← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Marcus Porcius Cato
Thread ID: 11736 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2004-01-04
2004-01-04 09:36 | User Profile
Compare the record of the "Nazi Pagans" who eradicated the abomination that is filicide, going so far as to make it a capital offense, with the less than stellar credentials of our redoubtable anti-nazi Christians:
[I]Let us be truthful about why the pro‑life movement is failing: it fails because no one in his or her right mind, including its own youth, takes the Judeo‑Christian church's opposition to abortion seriously. [B]There is not one poll or reasonably scientific study that indicates evangelical churchgoers have a lower abortion rate than the population as a whole. Some studies actually suggest the reverse may be true. [/B] [/I]
[I]The paradox of evangelical support for both the pro-life position and the Israeli occupation of Palestine is exposed by examining abortion in Israel. While Israelis have killed over 2000 Palestinian children in the last two to three years, they have aborted fifteen times that number of their own children each year. [B]Few Christians are ever told that the "chosen people" whom evangelical leaders and their followers support unequivocally, almost as gods, have a higher abortion rate than Americans do![/B][/I]
Oy! Double Oy!
We Hold These Truths December 5, 2003 By Charles E. Carlson
A strange paradox is predominant among the Judeo‑Christian celebrities. It is found in mega‑churches and bible study groups, and even in pro‑life organizations. Many of these oppose abortion on religious grounds, but most favor U.S. serial war with equal passion. Oddly, pro‑life leaders and spokesmen rarely object to the "collateral" killing of thousands, perhaps millions, of children who are virtually undefended. Many of those killed are pregnant women, especially in Iraq, where a modest estimate is now up to 9,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 2003. With the death of each pregnant woman, an unnamed unborn child also dies. We will explore why this ambivalence exists and its effect on the so-called "Judeo‑Christian" culture.
It's not news when a politician thrives on inconsistency. But churchgoers--especially evangelicals, or ââ¬ÅJudeo‑Christians," as they are fond of calling themselves--claim to follow a higher power. For them consistency should be a moral imperative. Christians say they follow without question only one teacher, Jesus Christ, whose only recorded words are in one very small book--the Christian New Testament.
Yet some of the largest Christian organizations in America are totally inconsistent when it comes to Jesusââ¬â¢ most well-known statements about the value of human life.
Let us examine two formal statements from the website of The Southern Baptist Convention, which boasts some 16 million members and 45,000 churches and is the largest Judeo-Christian faction. Here is its official policy on the sanctity of human life:
ââ¬ÅProcreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, whatever the circumstances of conception.ââ¬Â
So far so good! Now for the war policy of the SBC. Only one formal resolution on war has been recorded in its 165 year history, and that concerned Iraq in July 2003, after the bombing was declared ended and the casualty rate of civilians was known to be high. Here, in part, are the SBCââ¬â¢s words taken from its website:
ââ¬ÅRESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 17ââ¬â18, 2003, affirm President George W. Bush, the United States Congress, and our armed forces for their leadership in the successful execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom.ââ¬Â
Note the Southern Baptist policy on life specifically states that the circumstances of the individual are irrelevant to its right to protection. In other words, a childââ¬â¢s life is sacred regardless of race, parentage, or nationality; yet the War resolution declares the bombing of Iraq to be ââ¬Åsuccessful.ââ¬Â What about those lives?
Inconsistency about wars on Islamic states
For the most part, Judeo‑Christians have illogically provided tacit support for each one of the unnecessary serial wars. The main purpose of these planned annihilations has been to destabilize non-cooperating governments. They have resulted in the systematic annihilation of one Muslim country after another. Iraq is the first to be annihilated twice.
This unconditional support of anti‑Islamic wars includes $91 billion dollars of U.S. foreign aid, most of which is war gifts given to Israel as well-documented ââ¬Åmilitary aid.ââ¬Â
The Southern Baptist Convention has a great deal to say about its friendship with Israel; its spokesmen have been outspoken in their support. Richard L. Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC, has stated that the Palestinian have a right to live, but not in Palestine. His term is a crass: ââ¬Åits Godââ¬â¢s way or the highway.ââ¬Â (Cause of the conflict, Fixing the Blame)
Landââ¬â¢s words sound benign and dignified compared to more radical self-professing Judeo‑Christians, some of whom call for liquidation of the Palestinians. Their churches and mass media have provided informal but loud support for bombings and sanctions, not only against Palestine and twice in Iraq, but also in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Sudan and others. Most of these so-called wars were controlled slaughters where the number of people killed was elective by our government.
Except for Yugoslavia, these targets were predominantly Muslim, and most are either declared enemies of Israel or among its critics. Judeo‑Christians say they believe they must oppose anyone who resists the state of Israel. They are as radical as any Steelers fans in their support of Israel, and they manage not to look at the cost in human life.
The two U.S. annihilations in Iraq satisfied Israel's fondest wish, and most of the administration's declared future ââ¬Återroristââ¬Â targets are also Muslim countries. Israel's political leaders convey their wishes to the leaders of the Judeo-Christian church, who oblige from the pulpit by supporting the politicians who campaign for war.
Israel hero-worship has earned many the title "Christian‑Zionists," conferred on them by none other than Ariel Sharon. Christian leaders become Israeli patriots. The blood-letting of weak adversaries is contrary to everything Jesus taught about life. It is so alien to His words that this writer cannot recall ever hearing a Judeo‑Christian leader use the words of Jesus to justify war. No such words exist.
Inconsistency about abortion
The evangelical churches are inconsistent in their support of the pro-life movement. This writer believes this accounts for its failure. Part I of this series detailed the role of politicians in that failure.
But there are accomplices guiltier even than self-serving politicians, and these are the media celebrity leaders and the self-professed Judeo‑Christian churches, including not only the Evangelical Church, but to a lesser degree the Catholic Church and mainline Protestant churches. For the purpose of this report, we will focus on the primary problem, the evangelicals including the Southern Baptists.
The pro‑life movement has been able to accomplish little in its 31 years. Its sorry best effort till now has been to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA), a pathetic excuse of a law that forces abortion doctors to find a different way to kill the victim before extracting the corpse of a little boy or girl. It is likely that not a single life will be saved by this piece of legislation; the law can be compared to those that require humane killing or animals. Yet many call this a long sought "legislative victory."
The practice called partial-birth abortion is no more or less than a method of assassinating a live and viable child before it is extracted and trashed. The law does not address or affect any of the alternative methods of aborting or killing children; it can be compared to a law that makes it illegal to poison your wife with arsenic, but not with less painful cyanide or rat poison.
We Hold These Truths is not the only anti‑abortion voice that feels this way. Jim Rudd, a veteran in the movement, wrote in the November 26th Covenant News: Partial‑Birth Ban of No Effect, the new law encourages up‑to‑full term abortions.
Rudd concludes:
"It is difficult to measure the harm being done by people in the pro‑life ranks who are spreading false and misleading information that is being used to deceive Christians into believing that the `Partial‑Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003' is pro‑life."
He explains the loopholes:
"First, the Partial‑Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003(1) does not mention the medical procedure known as the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" (D&X abortion). Since the Act does not use this official medical term, then the D&X procedure is not banned or outlawed by any legal means of this Act."
Rudd explains:
"The Partial‑Birth Abortion Ban Act only applies to a "living fetus" ‑‑ and there is nothing in the Act to prevent abortionists from killing viable late term babies in the womb first!"
Mr. Rudd's conclusions cannot be seriously doubted by anyone who has read the bill. No one who was involved in the legislation can say they did not know. Christians have again given only lip service to pro‑life by supporting it!
As we pointed out in Part I of this report, ([url]http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/VoiceForUnborn_part1_final.htm[/url] ) the churches of America, not the politicians, claim to be the leaders in the pro‑life movement. Politicians have responded with pablum legislation that is offensive to no one but the unborn. When President G. W. Bush signed the bill into law, he successfully cemented his standing as a "pro‑life" president before the Evangelical and Catholic churches.
Why the churches have not been more effective in saving lives
Evangelicals lost their righteousness and their ability to be positive influences for life when they became unabashed supporters of Israelââ¬â¢s anti‑life practices. Their support for serial war began with the formation of the political state of Israel in 1948. For 55 years the state of Israel has practiced systematic genocide on a captive population while the churches of America have played the organ for the tragedy. We have detailed the logic for the evangelicalââ¬â¢s complicity in The Source of our War Problems.
A shorter version is also available ([url]http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/020707.htm[/url]).
The paradox of evangelical support for both the pro-life position and the Israeli occupation of Palestine is exposed by examining abortion in Israel. While Israelis have killed over 2000 Palestinian children in the last two to three years, they have aborted fifteen times that number of their own children each year. Few Christians are ever told that the "chosen people" whom evangelical leaders and their followers support unequivocally, almost as gods, have a higher abortion rate than Americans do!
There are no significant anti‑abortion laws in Israel because the government is itself the number one abortionist. According to its own official statistics, the Israeli government approves, pays for and performs more than 50% of all abortions. Non-governmental, free enterprise abortions (U.S. style) are referred to as "illegal abortions" and require no official approval.
It is also a fact that many of the doctors in U.S. abortion clinics are graduates of Israel's abortion industry who have come to the U.S. to seek their fortune at the grisly trade. One example is the nationally known A to Z Woman's Clinic in Phoenix, AZ, that was finally shut down for health violations and for negligently killing one or more women. A‑Z was one of several clinics owned by a former Israeli abortion doctor.
Another Phoenix abortionist, Brian Finkel, is convicted and about to be sentenced to prison for sexually assaulting multiple patients. This writer is surprised Dr. Finkel did not jump bond and immigrate to Israel, as he surely could have prior to his conviction. (url)
A small and beleaguered pro‑life movement in Israel has long held Israel will eventually run out of people and be outvoted by the pro-life Arab population. A documented report on the scandal of abortion in Israel can be found in WHTT's Zion's Secrets, (http://www.whtt.org/straitgate/images/Zion's%20Secret.PDF)
Israel is consistent: it does not support the right to life of anyone, not even its own unborn citizens. How can the Judeo‑Christian church say they support the State of Israel on ââ¬Åscripturalââ¬Â grounds? Only by distorting scripture!
The American Judeo‑Christian churches' Israel fixation has led them to favor wars against Muslims. Anti‑Islamism was at the root of support for the Bush Sr. war in Iraq. The Clinton wars against Somalia and Kosovo and the Bush Jr. slaughter of the Afghans and Iraqis are all wars against Israel's sworn enemy--Islam.
The pro‑Israel activism of the evangelical church is the primary reason the Palestinians have suffered under Israeli occupation. Without this huge bloc, it is unlikely Israel could have obtained the financial support that provides the advanced weaponry that makes it possible for them to control and throttle their neighbors.
Pro‑life leaders do not know why they have failed
A few weeks before the disgusting Partial birth abortion ban was passed, this author attended a conference that included a forum entitled, Religious Leaders‑-Did they Fail Us, and what is Their Role Today? Among the distinguished and dedicated panelists were former Presidential campaigner Patrick Buchanan and the founder and president of the American Life League, Judie Brown. Every Christian panelist registered frustration and dismay over the lack of support they received for their efforts from respective church leaders. No Christian speaker considered prominent Christian leaders to be a consistent positive force in their fight. By contrast, Muslim pro‑life activist Sharisa Alkhateeb testified that Islamic religious leaders are consistent in opposing abortion even though the Qurââ¬â¢an allows for some loopholes.
Mrs. Brown attributed the failure of American churches to "improper preaching" and "lack of courage." Asked from the floor if she thought it time to picket churches, demanding they take a pro‑life stance, she seemed unprepared for the question and said she "preferred to pray for them." We Hold These Truths respectfully disagrees.
Pro‑life activists begin to blame the church
But other pro‑life activists are beginning to demonstrate that they think God demands something more than prayer. On May 9th and 10th Project Strait Gate led an anti‑war picket at the three‑day Billy Graham Crusade in San Diego, California where several hundred thousand mostly professing Christians were in attendance. Pro‑life picketers were also there.
One picketer displayed a huge red and white sign reading "WHY IS THE CHURCH SILENT?" Next to it were billboard-sized color photos of dismembered babies. While standing together near the main gate of Padre Stadium, the leaders of the group explained their frustration with the lip service they receive from evangelical churches. Billy Graham ranked high on their list of ââ¬Åtalk is cheapââ¬Â opponents of abortion.
Everyone except the guiltiest party has been blamed for the abortion holocaust in America. Only now are a few beginning to speak out about the complicity of Judeo‑Christian churches. Its tens of thousands of churches and religious organizations are in the best position to change America, and until now, theyââ¬â¢ve failed to use their power and influence for the anti-abortion cause.
To change this we must first understand
Pro‑life activists, in spite of great numbers, substantial financing and dedicated effort, have failed to mobilize the churches for life because they have not taken their complaints to the doors of the churches as Martin Luther did 600 years ago. In America, cheerleaders like Jerry Falwell claim that evangelical churches are the spiritual homes of one fourth of the voting public, 70 million strong. These churches are guilty of beating an erratic cadence to which none can march.
Inconsistency always leads to ineffectiveness
Inconsistency on the life issue has led both the pro-life movement and the churches into a no‑win abortion position. The unborn children--many of whom are of evangelical Christian parents--are the victims. No evangelical can excuse or ignore the killing of upward to a million absolutely innocent victims of serial wars, born and unborn, and claim to be pro‑life. Claiming to be pro‑life and yet supporting serial elective wars is ludicrous to the point of obscenity. It is probably also obscene in the eyes of God.
Let us be truthful about why the pro‑life movement is failing: it fails because no one in his or her right mind, including its own youth, takes the Judeo‑Christian church's opposition to abortion seriously. There is not one poll or reasonably scientific study that indicates evangelical churchgoers have a lower abortion rate than the population as a whole. Some studies actually suggest the reverse may be true.
The daughters and sons of Judeo‑Christians have heard just enough pro‑life lip service to know their parents would be embarrassed by an out-of-wedlock child, but they have not heard enough to convince them that abortion is something that Jesus would oppose and should therefore not be an alternative.
A Deacon in my own former evangelical church, a respected gynecologist, once told me sadly, that the number of women and girls in the church who he knew to have become pregnant and who did not deliver live babies, was staggering. He wished that even a few would come forward and confess their error. This in a church that claims to be absolutely pro‑life, that is part of the Southern Baptist Convention, and that claims to be anti‑abortion on Biblical grounds.
The children know
Churchgoers fail to take these professed pro-life commitments seriously. There is a gross inconsistency in churches claiming to protect children not yet born while supporting the killing of live children. They do not fool the church youth, who are being asked to go to war. Even if they have been unaware of Israelââ¬â¢s horrible public abortion policy, teen-aged boys and girls are smart enough to see for themselves that American-financed Israeli military equipment kills children almost daily. The massive numbers of civilian deaths seep through the media and the Internet, despite feverish efforts to cover them up.
Who can take seriously the churchââ¬â¢s pronouncement that every child is created in God's image, regardless of race, sex, or condition of birth, when that same church openly supports and finances wholesale slaughters of innocent children in Muslim countries? Deacons may fool themselves, but they will not fool their own street-wise children. The Judeo‑Christian church is creating future atheists as fast as it is creating paying members.
How does the church handle Jesusââ¬â¢ commands:
"Blessed are the peacemakers," "Whatever you do unto the least of these you do also to me," and "Love your brother as you love yourself."
The answer is that they ignore Jesus! Judeo-Christians ignore whole sections of the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Ask your pastor when he last preached a sermon on the meaning of Jesusââ¬â¢ words that related those words to the present ongoing serial wars. I have not heard such a sermon! Jesusââ¬â¢ word does not allow the killing of any child of any race or parentage.
Become involved in a church picket
Followers of Christ must do as he did: go to the ââ¬Åsynagogue of Satanââ¬Â and expose the inconsistency of churches before it own membership as a matter of faithfulness to God. Nail your concerns to the doors of the churches.
Most Churches are tax exempt, which means you finance them. If there are 1000 churches and synagogues in your town, you are paying their share of the tax bill, even on their multi‑million dollar properties. You have a right to be on the sidewalk in front to the church communicating to attendees. Project Strait Gate is organizing to do just that from coast to coast!
2004-01-04 21:02 | User Profile
I don't know how many pro-life christians have abortions. I haven't seen statistics nor do I know how reliable statistics could be gained. Even if so, this is not an example of cooperate hypocrisy.
Evangilical pro-lifers are certainly hypocrites for supporting Bush's immoral wars and pushing for Isreal to be more genocidal against the Palestinians. Catholics are hypocrites for being against the Death Penalty because the DP saves innocent lives. Most pro-lifers are hypocrites for objecting to abortion as murder but then not treating it as murder (e.g. they trip all over themselves distancing themselves from the few people who have tried force to save innocent babies).
On the other hand, the pro-abortion crowd are a bunch of hypocrites because they don't believe in abortion "choice" for taxpayers, dads, or babies. Nor do they show much support for "choice" in any issue unrelated to abortion and acts of sexual immorality.
2004-01-04 22:09 | User Profile
I agree with most of the points in the column. Many, if not most, of the pro-life fundamentalist types are the very same people whom we constantly hear chanting, "Nuke their ass and take the gas." I guess it's only okay to kill an unborn child if you kill the mother and everyone else in her vicinity as well.
Christian doctrine is, on the whole, very much opposed to hypocrisy. That makes it even more shameful that Christians (especially the "Bible Belt" variety) are among the most hypocritical people on earth. They're not quite as bad as the Jews, but they do give the latter a run for their money. It's been that way for centuries, even since the foundation of the Christian religion.
Christians are commanded to LOVE their enemies. Yet the following appears in the Bible itself (Revelation 6:9-11):
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. I'm sorry, but asking God to take revenge on your behalf hardly fits the definition of "love."
Another example (Acts 23:1-5):
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Wait a minute...I thought Christians were supposed to "turn the other cheek." Why is Paul allowed to talk back instead? And why is he passing judgment on the person who ordered him to be struck ("God shall smite thee...") when Christ told His followers to never pass judgment?
That brings up the most egregious example of Christian hypocrisy of them all: the strong tendency of Christians (again, especially Bible Belt types) to declare other people "saved" or "unsaved" and to tell them where they'll go when they die. What a joke!
Christ forgave the adulteress who was caught in the act, yet the modern followers of Christ generally support throwing people into prison for committing "crimes" that don't even affect anyone but the "offenders," such as drug use and prostitution. I'm not saying that those are good things to be involved in, but for a Christian to say that people should be sent to prison for such mutually-consensual activities is good, old-fashioned, Pharisaical, self-righteous hypocrisy.
Most Christians think very poorly of those who don't share their religion, yet even atheists are generally more faithful to Christ's words than most Christians are. There are many atheists who volunteer to help humanity by working for organizations such as the Peace Corps or Amnesty International. Those atheists are obviously not working in the hope of scoring points in heaven; they are working with no hope of divine reward at all, either in this world or in the next. So why do they do it? Out of simple compassion for their fellow human beings. To me, that's much more admirable than to work under the assumption that one's good deeds will be repaid by God.
2004-01-05 01:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Christians are commanded to LOVE their enemies. Yet the following appears in the Bible itself (Revelation 6:9-11):[/QUOTE]
Yes, Christians are to love their enemies. That says nothing of GOD's enemies. The only biblical and logical conclusion I can reach is that Christians are to hate God's enemies. There is no love in loving evil.
And, God has always reserved the right of vengeance to himself.
Another example (Acts 23:1-5):
Wait a minute...I thought Christians were supposed to "turn the other cheek."
Paul was talking to God's enemies. Besides, Jesus is teaching a principle with "turn the other cheek," not that it is a sin to defend yourself or to stand up for what is right.
Christ forgave the adulteress who was caught in the act, yet the modern followers of Christ generally support throwing people into prison for committing "crimes" that don't even affect anyone but the "offenders,"
Actually, prostitution affects for more than just the offenders, it rots a society and causes secondary harm to innocent people. But, granted, the act itself harms no one but the offenders. Anyway, Jesus didn't say that the law against adultery (both a moral and a civil violation that harms an innocent spouse) should be repealed. He merely defended this one women in this one case for reasons that are not revealed.
Most Christians think very poorly of those who don't share their religion, yet even atheists are generally more faithful to Christ's words than most Christians are. There are many atheists who volunteer to help humanity by working for organizations such as the Peace Corps or Amnesty International. [/QUOTE]
I find most atheistic organizations to be highly obnoxious, and heavily jewish. Incidently, the ACLU is more atheistic than the Peace Corps. Christians gave birth to the USA. Atheists gave birth to the USSR. In spite of how far America has fallen, America is still not as bad as the USSR was at its best. This is no mere coincidence but a reflection of Christian vs. Atheist values.
The problem with Christianity is there most Christians are merely nominal Christians, more Atheist than Christian. They were raised as a kind of Christian. They never became Christians. Also, many of faults that non-Christians find with Christians are not faults of Christians but of their hostility toward Christianity (take your criticism of Paul).
2004-01-05 07:46 | User Profile
Yes, Christians are to love their enemies. That says nothing of GOD's enemies. The only biblical and logical conclusion I can reach is that Christians are to hate God's enemies. There is no love in loving evil. So as long as I tell myself that my enemies are the same as God's enemies, it's okay for me to fight back against them? That's convenient.
It's tough to see how God could have enemies among men, anyway. For one thing, the Bible itself states that "God loves all men and wills all to be saved."
Paul was talking to God's enemies. Besides, Jesus is teaching a principle with "turn the other cheek," not that it is a sin to defend yourself or to stand up for what is right. Jesus did not say, "Turn the other cheek unless it's one of God's enemies that hits you." He simply said, "Turn the other cheek." And yes, Jesus DID teach that His followers should not stand up for themselves. He said that if someone should sue you over your coat, you should give him your shirt as well. That's pacifism.
I find most atheistic organizations to be highly obnoxious, and heavily jewish. I've heard it said many times that Jews are heavily represented among atheists. That may very well be true. As for being obnoxious, the typical fundamentalist Christian (and many mainstream Christians as well) wins that contest hands-down. They are nearly always more judgmental and more inclined to use ad hominem attacks in their arguments than nonbelievers, and they frequently resort to a subtle game of eschatological one-upmanship as they attempt to make their case. Christians of different denominations even use such tactics when arguing with each other. As a once-devout but now-doubtful Catholic, I've experienced such "arguments" many times when attempting to hold rational discussions with fundamentalists.
Incidently, the ACLU is more atheistic than the Peace Corps. I don't doubt that at all.Just to clarify, though, I didn't mean to suggest that the Peace Corps and Amnesty International are inherently atheistic. I don't know what the overall religious breakdown is of those organizations -- I just know that they have atheists and agnostics as members. My point is that it is FAR more worthy of credit for a nonbeliever to do the right thing out of pure compassion and/or love than for a believer to do good deeds because he expects God to repay him (or punish him if he fails to do what is required).
Christians gave birth to the USA. If you're referring to the Puritans who first sailed here from Europe in search of religious freedom, then your statement is correct in that sense. But Jefferson, Franklin, and most of the other key Founding Fathers were NOT Christians; they were Deists. That's why there's no reference to Christ or Christianity in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence.
Atheists gave birth to the USSR. In spite of how far America has fallen, America is still not as bad as the USSR was at its best. This is no mere coincidence but a reflection of Christian vs. Atheist values. How about the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts? Who gave birth to those endeavors? Were they reflections of atheist values, or of Christian values?
The USSR was terrible because it lived under the quasi-religious tenets of communism. While Soviet communism didn't recognize the existence of a supernatural God, it did maintain a set of dogmatic beliefs that had to be accepted without question or argument. Atheism was itself one of those dogmas. In many ways, the USSR's political climate was reminiscent of the Medieval Inquisition. And its collectivist, radical-egalitarian approach to economics fit far more readily into the general scheme of Christianity than capitalism ever could.
The problem with Christianity is there most Christians are merely nominal Christians, more Atheist than Christian. They were raised as a kind of Christian. They never became Christians. Also, many of faults that non-Christians find with Christians are not faults of Christians but of their hostility toward Christianity (take your criticism of Paul). Never mind about whether or not my criticism of Paul makes me a "bad Christian" or whatever. The central question is whether or not my criticism is justified. I believe it is, for the reasons given earlier.
I should point out that I wasn't really criticizing Paul so much as I was pointing out a contradiction in Biblical teaching (there are hundreds of such inconsistencies, if not thousands). Not to stray off the subject of this thread too much, but it's very likely that many of the sayings the Biblical authors attributed to Christ, Paul, and others were actually never said by them at all. Religious charlatanry and the manipulation of religion for political purposes have existed from time immemorial, and these continue to exist today. It makes no sense whatsoever to suppose that the Bible is immune from that sort of thing, given what historians and archaeologists know about the Bible's history. In order to believe in the infallibility of the Bible, it is absolutely necessary to commit intellectual suicide.
2004-01-05 07:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]That makes it even more shameful that Christians (especially the "Bible Belt" variety) are among the most hypocritical people on earth. They're not quite as bad as the Jews, but they do give the latter a run for their money. It's been that way for centuries, even since the foundation of the Christian religion.[/QUOTE]
:lol: Ah yes, the most evil folks on the earth next to the jews are the Christians. Just my observation, but I think someone has got some personal issues to work out.
Angler, you remember that scene in the film 'The Apostle' when Billy Bob Thornton comes riding up on a backhoe with the intention of demolishing Duvall's church? Seems to be where you're at, brother.
2004-01-05 14:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]:lol: Ah yes, the most evil folks on the earth next to the jews are the Christians. I don't think I said that. What I said was that the most hypocritical people on earth next to the Jews are fundamentalist Christians. If you doubt that, TD, then try this little experiment: find a fundamentalist Christian board and post some messages explaining how the US government is heavily influenced by organized Jewry, or about how the US has no business sending taxpayer dollars to Israel. Watch how many vitriolic replies you get telling you that you're going to go to Hell when you die, that you're doing Satan's work, blah blah blah. The "brotherly love" of those people will warm your heart.
Just my observation, but I think someone has got some personal issues to work out. Personal issues? I'm not sure what you mean. Why do personal issues have to be involved?
Angler, you remember that scene in the film 'The Apostle' when Billy Bob Thornton comes riding up on a backhoe with the intention of demolishing Duvall's church? Seems to be where you're at, brother.[/QUOTE]I haven't seen that film, but it sounds like an amusing scene. At any rate, I can assure you that I have no intention of "demolishing" any Church. If it's even possible to demolish Christianity, then I think it will be the Christians who end up doing it through the bad example they set. No, they no longer go around burning people at the stake, but they certainly show much of the mindset that led to such loving, gentle, Christ-like treatment of their fellow men. The Church has nothing to fear from reason, since most Christians utterly reject reason in favor of circular arguments based on the Bible (or, in the case of the Catholic Church, based partly on tradition and an a priori assumption of infallibility). "The Bible must be true because it says so in the Bible" is not good reasoning. What I want to see is evidence that the Bible is correct that comes from outside the Bible.
An important distinction needs to be kept in mind here: It's not God Himself that I doubt, but rather those human beings who claim to have been received revelations from God . How do I know I can rely on the words of those who wrote the Gospels any more than on those of Islam's Mohammed? If God wants the world to believe in the Bible, then why doesn't He simply make a giant message to that effect appear in the sky? Is there any conceivable reason why He wouldn't do such a thing, if He wants people to believe in a certain way?
2004-01-05 16:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]What I said was that the most hypocritical people on earth next to the Jews are fundamentalist Christians. If you doubt that, TD, then try this little experiment: find a fundamentalist Christian board and post some messages explaining how the US government is heavily influenced by organized Jewry, or about how the US has no business sending taxpayer dollars to Israel.[/QUOTE]
Except this board, where many Christians accept the obvious. Don't base your views on websites, b/c even your supporters will rarely be heard on them, they're too intimidated to speak out.
[QUOTE]If God wants the world to believe in the Bible, then why doesn't He simply make a giant message to that effect appear in the sky? Is there any conceivable reason why He wouldn't do such a thing, if He wants people to believe in a certain way?[/QUOTE]
How would that help? People like you - predisposed to skepticism- would just call it a conspiracy. "Damn Jews pulling our legs again"
God already did create a giant message: the Bible. We can either accept it, or reject it. I made my choice, apparently you made yours, and that's how these things work. no point going on about this topic.
-Jay
2004-01-05 17:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I haven't seen that film, but it sounds like an amusing scene. [/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand how the Thornton scene ends up. Not exactly amusing, but definitely joyous and a climax in the movie. Go rent and watch it tonight. Not only for this one scene but also because the film is Duvall's tour-de-force. It puts a human face on those you and other leftists/elitists try to portray and stereotype as evil monsters.
2004-01-05 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't think you understand how the Thornton scene ends up. Not exactly amusing, but definitely joyous and a climax in the movie. Go rent and watch it tonight. Not only for this one scene but also because the film is Duvall's tour-de-force. I can't promise you I'll do it tonight, but I'll try to rent it soon.
It puts a human face on those you and other leftists/elitists try to portray and stereotype as evil monsters.[/QUOTE]"Leftist"??? I've been on this board long enough for you to know better than that, Tex. How many leftists do you know who are anti-abortion, oppose ALL affirmative action and "hate-crime" laws, believe in nearly unrestricted gun ownership (including the repeal of the 1934 NFA), and have White Nationalist sympathies? Do you apply the term "leftist" to anyone who sincerely questions Christian dogma? Would that make, say, Alex Linder a leftist?
I will, on the other hand, plead guilty to the charge of elitism. To me, elitism is merely the opposite of egalitarianism, and the former mindset fits objective reality far better than the latter does.
As for putting human faces on "evil monsters," I never said that Christians were all evil. You should note that I have not renounced my Christian faith -- I simply have strong doubts about it, as any thinking person must. Furthermore, every single person in my immediate and extended family is a Christian, and I hardly consider them "evil monsters." (Neither are they hypocrites.) To the contrary, it's Christians who tend to view freethinkers as evil monsters. Christians seem inherently unable to accept that those who don't believe in Christianity might be unbelievers for honest reasons. There's a good article on that phenomenon called "Those darned conspiring unbelievers":
[url]http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/conspiring_unbelievers.html[/url]
If we are to look at which groups and religions are responsible for doing good and evil in the world today, it's clear that Christians, on the whole, are responsible for far more GOOD than evil. The reason they tend to be more hypocritical seems to have more to do with the fact that Christianity seems to hold men to an impossibly high standard of conduct (i.e., anyone who so much as looks lustfully at a woman is guilty of adultery -- meaning that I've committed adultery about 100,000,000 times or so). The standard is so high that any human being when measured against it is going to look like a dwarf. Furthermore, the doctrine of eternal damnation puts such fear into peoples' hearts that they tend to become overzealous in their drive to profess their faith and make sure they're "on God's good side."
2004-01-05 20:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]"Leftist"??? I've been on this board long enough for you to know better than that, Tex.
Well for the record I had you on the elitist side of the backslash. :)
I will, on the other hand, plead guilty to the charge of elitism. To me, elitism is merely the opposite of egalitarianism, and the former mindset fits objective reality far better than the latter does.
You'll never get where you seemingly want to go via the objective route.
To the contrary, it's Christians who tend to view freethinkers as evil monsters. Christians seem inherently unable to accept that those who don't believe in Christianity might be unbelievers for honest reasons.
This phenomenon is hardly limited to Christians. I would argue that it is basic human nature and a natural tendency of any human organization.
The reason they tend to be more hypocritical seems to have more to do with the fact that Christianity seems to hold men to an impossibly high standard of conduct (i.e., anyone who so much as looks lustfully at a woman is guilty of adultery -- meaning that I've committed adultery about 100,000,000 times or so).
For all have sinned and fallen short. Focus on grace and maybe that will change your perspective.
The standard is so high that any human being when measured against it is going to look like a dwarf.
This is why Christ went to the cross and offered atonement, amigo.
Furthermore, the doctrine of eternal damnation puts such fear into peoples' hearts that they tend to become overzealous in their drive to profess their faith and make sure they're "on God's good side."[/QUOTE]
These days I'd say the thought of eternal damnation via rejecting Christ is not uttered nor thought of enough from the pulpit and from individual Christians.
2004-01-05 22:44 | User Profile
For all have sinned and fallen short. Focus on grace and maybe that will change your perspective. I understand the concept of grace, but that skips over a more fundamental question: Why have all men sinned and fallen short? Didn't God allow that to happen? Did it happen without God's consent? If God allowed man to fall, then why is He upset about it?
Whose fault is it if God asks the impossible of men? Should I punish my dog for not obeying me when I tell him to speak English? Or even better, should I punish my dog for biting people after I've given my neighbor explicit permission to train my dog to bite people? Of course not. And how could a perfect and utterly flawless God create beings that He knew would offend Him? A perfect Being is, by definition, incapable of doing anything the least bit flawed, yet Christians believe that God created angels whom He knew would later rebel against Him. Don't you see the difficulty here?
This is why Christ went to the cross and offered atonement, amigo. Indeed, that is what Christianity teaches. I still believe it to some extent -- i.e., I consider it a definite possibility that I'm not ready to write off. But the nagging question must be asked: How is God's perfect justice satisfied by punishing an innocent man for the sins of the guilty? Of course you know that perfection means WITHOUT FLAW -- utterly incapable of being improved upon. Wouldn't the punishment of the guilty for their own crimes be an improvement upon the punishment of an innocent person?
I'm not trying to be obnoxious or offensive with these questions. I'm asking them in complete sincerity, with a touch of despair thrown in. I'd like to think that I'll live forever. But I'm not going to deceive myself into thinking that there are no logical or moral difficulties in Christian doctrine when there clearly are.
These days I'd say the thought of eternal damnation via rejecting Christ is not uttered nor thought of enough from the pulpit and from individual Christians. I believe that people are beginning to realize that eternal punishment for finite crimes committed out of weakness and ignorance -- traits possessed to some degree by all humans through no fault of their own -- seems inherently unjust.
2004-01-05 22:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]How would that help? People like you - predisposed to skepticism- would just call it a conspiracy. "Damn Jews pulling our legs again"
Not so. If I saw a giant message in the sky -- maybe caused by an alignment of stars or written by a comet or something -- I would have FAR fewer doubts.
God already did create a giant message: the Bible. We can either accept it, or reject it. I made my choice, apparently you made yours, and that's how these things work. no point going on about this topic.[/QUOTE]How do you know God created the Bible? How do you know God's "giant message" isn't really the Koran? The Muslims seem to think that's the case.
Besides, I haven't already made any permanent, unalterable choice. My mind is always kept open to change based on new evidence, experiences, etc.
2004-01-06 02:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] That brings up the most egregious example of Christian hypocrisy of them all: the strong tendency of Christians (again, especially Bible Belt types) to declare other people "saved" or "unsaved" and to tell them where they'll go when they die. What a joke! [/QUOTE]
The truth is none of us really knows who will be "saved." Its presumptuous to think otherwise. Only God makes that decision. All we can do is be the best Christians we can and hope for God's mercy. This is one reason why we Orthodox are encouraged to pray the "Jesus Prayer" at least everyday and better yet to have it on our lips always:
"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
-
2004-01-06 02:27 | User Profile
The Orthodox must be pretty different from the "travelling salesman" image of an in-your-face I'll-be-saved-and-you'll-go-to-hell zombie-looking smiling dummy of a American fundie/sectarian recruiter so popular in Russia.
If Protestanism had some liberating edge in its initial free (re-)interpretation of the Bible, many of its numerous branches certainly came to a dead end in the US.
Bring back the tradition.
2004-01-06 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE]An important distinction needs to be kept in mind here: It's not God Himself that I doubt, but rather those human beings who claim to have been received revelations from God [/QUOTE]
Amen! The trouble with adherents of theistic religions is that they invariably confuse themselves with the Creator. Therefore anything short of abject subservience towards them is construed as war agains Great Gawd Amighty. I can't claim to speak for all free thinkers, but I suspect that what we lack faith in is not so much the Christian Animus Mundi but rather the contemptible, slithering, reptilian creatures that claim to be his footsoldiers but act more as though they ARE the Lord of hosts. So much for atheists usurping Godhead. Christians have them beat hands down.
2004-01-06 07:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]The Orthodox must be pretty different from the "travelling salesman" image of an in-your-face I'll-be-saved-and-you'll-go-to-hell zombie-looking smiling dummy of a American fundie/sectarian recruiter so popular in Russia.
If Protestanism had some liberating edge in its initial free (re-)interpretation of the Bible, many of its numerous branches certainly came to a dead end in the US.
Bring back the tradition.[/QUOTE]
And yet you chose to leave the pristine and pure motherland of Orthodox Russia to come to a country built by sweaty Fundamentalist, Calvinistic Protestants to earn a living and raise a family.
You're a living martyr, madrussian.
Far be it for me to criticize Russian Orthodox Christians. Indeed, I consider them brothers in Christ united in principle and faith with me and millions of other American protestant Christians in the basic doctrines of essential, traditional Christianity (Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, for example). But it never fails to amuse me when those who wave the Orthodox banner try to hammer the American Protestant church with failure to prevent or hold-off the current problems we are having in this present age, when the Russian Orthodox church certainly did not succeed in preventing outright commies from completely taking over their motherland at the outset of the 20th century. Now I will give them credit that some 60 or so odd years later they finally won out against the God-less atheist regime, but I would expect the same consideration for we European and American protestants. We all know that it's the same jews that subverted Russia that are subverting Europe and America now, they just are using different means. As of yet they haven't completely locked-down rule here like they did in Soviet Russia, but it is soon coming. All you of little faith I would ask for 60 years for righteous, Protestant Christendom to once again bring revival and reformation and right the wrongs committed on our people. I think that is only fair. Further, protestantism being what it is, I don't think it will take sixty years for it to do so. Sniping from the sidelines doesn't accomplish anything except aid the enemy, in this case jews and their atheist cohorts. Be gone, devils!
2004-01-06 10:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Now I will give them credit that some 60 or so odd years later they finally won out against the God-less atheist regime, but I would expect the same consideration for we European and American protestants. We all know that it's the same jews that subverted Russia that are subverting Europe and America now, they just are using different means. [/QUOTE]
I think one difference is that the Russian Orthodox Christians knew who the enemy was. Here man, if not most, Protestants practically worship the Jews. I mean, look at these Judaizers like Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey. Why don't these people just get it over with and convert to Judaism?
I hoped to see signs that some kind of awakening was happening, but instead I see more and more pandering to the Jews and Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish I were wrong.
-
2004-01-06 16:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I think one difference is that the Russian Orthodox Christians knew who the enemy was.
Yet they still took over!?! That says even less about the Orthodox Christians than before. American prots may be clueless, but at least we're not weak and clueless!
I hoped to see signs that some kind of awakening was happening, but instead I see more and more pandering to the Jews and Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish I were wrong.[/QUOTE]
Where you are negative and pessimistic, I see signs of hope and promise. It is obvious you gain your impressions of the church in America from television caricatures and sit-coms. You left Protestantism and do not share communion with American protestant Christians, so you really aren't in any position to make any kind of comments one way or another. Just like I don't concerning the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region. Fair enough, right?
2004-01-06 16:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]How do you know God created the Bible? How do you know God's "giant message" isn't really the Koran? The Muslims seem to think that's the case.[/QUOTE]
It could be. We'll never know.
[QUOTE]Besides, I haven't already made any permanent, unalterable choice. My mind is always kept open to change based on new evidence, experiences, etc.[/QUOTE]
There will never be any new 'evidence' on the existence of God or the validity of Scripture. Might as well make the call today.
JAY
2004-01-06 20:19 | User Profile
It's really hard to separate history of a country from its religion. But to Tex I'll note that the Americans are giving away the store during the time of prosperity, while the tragic events in Europe were largely caused by the world wars.
I give the Protestants credit where it's due. But sometimes the perceived weakness of the Orthodox -- their insistence on elevating tradition and church history and their smaller focus on proselytizing (and subsequent less garbage in the rolls of the church) -- is actually a strength.