Don't put too much emphasis on Kings before the rise of nationalism, a concept that we forget to teach in the US. I've had Engishmen tell me of the battles between the Romans and the English who were indignant to learn that there were no English at the time.
|I don't think so...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 10:48 AM
|the whole of the middle ages was a continual power struggle between church and state (usually a King) so I'm not sure what you mean by "society". Following the fall of Rome in the west the nobility throughout most of western Europe were "Germanic" warriors (Goths, Visigoths, Vandals) and later the "vikings" with a certain warriors ethos that carried over into the middle ages and was always at odds with more peaceful core message of Christianity. I've seen it suggested that even the 1st Crusade was called in part, to stop the nobility of Europe from waging war on each other, and visit it on the muslims instead.|
|What exactly is your major?||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 2:24 PM
|By society I mean the people. There was only one church, or two after the great scism. However, there were many nobles, and fewer Kings. The Goths and the Vandals were not anything like the Winsors, or the Battenburghs. There were no real Kings like Lois of France or Edward of England, there was no England or France. The leaders of the wars you cite were warlords who held temporary control of territories surrounding a city or several cities. They hardly resembled countries or Kings, despite their titles (or the titles our historians have assigned them).
The struggle between church and state is only visible through the eye of history. There were no street battles between church and state, only between one nobles army and another, or between unruly mobs of varied origin. Only a very few on the dark ages inteligencia (a very small group) relized that the struggle between church and state had any import at all, particulary when the state was such a fluid and transient concept. Remember where the first true European Kings found their authority to rule: divine mandate. Try selling that without a strong church.
Dec 23, 2003 5:52 AM
|as an undergrad (and 2 years for biological anthro in pursuit of a masters degree), Master of Physical Therapy, and my Ph.d. will be more or less in muscle physiology. Pretty much all the casual reading I do is in history/anthropology. I think you took my "battle" word a little too literally. I meant it as a continuous political struggle between church and state, as compared to say the East after the emergence of Islam where the head of state was both the top political and religious figure.
Well, a King is a King is a King, but not all Kings are equal. You just site the greatest of the medieval kingdoms, but that doesn't mean the smaller ones were politically organized in a different manner.
Lets use Clovis as an example. He probably started his political career in the 5th century as a "chief" in athropological terms, of a "tribe" of the Franks. That is a guy who was a big man in charge based more or less on consensus (or intimidation in this case). He consolidated his position quite cleverly and brutally amongst the Franks around the Rhine river and then turned his eyes south to Gaul. Clovis was a pagan, Gaul was ruled by a king (Alaric II) of the Goths who were Arian Christians (really already a heresay but what could the local bishops do?). Goths were the political nobility. The old Romani (who would be the original celtic Gauls that Ceasar conquered hundreds of years before as well as all the "Romans" who had settled there), would have been the bishops and town elders. Clovis defeats Alaric and becomes King, converts to catholocism (although you wouldn't know it by his behavior) because it's the political thing to do, and claims his divine mandate through the Christian God. By the end of his career he's probably a "King" in the proper sense of holding a heriditary title that isn't open to debate (except perhaps by other family members), and having more or less the final say-so on political matters (unless someone is willing to militarily stand up to him). Throughout the middle ages in western Europe you see this continuous struggle between the war-like ethos of the nobility, who essentially behaved as they pleased, but with continous nagging from the church, local bishops, etc. to stop the killing, etc. It ultimately gets back to the asking for forgiveness thing, as long as the King renounced his sins on his deathbed and was forgiven by a priest it was all-good and into heaven he went. Ultimately the nobility were in charge because they could resort to violence if the church pushed them too far. Luckily for the church there was always some other noble willing to "defend" them and strengthen their own political position. I would think by the time of Charlemagne most of western Europe was ruled by what were undoubtably Kings.
|War made the State, and the State made War||53T|
Dec 23, 2003 7:13 AM
|My point exactly, the poitical system was fractured, volitile, and hanging on by a thread, while the church survived and thrived as a set of pricipals and a community of people. All of the charaters in your historical example are gone and lost, except for the Pope.
I propose that this is due directly to the "peace-like" nature of the church. It is more acuratly described as the "survival-oriented" nature of the church. The war and conquest activities promoted by the political leadership did not promote the survival of the species or the community the way the church's teachings did.
In the long run (evolutionary terms), a group with a survival ethos defeats a group without such an ethos. This is my theory of why religion ever developed in the first place.