Mog - "A religious, warlike people who will stop at nothing to rule the world. "

That's the Muslims, not the USA. Stop drinking Bin-Laden's Kool-Aid.

Didn't I just say I point the finger at ALL religions? That includes Muslims, BA.

And your wrong Mog. My church has no intentions of causing war and taking over the world. IMO, just the ISlamic Religion is determined to do that. I have seen only religious leaders from Islam taking arms and killing. I have seen no Catholic Priests, Protistant Ministers, Jewish Rabbis organizing militaries to kill non-believers and promote war. Only the Muslims Clerics, that's the only ones.

Yes, No? What is it? You hate America and religion and freedom and anybody that stands against terrorist and evil dictators. Why not just %$#@ing move to Iran and stop occuping my taxes.

I wish you would read what I say a bit more carefully, BA. I don't hate America or freedom, that is just an insult. I care what America does in the world, yes. I want us to be thought of as a good nation.

Also, I just said I didn't like us supporting dictators. Saudi Arabia is effectively a dictatorship, using torture and killing to supress any move toward democracy. Why do you suppose the 9/11 terrorists were nearly all Saudis?

Please refrain from the personal attacks, that just shows you can't have a reasonable debate on the issues without ad hominem attacks. It means you lose the argument as far as I am concerned.

Guess what? I pay taxes too. My duty as an American citizen is to question the actions of the government that I see as harmful. That is as patriotic as anything one can do. Flag waving is for morons. Debate is for intelligent, caring people. Join us.

Mog,
You certainly did digress a lot in your post at 20:39, but at least you finally said something I agree with...and I think most conservatives would also. Too bad you can see so well in hindsight the tragedy that removing moral underpinnings has caused...yet, you refuse to see the hazards in the current course charted for our nation by liberals.

Our big point of contention in the religion debate is that you see religion as the cause of the largest tragedies in human history...I see the lack of religion as the cause. Those who we almost all agree are truly religious people (Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jesus, etc.) have had no part in destroying human life. Those who are the biggest villains most would agree are truly anti-religious or atheistic or believe only in themselves (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.).
Cheers,
H.

Mog - "I don't point the finger just at Christianity, I point it at all religions. "

Thus your personal attack on me. You have no idea what my church is like and you have no right to say that we are the cause of the world's problems.

Just a thought....Does anyone remember the Spanish Inquisition? If I'm not mistaken wasn't that in the name of God by the Catholic Church?

If I am not mistake, was that not in like 600 years ago???

And still, sorry, not MY church.!!

BA: "Thus your personal attack on me. You have no idea what my church is like and you have no right to say that we are the cause of the world's problems."


Now I can see that you would be offended that Mog places blame on religion as an institution, but explain to me how this is a PERSONAL attack. Just because someone says something that you find offensive or wrong doesn't make said attack personal.

And for another point of clarification, blaming religion for the world's problems is not synonymous with blaming your church for the world's problems. It means that your church (along with every other) contributes to causation of the world's problems.




Vote at www.mpogd.com
Mr. Pibb is a poor imitation of Dr. Pepper, dude didn't even get his degree!

If I may add one 'little' comment here...

During history most religions and their sub-sects have evolved and changed. Most also had one or more violent phases where multitudes were massacred, burned, raped and ravished in the name of 'the one true god'. And I'm not talking simply of killing because someone opposed their teachings. I'm talking HOLY WARS. Almost all religions!

But, all religions except ONE have evolved and changed. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and others have adopted to the times and changed... some more and some less. Most even had to 'invent' new covenants and methods to deal with modern life and its issues.

However, one religion and one religion only (of the major 10 or so) has NOT changed at all... Islam. Islam in its teachings today, is exactly the same as it was 1500 years ago. Life for the regular person in Iraq, Iran, Saudi-Arabia or Egypt for that matter, encompass the same ideologies, values and religious zeal that Islam teaches throughout its history. Women's rights, attitude towards animals, handling of criminals, attitude towards non-Muslims. Of course there are variations in different countries, some more extreme than others, but the wording of the lessons, the level of required virtue and in many cases the same old >primitive< need, to make Jihad upon all infidels is exactly the same. No, not all religions are alike.

I will also add that IMHO (as I stated many times before) the institute of a church, any church, any organised religion - is a blasphemy and against not just the will of any god, but also against the dignity and sensibility of man kind. Not a single religion calls officially for the existence of a middleman between god and his believers. Religious institutes are often just a mean for some people to gain control over the life of others and further their own causes. Faith however, the direct personal relationship with a god, is what (according to most scriptures) is the key to all that religion promises.

Last point; Many terrorist organisations paint themselves to be humanitarian ones and some even build schools, roads and hospitals. Hammas does for instance as does the Hizzbollah in Lebanon. But,... these schools preach for Jihad, the hospitals admit only their own people and their roads carry naught but drugs, booby-traps and refugees of all other people of the 'other' faiths. If your motivation for accepting these people, the infant murderers and indiscriminate killers, is because you fear for your image in the rest of the world's eyes, then your sense of priority is somewhat skewed.

Peace.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 15 June 2005 - 01:00

I have personally talked with many Viet Nam veterans. They have told me stories of indiscriminate killing of civilians in horrible ways. I know this goes on in all modern wars. Muslims hardly have the monopoly on this!

If a religion was correct to begin with, why has it changed? By that logic, Islam is the only steadfast religion! If Jesus had a single message, why are there sects of the Christian church? Some believe one thing, some another. Trinitarians and Orthodox beliefs just couldn't be farther apart.

Big Amigo, you obviously dislike me and my beliefs. I'm sorry, I don't think I'm being very outrageous. I certainly don't have any hate or fear of you, you big lug! I think individuals who are religiously inclined can be exemplary humans too. Mother Teresa springs to mind. She once said in an interview that she doubted the existence of God every day! She had to really work at it to have faith after seeing all the suffering around her. I admire her and her actions.

The whole freakin' point of debate is to find a common ground so as to avoid the use of force. Demonizing me, or any individual, is poor diplomacy at best. Fight the fight on its merits, please, and don't make personal comments in a general forum! And I'm not saying this as moderator, either, I really think it is counterproductive. I have my reasons for my beliefs, you have yours. I don't say that you are personally responsible for what I see wrong with the concept of all religions. Why do I get such a blast of scorn for my beliefs? Make fun of the beliefs, not me personally, is what I am saying.

Amen.

I'm addressing the question about the Spanish Inquisition for one reason (i.e. because the Inquisition was under the control of the kings of Spain and NOT of the Catholic Church). The Inquisition allowed conversions of non-Christians to Christianity and would explain involvement of the Catholic Church and where an obvious priest is shown in the artist's drawing in the link that follows could very well be a priest accepting a conversion, but they don't look to me like priests doing the torturing. Priests administer last rights even today to criminals on death row.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

I call your attention to the first paragraph and midway down there is also mention of the Pope requesting leniency.
I have provided an online encyclopedia source and not some biased either way source, but yes ... this is 500 to 600 years ago and I see no relevance to contemporary history. I also remind you that the Inquisition was a purging of a reconquered Spain from the Muslims and I also remind you again that they burned whiches in Salem, Mass. and in Northern European non-Catholic countries too. The middle-ages were not a pleasant time to live for man or beast IMO.
I have also seen many an American frontier movie where settlers captured by American Indians were shot with dozens of arrows before finally killed but I don't think that is relevant here either.

PS:
We could even call the investigations following the recent terrorist attacks in Spain an Inquisition by the government. Apparently terrorism is nothing new and the Spanish still don't treat it lightly. I'm starting to realize that the Spanish realized that they were quite vulnerable to terrorist attack and needed to do all possible to protect their homefront. They have uncovered many possible participants, I have been reading.

Anyway since I got to post again on the sub-topic of my religion, I'm going to comment again about the Spanish Civil War which was in 1936.
Were the Bolsheviks "good guys" or something?
Their revolution in Russia didn't fail and the death of millions of Christians followed the success of it.

TR

Just like many had no idea what Hitler would turn out to be, many brave people fought against Franco's Fascism in Spain. He was a dictator. Perhaps the communists who fought Fascism should have just gone along with Franco and Hitler? What's your point?

The US was ALLIED with Russia during our involvement in WW2. So......were we commies too?

Go back and read where I said that the communists in the Spanish Civil War murdered 4000 clergy people to start their revolution. I say people because many Spanish sisters of the Church were killed too. That was their first big mistake to make in Spain.
I believe they also executed about 60,000 Spaniards which was another big mistake and yes Franco was a fascist dictator but he was literally only half as bad as the communists he defeated and I didn't condone Hitler either, but I did say that the Spaniards probably cheered Mussolini for his assistance.
The truth of the matter is that IMHO the murder of the clergy people gave Franco a clear and just cause to crush the communist revolutionaries.
Of course that was all before Hitler's madness though.

PS:

Franco took power after the civil war so that nullifies him as an excuse for the communist takeover and he executed not even half as many people as the communists did. I have read that the man was descent and he was declared a Saint so how bad could he have been?
Don't revolutionaries qualify as traitors or something?
Don't traitors get shot?
Spain stayed out of WWII and we supported Franco from the early 50's until he died.

My point is that the Catholic Church was an innocent victim and the people knew it.
The most important point though is that the Communist revolutions IMHO were supported and even instigated by non-native peoples apparently with a deep seated hatred for the Catholic Church.
As I said once before to the best of my knowledge the Russians were once known as Russian Orthodox Catholics. They just didn't recognize the Pope as their leader.

TR

Last Edited : Wednesday, 15 June 2005 - 05:17

Well I feel like making a few comments here.

First as to the original issue as posted by sage. There is nothing wrong with doing something with expectation of reward. Anyone who works to make money for a living understands that . As to what sage portrayed the evangelist as teaching I don't really quite agree with that (or at least the way in which it was portrayed - i.e., did the evangelist think that maybe perhaps someone else had received something because they were being 'blessed' and not to test you?). In otherwords I don't believe that every circumstance we encounter in life is a test to be passed placed specifically before use by God. But back to doing something for a reward, while there is nothing wrong with that, Christian scripture also teaches that we should not give gifts grudgingly. Doing something for the sole purpose of reward would certainly have a tendancy to lean somewhat in that direction.

As to being saved by our works or by our belief in God: my personal stance, it is by the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved after all that we can do. You will never find an individual with faith in God who does not do good works. Faith simply does not exist without action behind it. Hwatta echoed that in one of his posts in stating where a evangelical Christian will have turned their life over to God to do His works. However, despite all our best efforts we still fall short and are then dependent on the mercy and atonement of Jesus Christ for salvation.

And now to address Mog specifically . Mog I simply don't understand why you point a finger at religion at all.
"Most people give lip service to their religious teachings and do what they want anyway." - Mog
You seem to understand the real problem, but then ignore it and blame religion. You talk of Hitler being 'religious' then quote some things from him. Sounds more like a lunatic to me. Science invented guns, bombs and various instruments of war. Great atrocities have been committed at times in the name of scientific discovery. Do you point your finger at science and call it evil? Something to be done away with? Or what if tomorrow I go out and kill a bunch of people and say it was all done in Mog's name, to please Mog, and cause he told me to do it. Would it be correct then to say that Mog is evil. Mog should be shunned. Mog is a cause of problems in this world. I fully understand that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but if you really think doing away with religion or religious organizations would do away with atrocities you are very naive for your age When people want an excuse to do something they will find one. Religion gets used a lot because:
1) it has been around for a very very long time.
2) religion has a lot to do with individual beliefs, and it is not practical to make laws against peoples beliefs (though history shows instances of governments trying). Therefore people try to use it as a coverup.

But does this make religion bad? No. It means we have another idiot, lunatic, madman, whatever loose in the world.

As to why all the different sects of religion? Refer to my initial posts in the Morality and Religion thread from long ago.

Rog, while I'm not particularly familiar with eastern religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam have all had 'middlemen', prophets, to declare Gods word. Just as in any secular field of study you will have people who know their 'field of study', you also have people who are merely con artists. Learn to distinguish the difference and things become very simple .

Last Edited : Wednesday, 15 June 2005 - 20:07

Fanatic, I would never try to stop anyone from having or expressing their religious beliefs, I wouldn't burn down a church or mosque or synagogue. I appreciate the good that people do, for whatever reason.

My basis for not wanting to be religious myself is that I see no way to believe things entirely on faith, I'm just not built like that. I need proof before I can believe. What bothers me is that others need no proof and are still willing to assert their correctness absolutely. It makes little sense to me.

I was brought up Presbyterian, kinda. It is a weak tea religion and all I ever got from it was that Jesus was nice. Well, maybe he was. He is an interesting figure in any case, and I have read lot about the subject to try to understand other's beliefs. I see very little in the modern world that would lead me to believe that believers are in any way wiser, happier or more tolerant people, in many cases the exact opposite.

In the USA you are free to worship as you choose, and for that I am very grateful. Since 80% of the country professes to be Christian they could easily make this a theocracy and demand belief, much like Iran does. To me that is a horrifying notion, especially if I take GW and Cheney as examples!

Jesus pointed to a man praying loudly in public and said "He already has his reward" in that everybody knew how "pious" he was. Jesus asked people to pray silently in private. He even told them what to say: The Lord's Prayer.

The same with charity, do it anonymously and your reward is in heaven, do it publicly, your reward is to be called a philanthropist.

Praying for yourself to get goodies is hardly praying. Praying for strength or to help others is noble.

God = Infinity = Love


What do you think about that equasion?

Well yes Boe,
I like the equation and believe it or not, support for your equation can be deduced from the dictionary if we stretch the definitions somewhat;
but if we induce some juice into our lawn mower and then go cut our 87 year old uncle's grass for him, we can in my opinion at least feel that we did good and God has acknowledged it.

TR

PS:

Not that I would put the foregoing into words for the whole world to see and think I'm such a "goody, goody", but we are having an open discussion about God, prayer and doing good for others.
As you can see though, my attitude is that "talk is cheap";
and there are many ways to please God.
The strength of my back was once the easiest way for me to help my family and friends.

Some are able to help with money but if a millionaire gives a thousand dollars, is he better than a poor man who can only afford five dollars or even just a dollar?
Still others are only able to help through prayer and I'm sure God acknowledges and accepts their offerrings of their time and effort, but I'm taught like Fanatic says,
"that we will always fall short";
and we have to keep trying and have faith that Jesus Christ will save us.

TR

Last Edited : Thursday, 16 June 2005 - 04:44

And what if Jesus Christ can only save you by use of force?

For example if that is the only way that is left for him.