All European Life Died in Auschwitz

ziggy wrote:
Part and parcel to that question is where did religion come from- and what primary forces keep it goping? Christianity as we know it came from the warrior-emperor Constantine. It has little resemblance to the words of Jesus. Christianity has been so perverted by powerful warriors, by state sanctioned and even state mandated church doctrines, by wannabe social authortarians, and by state and church leaders who historically damned and even put to death the purveyors of any learned knowledge that was/is in conflict with religious doctrines, that the so-called "Christianity" of today should be treated as suspect by thinking peoples everywhere.

Thanks for making my case for me. You are absolutely correct. Back to the question, is Christainity itself evil or are those who have perverted it and use it as a tool to control others evil?

ziggy wrote: Christianity as we know it came from the warrior-emperor Constantine. It has little resemblance to the words of Jesus.

HORSEPUCKY .......

And you are gutsy enough to say this to someone, to wit:

In simple terms, I cannot accept that your beilefs about religion and morality are credible if your actual character is such that I would not want you as a friend or neighbor.

Ignorance can be fixed but stupidity is permanent.

Cato wrote:Thanks for making my case for me. You are absolutely correct.

NO, Ziggy is not absolutely correct.

Constantine did not mandate what Christianity was to be, he wasn't even a believer in Christianity nor did he profess to be a Christian until just shortly before he died.

Constantine only mandated that no more persecutions of Christians, that Christianity be recognized as the State Religion ........ and that the Christian Leaders get together and get their acts together.

He did that by mandating that the Christian bishops hold The First Council of Nicaea.

Stephanie,

The Hebrew is "murder" not "kill," and the context proves it as capital punishment is mandated within the next chapter.

Exodus 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death."

Not all killing is murder, including in times of war and capital punishment. Now, I'm against the use of capital punishment in the United States, not because of the principal being wrong (as a Bible believer I have no leg to stand on THAT) but rather on our justice system being hopelessly corrupt.

Mike,

Can you please tell me which version of the Bible you are quoting? There are many and before I go challenging you on Exodus 21 I want a level playing field. King James?

Sam,

Who is bowing down and serving anyone? I will admit to waiting on Sylvester-kitty hand and foot, but he'll be 19 next month and not only requires, but deserves a bit of pampering after nearly two decades of loyal companionship.

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote:Thanks for making my case for me. You are absolutely correct.

NO, Ziggy is not absolutely correct.

Constantine did not mandate what Christianity was to be, he wasn't even a believer in Christianity nor did he profess to be a Christian until just shortly before he died.

Constantine only mandated that no more persecutions of Christians, that Christianity be recognized as the State Religion ........ and that the Christian Leaders get together and get their acts together.

He did that by mandating that the Christian bishops hold The First Council of Nicaea.

Sam,

Ziggy may not have had that right, I have to take your word for this. Where is correct and where he makes my point is that in his rant he illustrated man's misuse and/or perversion of religion (especially Christanity) is what is evil, not religion itself. To do otherwise is to say man makes choices and is responsibile for those choices. Ziggy, and much of the left don't want that.

Ziggy is like at lot of lefties. He wants to blame the tool used and not the user for what happens. The argument regarding religion is alot like the arguement surrounding gun control. The liberals want to ban guns because they see them as evil. At the same time they will make excuse after excuse about the person that used the weapon. The violance in many cities is blamed on the availibility of handguns. The people that commit the crimes are excused because of poverty or drugs. Like religion, a gun is a tool, it is the user that determines whether is it is used for good or for evil and it is the user that needs to be held accountible.

Cato wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote:Thanks for making my case for me. You are absolutely correct.

NO, Ziggy is not absolutely correct.

Constantine did not mandate what Christianity was to be, he wasn't even a believer in Christianity nor did he profess to be a Christian until just shortly before he died.

Constantine only mandated that no more persecutions of Christians, that Christianity be recognized as the State Religion ........ and that the Christian Leaders get together and get their acts together.

He did that by mandating that the Christian bishops hold The First Council of Nicaea.

Sam,

Ziggy may not have had that right, I have to take your word for this. Where is correct and where he makes my point is that in his rant he illustrated man's misuse and/or perversion of religion (especially Christanity) is what is evil, not religion itself. To do otherwise is to say man makes choices and is responsibile for those choices. Ziggy, and much of the left don't want that.

Ziggy is like at lot of lefties. He wants to blame the tool used and not the user for what happens. The argument regarding religion is alot like the arguement surrounding gun control. The liberals want to ban guns because they see them as evil. At the same time they will make excuse after excuse about the person that used the weapon. The violance in many cities is blamed on the availibility of handguns. The people that commit the crimes are excused because of poverty or drugs. Like religion, a gun is a tool, it is the user that determines whether is it is used for good or for evil and it is the user that needs to be held accountible.

I'm going to explain to you where you're wrong about you gun control analogy, Cato. I am not trying to prevent you from having faith, or being religious. I'm not trying ban churches or participation in organized religion, I'm just trying to point out to you how deadly organized religions, particularly Abrahamic religions have always been. Christians and Jews point to radical fundamentalist Muslims and say how violent their religion is because they go to war and kill those who blasphamy their god, yet your bible clearly finds it acceptable to go to war on his behalf.

I'm not telling you not to practice your faith any more than I'm telling you not to own a rifle. I'm telling you not to use your religion to harm other people, the same way I'll tell you not to use your rifle to shoot the neighbor who gives you misery.

Stephanie wrote:

I'm going to explain to you where you're wrong about you gun control analogy, Cato. I am not trying to prevent you from having faith, or being religious. I'm not trying ban churches or participation in organized religion, I'm just trying to point out to you how deadly organized religions, particularly Abrahamic religions have always been. Christians and Jews point to radical fundamentalist Muslims and say how violent their religion is because they go to war and kill those who blasphamy their god, yet your bible clearly finds it acceptable to go to war on his behalf .

I am not going to get into a biblical discussion here. I don't pretend to question God's reasoning for what he had Israel do or why. The being said however, we are no longer under the old testament. It has long since been done away with. We live under the New Testament and nowhere in it is it found to execute or wage war with people because they blaspheme. If you are honest in your study of the New Testament you would know that one is presented witht he Gospel and they decide for themselves.

Stephanie wrote:I'm not telling you not to practice your faith any more than I'm telling you not to own a rifle. I'm telling you not to use your religion to harm other people, the same way I'll tell you not to use your rifle to shoot the neighbor who gives you misery.

What you fail to understand is that the reasoning to limit handguns is the same logic being used with religion. Just as people blame handguns for murder rates, they blame religion for all the terrorism and emss we see today. Just as it isn't guns that kill people it isn't relgion that creates the messes we have today. It is how people use them and what they choose to use them for that creates the problem.

Stephanie wrote:Mike,

Can you please tell me which version of the Bible you are quoting? There are many and before I go challenging you on Exodus 21 I want a level playing field. King James?

Stephanie you flatter me when you suppose I can get a level playing field with you! Thanks!

xcr

Ratsach--transliterated pronunciation, is better said murder, and is almost surely so given what follows in Exodus 21.

Granted all murder is killing (so the KJV is not incorrect) but all killing is not murder, and the ratsach clearly implies murder as opposed to accidental killing, capital punishment, or killing in warfare.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Part and parcel to that question is where did religion come from- and what primary forces keep it goping? Christianity as we know it came from the warrior-emperor Constantine. It has little resemblance to the words of Jesus. Christianity has been so perverted by powerful warriors, by state sanctioned and even state mandated church doctrines, by wannabe social authortarians, and by state and church leaders who historically damned and even put to death the purveyors of any learned knowledge that was/is in conflict with religious doctrines, that the so-called "Christianity" of today should be treated as suspect by thinking peoples everywhere.

Thanks for making my case for me. You are absolutely correct. Back to the question, is Christainity itself evil or are those who have perverted it and use it as a tool to control others evil?

The Christianity of Christ is not the "Christianity" of today. Christianity as we know it today is evil.

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote:Thanks for making my case for me. You are absolutely correct.

NO, Ziggy is not absolutely correct.

Constantine did not mandate what Christianity was to be, he wasn't even a believer in Christianity nor did he profess to be a Christian until just shortly before he died.

Constantine only mandated that no more persecutions of Christians, that Christianity be recognized as the State Religion ........ and that the Christian Leaders get together and get their acts together.

He did that by mandating that the Christian bishops hold The First Council of Nicaea.

And by what authority could he "mandate" that the Bishops hold the First Council of Nicaea- or to "get their acts together? More importantly, for what purpose would he so mandate?

So he would have religious "cover" to go forth to spread Christianity over the whole of the Roman Empire? "In Hoc Signo Vinces." "BY THIS SIGN YOU WILL CONQUER". "By this, Conquer". "With this sign ye shall conquer." Whatever.

Until the early writings about Jesus were edited and re-edited into what became the Constantine Bible- the playbook for wannabe Christian warrior-conquerors and their obedient clergy for centuries to come- "Christianity" was a mostly innocuous social gospel. But as Christianity and other Abrahamic religion became both the symbol of and the tool of authoritarian control of ones over others- of "Christians" over "infidels", of men over women, of the powerful elite over the peasantry, of the clergy over the laity, etc.- religion became destructive and effectively the tool of the Devil to wreck havoc and earthly hell over all the world.

Ziggy may not have had that right, I have to take your word for this. Where is correct and where he makes my point is that in his rant he illustrated man's misuse and/or perversion of religion (especially Christanity) is what is evil, not religion itself. To do otherwise is to say man makes choices and is responsibile for those choices.

Ziggy, and much of the left don't want that.

Why do you insist on being so disingeneous?

I have said consistently here and in predecessor forums and message boards that people make choices and that people are responsible for those choices- and that choices produces consequences. All that is as natural as it gettting dark when the sun goes down.

For you to say otherwise- to say that Ziggy doesn't want men to be responsponsible for their choices- is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said consistently here. What you don't like about my view is that I do not necessarily believe that our choices result in the consequences that you think result or should result from our choices and our actions.

You and I disagree about the consequences of our choices. So why can't you just be honest enough to say it that way? Are you so bankrupt of logic and character that you have to tell the viewers here the 180 degree opposite of what you know I have said all along?

SheikBen wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Mike,

Can you please tell me which version of the Bible you are quoting? There are many and before I go challenging you on Exodus 21 I want a level playing field. King James?

Stephanie you flatter me when you suppose I can get a level playing field with you! Thanks!

xcr

Ratsach--transliterated pronunciation, is better said murder, and is almost surely so given what follows in Exodus 21.

Granted all murder is killing (so the KJV is not incorrect) but all killing is not murder, and the ratsach clearly implies murder as opposed to accidental killing, capital punishment, or killing in warfare.

lol......I only know where to look in the Bible because you tell me.

I checked, most of Exodus 21, in the KJV, much like the Catholic version, provides direction for the treatment of slaves. In both versions the terms and conditions of selling your own daughter as a slave are explained. Does that mean you think it is acceptable for a man not just to buy and sell other human beings as slaves, but sell his own daughter? I know it happens, even now, but you would never condone any man buying and selling other human beings. You condemn such behavior.

How about this? Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

I find it hard to understand the how one goes about picking and choosing what is and is not to be strictly adhered to, not to mention which books should not be included, which translation is correct etc.

In any event, I see nothing in Exodus 20 or 21 that indicates it is acceptable for Jews to drive Palestinians from their homes, destroy their farms, isolate them from the rest of the world, and/or prevent them from returning to the land of their birth, or indiscriminantly kill them for resisting such treatment.

ziggy wrote:
Why do you insist on being so disingeneous?

I have said consistently here and in predecessor forums and message boards that people make choices and that people are responsible for those choices- and that choices produces consequences. All that is as natural as it gettting dark when the sun goes down.

For you to say otherwise- to say that Ziggy doesn't want men to be responsponsible for their choices- is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said consistently here. What you don't like about my view is that I do not necessarily believe that our choices result in the consequences that you think result or should result from our choices and our actions.

You and I disagree about the consequences of our choices. So why can't you just be honest enough to say it that way? Are you so bankrupt of logic and character that you have to tell the viewers here the 180 degree opposite of what you know I have said all along?

Your stand on homosexuality speaks volumes on what you really believe regarding choice. Now, I stand by what I have said Ziggy. If you have a problem with it, gee that's just too bad.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Why do you insist on being so disingeneous?

I have said consistently here and in predecessor forums and message boards that people make choices and that people are responsible for those choices- and that choices produces consequences. All that is as natural as it gettting dark when the sun goes down.

For you to say otherwise- to say that Ziggy doesn't want men to be responsponsible for their choices- is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said consistently here. What you don't like about my view is that I do not necessarily believe that our choices result in the consequences that you think result or should result from our choices and our actions.

You and I disagree about the consequences of our choices. So why can't you just be honest enough to say it that way? Are you so bankrupt of logic and character that you have to tell the viewers here the 180 degree opposite of what you know I have said all along?

Your stand on homosexuality speaks volumes on what you really believe regarding choice. Now, I stand by what I have said Ziggy. If you have a problem with it, gee that's just too bad.

I don't have a problem with homosexuality for those adults who care to engage in homosexual conduct. It's their business- not yours or mine. But you obviously do have problems with it. You struck out on that one. So try again.

Your stand on homosexuality speaks volumes on what you really believe regarding choice. Now, I stand by what I have said Ziggy. If you have a problem with it, gee that's just too bad.

Yes, because everyone knows those rights aren't for women blacks gays.

TerryRC,

Does someone have to have sex?

Does someone have to do anything?

TerryRC,

Does someone have to have sex?

Irrelevant.

I look at gay marriage as being no different than mixed marriages.

You know, to mormons, mixed marriages are sinful...

TerryRC,

It is not irrelevant whatsoever. You lumped together women, blacks, and gays, but gay people can choose not to have sex, just as married men can choose not to have sex with women they are not married to.

If marriage gives so many glorious rights that to deny gays legal marital status is such a tragedy, should you not be concerned with the rank discrimination presently being directed against the single?

To someone outside the Christian church, I do not much care what they do, so long as it does not affect me. Two men (or three) playing house does not affect me and I should hope that they have as much rights vis a vis hospital visitation and survivors' benefits as anyone else. Everyone should be able to designate someone to have priviledge, whether based on a sexual relationship or merely an emotional one.

But marriage was not created by this government. The institution of marriage goes back far before the institution of the United States. It is not for us to redefine as we see fit. If rights are being somehow violated by our legal institution of marriage (a far more recent creation than the sacred institution of marriage), then perhaps the laws are ill founded to begin with.

If rights are being somehow violated by our legal institution of marriage (a far more recent creation than the sacred institution of marriage), then perhaps the laws are ill founded to begin with.

And that is a part of what constitutionalism is about- well founded or ill founded laws.

It is not irrelevant whatsoever. You lumped together women, blacks, and gays, but gay people can choose not to have sex, just as married men can choose not to have sex with women they are not married to.

They can't choose to not have sex with the women they are married to - that is grounds for divorce.

Anyway, it IS irrelevant. What you do in privacy is your own business.

I'm not saying the pentecostal church has to marry gays. I'm saying the government doesn't have the right to keep the unitiarian church from marrying gays. If the former is recognized by the state, so must be the latter.

There is no logical reason to deny letting two adults enter into any contract they choose.