Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 137
  1. #81  
    Originally posted by Toby
    "And they say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait."
    My apologies for gushing, but that's a wonderful quote. Who said it originally?
  2. #82  
    Originally posted by John Nowak
    My apologies for gushing, but that's a wonderful quote. Who said it originally?
    It's part of the chorus from a song off the Spider-man soundtrack. The song is "Hero" by Chad Kroeger with Josey Scott.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #83  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Yardie,
    Now, of course, I suppose that someone will say that that's true of Christians too. I would have to point out that Jesus Christ (followers of whom we call Christians) never advocated violence, in fact he said to turn the other cheek.
    He didn't talk the moneylenders out of the temple.

    Matthew 10, Young's Literal Translation:

    34 `Ye may not suppose that I came to put peace on the earth; I did not come to put peace, but a sword;
    35 for I came to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,
    36 and the enemies of a man are those of his household.

    Luke 22, ibid:

    35 And he said to them, `When I sent you without bag, and scrip, and sandals, did ye lack anything?' and they said, `Nothing.'
    36 Then said he to them, `But, now, he who is having a bag, let him take [it] up, and in like manner also a scrip; and he who is not having, let him sell his garment, and buy a sword,
    37 for I say to you, that yet this that hath been written it behoveth to be fulfilled in me: And with lawless ones he was reckoned, for also the things concerning me have an end.'
    38 And they said, `Sir, lo, here [are] two swords;' and he said to them, `It is sufficient.'

    This, incidentally, is not to deny that the New Testament is at the same time peaceful. There is a legitimate time for violence and there is a legitimate time for peace; no major religion flatly denies this, and there is no "Religion of Peace."

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Man will not solve this problem, only the Living God will.
    I'm more a "The Lord helps those who help themselves" kind of guy. The beauty of that is it works even if there isn't a God.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    BTW before anyone brings up The Spanish Inquisistion, do your homework. That didn't involve conversion, or nonbelief, but heresy or non-doctrinal thinking amongst the Catholic Church.
    I do not understand the ethical difference between this and stoning single mothers to death. It doesn't become okay to kill people for religious reasons because they share your religion.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    I realize that Canada isn't really working on the world stage right know, being divorced from any real power base. What was the last war Canada got involved in? WWII? Must be nice have a neighbor that no-one wants to go toe-to-toe with. You get all the benefits of a strong military force, without any economic liability. edited by me to correct mis-spelling
    This is a patent slur on Canada, which has maintained an effective and well-regarded military given the size of the country's economy. The RCN performed better than either the Royal or United States Navies during the Battle of the Atlantic, and the RCN performance in logistical support and liason during the Gulf War was beyond reproach. It is especially distasteful given the deaths Canada suffered in Afghanistan at the hands of the USAF.

    Yes, Canada's military has badly deteriorated in recent years, because of the astonishing short-sightedness of the present administration, which appears to believe with some governments in Europe that it is possible to be a major force in international politics without anything to bargain with.
  4. #84  
    bottom to top-

    He didn't talk the moneylenders out of the temple.
    Correct, but he didn't kill anybody either. Read the entire Gospel and take it all into context. When he talked about father against son, etc. he was talking about the church (the believer) being persecuted.

    Also read his entire sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:27)

    ...This, incidentally, is not to deny that the New Testament is at the same time peaceful. There is a legitimate time for violence and there is a legitimate time for peace; no major religion flatly denies this, and there is no "Religion of Peace."
    ???!! Interesting interpetation. I think you need to read more of what Jesus said. Christianity is all about mercy shown and given. The problem about searching through the Bible for quotes to support your (read that as anyone, not you personally) view is that you're doing just that- looking into something to justify what you feel is right. As to your opinion about no "Religion of Peace", that's an interesting opinion, but it doesn't match the facts. What about Jainism, if you don't believe that Christianity is a "Religion of Peace"? I think you may confused as to what Jesus said (The Gospel) and what people have done with it (Doctrine).

    Christian's who kill in the name of Christ aren't following his teachings, therefore they are following heretical doctrine.

    Muslims who kill in the name of Allah are following Mohammed's words, ergo they are doing his work.

    I'm more a "The Lord helps those who help themselves" kind of guy. The beauty of that is it works even if there isn't a God.
    That's just silly. Either you believe, or you don't. What you're describing is a lack of faith in the power of the Lord. I've heard it called as low-grade unbelief.

    Zehariah 4:6"...Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord of hosts."

    I do not understand the ethical difference between this and stoning single mothers to death. It doesn't become okay to kill people for religious reasons because they share your religion.
    Christians who kill in the name of Christ are committing heresy, or they really aren't Christian.

    Yes, Canada's military has badly deteriorated in recent years, because of the astonishing short-sightedness of the present administration, which appears to believe with some governments in Europe that it is possible to be a major force in international politics without anything to bargain with.
    I apologize to anyone that took offense. It was a clumsy attempt at ironically saying what you said so eloquently. I stand rebuked.

    now on to Mr. Toby

    "And they say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait."
    Your choice, see above.

    Um, when the Catholic Church is the ruling authority (or is really ceding that "divine right" to a monarchy), who doesn't fall under its control?
    Who granted that authority? Definitely not Jesus. The Catholic Church became what the Pharisees were. Torturing and killing a fellow "Christian" because they don't believe they need a man's (priest/Church) to 'forgive' his sins, etc. is not acting in a Christlike manner.

    While there are, and have been, multitudes of Catholics who have led "Christlike" lives, the Catholic Church itself supports a certain view, that you can't get to God unless you go through it (the Church). You can't scripturally support that. Jesus said the only way to the Father was through Him, the Son - the infinite Man-God. Not through another man, be he a bishop, priest, or pope. The Spainish Inq. was about control of people, not about saving souls.

    I think you've got that backwards. The first amendment combined with the words of the founders like Madison and Jefferson make it quite clear that religion was not to encroach upon secular matters. It's a bit disengenuous to say that because some of the colonies were founded by religious separatists that the country was founded on religion and the 60s corrupted that. I'd argue that the 50s corrupted much more with their witchhunts and modifying of the pledge and whatnot.
    No. I think you've got it sideways. The Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth were reform minded Christians fleeing persecution from King James (in England you had to go to His church or you went to prison). If you want to start reading into what the Framers of the Constitution were coming from it might be good to go beyond Jefferson and Madison.

    An extended quote from Mind Siege
    From the time of the Mayflower Compact (having undertaken for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith") through Plymouth Plantation ("for the propagation and advance of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ") and on to Virginia's first charter ("propagating the Christian religion"), Fundamental Orders of Connecticut ("puity of of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus"), and the New England Confederation ("advance the cause of the gospel"), America's founding years were steeped in Christ and Christianity.

    They go on to say,

    This country was founded on a basic consensus of Christian principles. While we do not claim that every Founding Father was an evangelical Christian (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were Unitarians), even John Adams admitted that the American Army was "educated in the general Principles of Christianity; and the general Principles of English and American Liberty." He then said, "the general Principles on which the Fathers achieved Independence, were the general Principles of Christianity."

    Here's what a Jewish scholar, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, has to say,
    My extensive readings have left me without a doubt that this nation was founded by Christians, and was meant to be based on broad Christian principles. Religion was the bedrock upon which the nation stood, and without it these amazing men and women saw no future for the country they had established."

    If there is supposed to be a complete separation between Church and State, why has every session of Congress began with a prayer?

    If you want to delve deeper into where the signers and framers were coming from, might I suggest www.wallbuilders.com ? David Barton has done extensive research into this area. If you did Toby, I'm not so sure you would use Madison as an example for your case, as his actions and his influence on his contemporaries is not what many believe it to be. The "wall" is a fiction created by a liberal Supreme Court in the sixties (it started over a small prayer case in a school). The Framers included the First Admendment to insure that there was never a particular doctrine ruling over all in this nation, not that there should be religion in our public lives. That's igmoring the facts and actions of these mens' public and private lives.

    As to the last, I left that option out as it was common (and the most desirable for all concerned- man, woman, and child in my personal view) to all three. I definitely didn't mean to exclude that option. I'm not certain what the result in a muslim society would be either. (It was the option that my wife and I chose so I'm not unfamiliar with it!)

    Michael


    edited many times by me to fix spelling/grammatical errors
    Last edited by BobbyMike; 01/08/2003 at 12:15 PM.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  5. #85  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Correct, but he didn't kill anybody either.
    [/I]
    He didn't have an army.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    The problem about searching through the Bible for quotes to support your (read that as anyone, not you personally) view is that you're doing just that- looking into something to justify what you feel is right.
    [/I]
    No offense taken, certainly. However, since it is easy to find Scriptural justification for just about any opinion you wish to hold, it certainly mitigates against the claim that it espouses any unified point of view.

    The Bible is unambiguous in accepting slavery. The first meaningful arguments against slavery in the United States were justified on religious grounds. The Abolitionists were generally better humanitarians than Biblical scholars, and good for them.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    As to your opinion about no "Religion of Peace", that's an interesting opinion, but it doesn't match the facts. What about Jainism, if you don't believe that Christianity is a "Religion of Peace"?
    [/I]
    Jainism is a small sect of Hinduism. The largest predominantly Hindu state is India, which has a large standing army, nuclear weapons, and a surprisingly modern Navy. In fact, the first foreign nuclear aircraft carrier to dock in the United States was Indian. The India / Pakistan border is certainly on everyone's top five flashpoints. I'd think a religion of peace would be, well, a bit more peaceful.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    I think you may confused as to what Jesus said (The Gospel) and what people have done with it (Doctrine).
    [/I]
    My quotes were from the Gospel.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Christian's who kill in the name of Christ aren't following his teachings, therefore they are following heretical doctrine.
    [/I]
    Lots of heretics out there through history.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Zehariah 4:6"...Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord of hosts."
    [/I]
    Swell. Any chance of that helping out a bit in the Mideast? Didn't think so.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    I apologize to anyone that took offense. It was a clumsy attempt at ironically saying what you said so eloquently. I stand rebuked.
    [/I]
    That happens when people get too heated -- I tend to do it myself. Heck, I know I don't hate "Iraqis" any more than I silike my next-door neighbors; but it's too tempting to say it instead of "The present government of Iraq." I'm sure that causes a lot of confusion.
  6. #86  
    Originally posted by John Nowak
    The largest predominantly Hindu state is India, which has a large standing army, nuclear weapons, and a surprisingly modern Navy. In fact, the first foreign nuclear aircraft carrier to dock in the United States was Indian. The India / Pakistan border is certainly on everyone's top five flashpoints. I'd think a religion of peace would be, well, a bit more peaceful.
    You have described the actions of a nation (India) in an attempt to describe the beliefs of a religion (Hindu). Not the same thing.
  7. #87  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    You have described the actions of a nation (India) in an attempt to describe the beliefs of a religion (Hindu). Not the same thing.
    True, but if the country is willing to dismiss the beliefs of its own religion (or, in this case, a small part of the dominant religion) as irrelevent, why shouldn't we do the same?
  8. #88  
    ooh John now you're being silly. Jesus didn't want or need an army. That's really really ridiculous.

    The Bible is an account and is not ambiguous. If you read bits and pieces and don't try to fill in the gaps of your own ignorance (meaning not many of us have a comprehensive knowledge of the historical and linguistic materials that are needed to "know" what's going on without doing some reference reading - which I highly recommend.) it doesn't read as well as some would like.

    No offense taken, certainly. However, since it is easy to find Scriptural justification for just about any opinion you wish to hold, it certainly mitigates against the claim that it espouses any unified point of view.
    No it doesn't, It merely states that if you scrounge around in it long enough you can support almost anything if you divource it from it's context.

    Jesus was very clear on his views of violence and of mercy.

    Jainism is a small sect of Hinduism.
    So what? How does that remove it from what it is? Jainism is different than Hinduism. They've been around for what, 8,000 years? Your information is irrevelant. You can't blame Jains for what Hindus do.

    The Bible is unambiguous in accepting slavery. The first meaningful arguments against slavery in the United States were justified on religious grounds. The Abolitionists were generally better humanitarians than Biblical scholars, and good for them.
    As most of the Abolitionists were admitted Christians, I don't know where you're going with this. At that time Christians actually read the Bible daily, and like everybody else who read, had learned to read using a Bible. They were much more intimately knowledgeable about the Bible than you or I (although I'm currently trying to make up for the lack) and would be able to converse quite coherently with a modern day Biblical scholar.

    Here's a quote from W.L. Garrison, speaking at the American Anti-Slavery Convention in Philadelphia on Dec. 6th 1833 (from a speech, appropriately named "DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION"
    ...Their principles led them to wage war against their oppressors, and to spill human blood like water, in order to be free.
    Ours forbid the doing of evil that good may come, and lead us to reject, and to entreat the oppressed to reject, the use of all carnal weapons for deliverance from bondage; relying solely upon those which are spiritual, and mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.


    and later

    ...Hence we maintain--that, in view of the civil and religious privileges of this nation, the guilt of its oppression is unequalled by any other on the face of the earth; and, therefore, that it is bound to repent instantly, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free.

    We further maintain--that no man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother--to hold or acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of merchandise--to keep back his hire by fraud--or to brutalize his mind, by denying him the means of intellectual, social and moral improvement.

    The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body--to the products of his own labor--to the protection of law--and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely, the sin is as great to enslave an American as an African.

    Therefore we believe and affirm--that there is no difference, in principle, between the African slave trade and American slavery:

    That every American citizen, who detains a human being in involuntary bondage as his property, is, according to Scripture, (Ex. xxi. 16,) a man-stealer:

    That the slaves ought instantly to be set free, and brought under the protection of law:....



    My quotes were from the Gospel.
    um, yes we know that. They can't be taken as a representive of the whole though. Was Jesus talking about a literal sword to kill with? If so, why doesn't he say anymore about this subject? Jesus spoke much more about Loving and Forgiving and never once did he say it was ok to kill anyone. Ever.
    The message of the Gospel is very clear.

    Grace:
    Heaven is a free gift
    It is not earned or deserved

    Man:
    Is a sinner
    Cannot save himself

    God:
    Is merciful - there does not want to punish us.
    Is just - therefore must punish sin.

    Christ:
    Who He is - the infinite God-Man
    What He did - He died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay the penalty for our sins and to purchase a place in heaven for us.

    Faith:
    What it is not - mere head knowledge or mere temporal faith
    What it is - trusting in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life.

    Lots of heretics out there through history.
    um, that's the nature of sin. Since Jesus was the only perfect man, thats understandable. It wasn't (and isn't) right though.

    Swell. Any chance of that helping out a bit in the Mideast? Didn't think so.
    Gee, with faith like that you should plan for the worse.

    I actually do believe that God can and will work miracles. Of course, like you, before I actually witnessed them I was skeptical. That was then though. When you witness (and acknowledge) a miracle- something that happened in no scientifically explained way, it opens up things in a way that are truly amazing. Of course until you experience it, it's just an interesting (or not so interesting) story.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  9. #89  
    Hi guy's,

    I have been on holidays so havent followed this discusion lately, but I saw this website: http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...rful/index.php and figured it would add some spice to this allready spicey discussion

    Also have you heard the latest news how Bush wants to finance the attack on Irak by caputering the iraqui oilfields?
    Very scary indeed... if Bush has no financial barriers for an attack anymore it becomes more and more inevitable....

    Does anybody know if you can sabotage an oilfield easily? if so thats what I guess sadam will do when he is loosing... that way Bush wil end up with the bill himself.... that would be an interesting scenario....which as a sideeffect would boost enviromentally friendly car industies...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #90  
    Originally posted by John Nowak
    True, but if the country is willing to dismiss the beliefs of its own religion (or, in this case, a small part of the dominant religion) as irrelevent, why shouldn't we do the same?
    Your point was "Hindus espouse peace, but, look, Hindu's really aren't peaceful because of what India does." I don't believe that extrapolation (A majority of India is Hindu; Therefore, anything India does is sanctioned by the Hindu religion.) is logically correct.
    Last edited by K. Cannon; 01/09/2003 at 09:14 AM.
  11. #91  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Also have you heard the latest news how Bush wants to finance the attack on Irak by caputering the iraqui oilfields?
    No, I've not heard that. Indeed I've heard the opposite (from the administration itself): that the oilfields will be kept intact and as the property of the new Iraqi gov't. You've got to be kidding me if you think the US would claim them for itself.
  12. #92  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Your choice, see above.
    You mean the doubleplus ungood double-speak? Sorry, but I'm loath to accept either belief extreme's terms to define what I think.
    Who granted that authority? Definitely not Jesus.
    You're missing the point. The context was separation of church and state, remember? When the state is not separated from the church, any person under the rule of the state has to abide by it. IOW, you can't say that unbelief wasn't persecuted, only heresy, since living in the state and not believing in the state's doctrine (if it became known) _was_ heresy.
    [...] No. I think you've got it sideways.
    Sorry, but no.
    The Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth were reform minded Christians fleeing persecution from King James (in England you had to go to His church or you went to prison).
    Strange how the state and religion can do that when they mix. Stranger still how you see this as _disproving_ the idea that church and state should be separated.
    If you want to start reading into what the Framers of the Constitution were coming from it might be good to go beyond Jefferson and Madison.
    I have.
    An extended quote from Mind Siege
    From the time of the Mayflower Compact (having undertaken for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith") through Plymouth Plantation ("for the propagation and advance of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ") and on to Virginia's first charter ("propagating the Christian religion"), Fundamental Orders of Connecticut ("puity of of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus"), and the New England Confederation ("advance the cause of the gospel"), America's founding years were steeped in Christ and Christianity.
    They were also steeped in war and slavery and displacing native peoples. So?
    They go on to say,

    This country was founded on a basic consensus of Christian principles. While we do not claim that every Founding Father was an evangelical Christian (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were Unitarians), even John Adams admitted that the American Army was "educated in the general Principles of Christianity; and the general Principles of English and American Liberty." He then said, "the general Principles on which the Fathers achieved Independence, were the general Principles of Christianity."
    You may want to look up the difference between correlation and causation. One could quite accurately say that _my_ general principles are the same as the general principles of Christianity.
    Here's what a Jewish scholar, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, has to say,
    My extensive readings have left me without a doubt that this nation was founded by Christians, and was meant to be based on broad Christian principles. Religion was the bedrock upon which the nation stood, and without it these amazing men and women saw no future for the country they had established."
    I don't notice any non-religion-biased sources there.
    If there is supposed to be a complete separation between Church and State, why has every session of Congress began with a prayer?
    If all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, why weren't the slaves freed the second the Declaration of Independence was signed?
    If you want to delve deeper into where the signers and framers were coming from, might I suggest www.wallbuilders.com ?
    I'll withhold my suggestions at this point.
    David Barton has done extensive research into this area. If you did Toby, [...]
    Yes, obviously because I don't buy into religion-biased interpretations, I must be ignorant.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #93  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    You have described the actions of a nation (India) in an attempt to describe the beliefs of a religion (Hindu). Not the same thing.
    Seems quite fair considering that it's in the context of a discussion about the beliefs of a religion (Christianity) being a de facto part of a nation (US). Do you think that the government of India is not made up of Hindus?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #94  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    [...] As most of the Abolitionists were admitted Christians, I don't know where you're going with this. [...]
    If the government of the US was founded as a Christian government, and a Christian belief was that all slaves should be set free, ...well, draw your own conclusions.
    I actually do believe that God can and will work miracles. Of course, like you, before I actually witnessed them I was skeptical. That was then though. When you witness (and acknowledge) a miracle- something that happened in no scientifically explained way, it opens up things in a way that are truly amazing. Of course until you experience it, it's just an interesting (or not so interesting) story.
    Of course, when there is later a scientific explanation discovered, the scientist is called a heretic.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #95  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    Hi guy's,

    I have been on holidays so havent followed this discusion lately, but I saw this website: http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...rful/index.php and figured it would add some spice to this allready spicey discussion
    Ahh...the cow-beast Michael Moore. Watch it play fast and loose with the facts. Watch it reply when confronted with its distortions with, "It's only entertainment".
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E7583,00.html
    http://www.moorewatch.com
    Also have you heard the latest news how Bush wants to finance the attack on Irak by caputering the iraqui oilfields?
    No, hadn't heard that.
    Very scary indeed... if Bush has no financial barriers for an attack anymore it becomes more and more inevitable....
    When did financial barriers ever stop a government? They print the money.
    Does anybody know if you can sabotage an oilfield easily?
    Yes, it's called 'fire'.
    if so thats what I guess sadam will do when he is loosing... that way Bush wil end up with the bill himself.... that would be an interesting scenario....which as a sideeffect would boost enviromentally friendly car industies...
    Well, then, let's go for it. Bush _is_ trying to help the environment.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #96  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Your point was "Hindus espouse peace, but, look, Hindu's really aren't peaceful because of what India does." I don't believe that extrapolation (A majority of India is Hindu; Therefore, anything India does is sanctioned by the Hindu religion.) is logically correct.
    It's not. Wonder if it was for effect.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #97  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Your point was "Hindus espouse peace, but, look, Hindu's really aren't peaceful because of what India does." I don't believe that extrapolation (A majority of India is Hindu; Therefore, anything India does is sanctioned by the Hindu religion.) is logically correct.
    Fair comment, so I should clarify myself. I pointed out that there is no major pacifist religion. It was pointed out, correctly, that Jainism (the Quakers would also make a good example) are pacifist. However, the Jains and Quakers are relatively small sects which have had little, if no, effect on the defense policies of the countries they live in, which are both among the best-armed countries in the world. Both countries are democracies, and a shared consensus among Christians in the US or Hindus in India would be politically significant. I claim that no such shared consensus exists, in any religion.

    It doesn't make Quakers or Jains bad people; it just shows that their religion seems to have very little objective political power, and it is difficult to call them "Major."
  18. #98  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    The Bible is an account and is not ambiguous.
    So which of the Creation accounts is correct?

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    No it doesn't, It merely states that if you scrounge around in it long enough you can support almost anything if you divource it from it's context.
    You'd think divinely inspired writers would do better than that.

    I notice that your definition of Christian appears to reject virtually every Christian who ever lived.
  19. #99  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    I have been on holidays so havent followed this discusion lately, but I saw this website: http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...rful/index.php and figured it would add some spice to this allready spicey discussion
    Oh, yeah, the documentary about American gun violence that ignores how well over half the deaths occur among the chronically unemployed.

    You don't believe that Canadians leave their doors unlocked, do you? I never met one who did. Since their burglary rate's coming up on six times that of the US, you'd think they'd learn.

    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Also have you heard the latest news how Bush wants to finance the attack on Irak by caputering the iraqui oilfields?
    Nope; sounds like nonsense to me.

    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Very scary indeed... if Bush has no financial barriers for an attack anymore it becomes more and more inevitable....
    The United States is now about 30% of the world's economy, up from 20% at the beginning of the 1980s. We don't need Iraq's oil; Europe does.

    Originally posted by ToolkiT


    Does anybody know if you can sabotage an oilfield easily? if so thats what I guess sadam will do when he is loosing... that way Bush wil end up with the bill himself.... that would be an interesting scenario....which as a sideeffect would boost enviromentally friendly car industies...
    He probably will, and it will probably be delt with as quickly as similar attempts made on Kuwait during the Gulf War.
  20. #100  
    Originally posted by Toby
    If all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, why weren't the slaves freed the second the Declaration of Independence was signed?
    Mark Twain wrote a particularly effective article about how slow preachers were to figure out that slavery was a bad thing. I think he doesn't give enough credit to the fact that most Abolitionists _were_ religiously motivated, but he does make it clear that slavery supporters were also religiously motivated.
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions