Throughout most of history, it has been considered A GOOD THING to destroy ones enemies. More or less taken for granted. When we condemn this idea we are really being selfish. We want to believe that the world is big enough for all of us, and that no one need perish. But we are really thinking of ourselves. We want to be SAFE because everyone ought to be safe. But we are kidding ourselves. We protect the weak and the sick, and think it noble -- and ignore the threat to our race. Sooner or later the forces of evolution will reassert themselves, and the virtue of RUTHLESSNESS will be enthroned on high. "Saul hath killed his thousands, but David hath killed his tens of thousands" (1 Samuel 18).
I hate to throw cold water on this discussion (killing of native Americans). However, most of the deaths were inadverdantly (mostly - although there were some intentional cases) caused by smallpox and other diseases introduced by the Europeans. Killing by force of arms was a much smaller contribution.
Mathman's right. Most of the Indian causualties were from smallpox. That didn't stop the US Cavalry from finishing off the survivors. The USSR was never a communism. They didn't follow Marx's rules, and were communists in name only. Monotheisms seem to be the aberration, but started them in the first place? Jewish Kabbalah has multiple dieties, and angels and other beings were given more credence in the bible than they are now given in protestant America.
perhpas the "heavenly beings" mentiond in the old Testament, who took human women for themselvs and had great heros + giants as children, could be the origin fo the Greek or Roman or Egyptian or whtever gods - a way to merge those legends into christian or Jewish belief?
Most scholars say that Jews have older tales than Greeks, and anyhow, when those stories were around, the Greeks and Jews weren't trading with each other. Jewish culture is very insular, and would never compromise with homosexual boy lovers.
What a ridiculous claim. Why would I be duped by charlatans? I would never place any money on a wager about someone else's spirituality - because they could move the goalposts and I'd lose the bet. I would only wager on things that were objectively, empirically provable. Which rules out religious claims and statements of faith, by definition. No double standard at all - just a gaping lack of understanding on your part - see the above.
That's funny. The church I grew up in told us that baptism wasn't necessary to be a christian. And they said anyone who claimed such a thing was deliberately leading them astray from the truth of the gospel, and trying to get them entangled in rituals instead of focusing on the faith. And they would have said that you, with your emphasis on baptism, must be either a messenger of darkness, or a backslidden christian who no longer walked in the light - hence, you are incapable of properly discerning the true Word of God. (Sound familiar? It should be - I'm sure that you and Southstar have used similar mystical language to rule out the beliefs of other christians as being heretical.) So back to the members of the church I grew up in - were they christians, or not? How do you know? And anyhow - so since you've decided to interject yourself here, would you care to answer my questions to Southstar about Coptic nuns, snake-handling Pentecostals, etc.? Southstar can't answer it; can you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Southstar was Christian, but lost it because he found logic. Now he's extremely adept at arguing logic against anything that is faithbased, which is essentially everything. He wrote what I think is the most heartfelt and warming post about his renouncing his faith. I got a little misty eyed.
We weren't talking about spirituality itself, if you could try not to shift the topic. You claimed the objective thing to do was to call those who killed Native Americans Christians - because they said so. My response was, in that case, if you TRULY believe your spew, you must be swindled by every Tom, Dick, and Harry, who simply claims to be something they are not. If I walked up to you in your street and told you I was collecting money you owed the government, by your very standards, you shouldn't think twice before obliging to my requests - because I said so. When you are able to comprehend what I have written and the fact that it in no way reflects a religious argument or my spiritual beliefs and is simply a critique of your claims, you will know wisely. Try not to be condescending.
you still gotta atend church + worship, cant say your realy Christian if you just make the claim, never back it up. ... what WAS your church? They sound medevil, or severly born again. Besides, I never said I WAS a serious christian myself.! would you care to answer my questions to Southstar about Coptic nuns, snake-handling Pentecostals, etc.? Southstar can't answer it; can you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image![/QUOTE] Never heard of the sanke-handling types. Coptic nuns - theyre welcome to worship anyway they want, if they dont ram it down every1 elses throat. >>Premonitioner12p0, why do you keep folowing me round the forum?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Says who? You? And what are you qualifications? I must have missed the memo where God died and left you with the holy "geiger counter" that decides who is / isn't a christian. 1. That's according to your viewpoint. But you're not the universal arbiter of what is / isn't christian. 2. Who decides what counts as "backing up" the claim? You? 3. And why shouldn't we accept whatever the person says about themselves? Then by your own admission, you probably shouldn't be trying to decide who is / isn't a christian. Ah, but that isn't what I asked SouthStar - and it's not what I asked you, either. You dodged the question. I don't blame you for doing that; the questioned is designed to remove your wiggle room. So let me repeat it for you, from my earlier post to SouthStar: Quick: * is a Seventh-Day Adventist a christian? Why or why not? * how about a snake-handling Pentecostal? Why or why not? * how about a Coptic nun? Why or why not? * how about a Shaker? A Mennonite? A Quaker? Why or why not? Why should I trust your opinion of their spiritual identification, instead of going to the horse's mouth and asking these people themselves?
christianity triumphd over old roman + other religions bevcause its a religion about LOVE, JUSTICE and MORAL BEHAVIOR. people back then saw it was beter than what they had. Jesus left his dicsiples to spread it when he died... I gues we could ask them if they were stil around. Their moral authority now rests with the Pope, the Russian patrirach, other christian leaders.. but they stil have standards they expect of their bishops, priests, vicars, elders or whatevr. + those alsotry to teach what they call Christian ways + values to their congergations. Never said I was. So you mightas well believe every lawyer, every con man, every prankstr, evry liar? dodging questions is whatclever politicians do The others I dont realy know about - but Mennonites surely stick to real old-fashiond Christian values much more than most, + deny themselvs luxury or a modern life to keep their hearts or faith pure. "Im a man of the land, Im into dicsipline, got a bible in my hand + a beard on my chin!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! problem is, if each of those minor faiths said that they ALONE were realy Christian, that means everyone else - even the Pope - isnt. They cant all be right, but cant all be wrong too.. so either acept them all as Christian I guess, or form your own definition and shoose who fits in it.
? The oldest poems and philosophies are Persian, Egypitian and Chinese. All trump justice and morality. Every form of ethic is founded on justice, personal or insitutional. What the hell are you talking about? Christianity 'triumphed' for the same reasons Regan did in 'bringing down' communism- timing.
do you mean they talk all about it, or 'trump' it in a cards game sense - do better than justice or morality ? Even the ethic of the suicide bombr or the bosnia rape-camp guard 10 yrs ago? those are notthe justice i want.. so Jesus wouldve been soon forgoten if he turned up a few 100s of years later or earlier? Mohammed came later.. Budha came earlier.. Besides, reagan didnt beat the communists realy - their union fell apart on its own.
Trump, in terms of devise or construct: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=trump 7, down: Synonyms: assemble, build up, cobble up, compose, compound, constitute, cook up, create, design, dream up, elevate, engineer, envision, erect, establish, fabricate, fashion, forge, form, formulate, found, frame, hammer out, hoke up, imagine, invent, make, manufacture, organize, produce, put out, put together, ...... Even the ethic of the suicide "bombr". He'll kill a capitalist to justify his own people's suffering. It has nothing to do with what you want. Neither had the sophistication, political gravity, and emotional power of factors like Paul or Constantine. Again, timing. Now, fuse the abstract of philosophy (Platonic ideology) with the foggy eyewash of the mystical (Judaic prophecies, salvation and the afterlife), and you've made a powerful moral weapon. 'twas my point. Regan is forever known as the man who brought down a wall....that was already down when he got there. TIMING.
Pointless newsflash concerning my use of the word 'trump': Reading the 7th entry down, you'll find the "trump up" So, trump up. Such dorks be we......
I feel so dirty now. Ah. But honest dorks. You could easily have edited your explanation for the word but instead accepted blame for your faulty usage.
