Disturbing Christian material . . . . . . . .

[Jon Miller]

Note, I dislike both expressions. The go blow up something is a bit different though.

Additionally, and this is some of the reason I really dislike 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!' is that I haven't seen anything else make more people leave Christianity then that.

A lot of people drift away, that is true, but they still consider themselves Christians.. or Christian related. It is the 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!' which makes people very upset, once they start thinking for themselves.

I will do my best to convince people that that isn't a good method to win souls.. but I won't be in favor of not allowing them to express their conscious.

JM
(my personal beleif.. and the beleif of my church, is that if you aren't saved (which is between you and Christ) then when you die you cease to exist.. and I think this is a better beleif.. but I want to be able to express my beleifs, so I am in favor of others being able to express theirs)

(note, I am in favor of you expressing your beleifs in this thread, in your community, and at the polls.. I am just trying to get you to change your mind)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Did I say that?

If the parent sends them to a school where such things are taught, isn't it the same as the parent teaching it themselves?

Of course, I think that parents need to take responsibility for their kids, and many do not.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Did I say that?

See, I have never heard that being taught in schools (from my freinds). I am sure it has.. and still is.. But my freinds haven't expereinced that.

They have experienced relatives saying 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!'.

JM
(and it closed them down to even thinking about Christianity)

[Jon Miller]

If it was a better education, I would send my kids to a school that taught them things I disagreed with (let's say a Muslim school.. after we get taken over by the Middle East Confederation). I would, however, tell them what I thought about the different things they were being taught. And would spend extra time on the things I disagreed with, (also explaining why I disagreed with them). And if I felt they were being affected too severely, I would remove them.

JM

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


If the parent sends them to a school where such things are taught, isn't it the same as the parent teaching it themselves?

Of course, I think that parents need to take responsibility for their kids, and many do not.

JM

No, it's not.

Your home is your home, still with some restrictions there on how you treat your children.

School is where the state begins to have a direct interest. Home schooling would be another case entirely, but still parents do not enjoy carte blanche to do with their children whaterver the hell they want.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


See, I have never heard that being taught in schools (from my freinds). I am sure it has.. and still is.. But my freinds haven't expereinced that.

They have experienced relatives saying 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!'.

JM
(and it closed them down to even thinking about Christianity)

Read the OP. The bolded bits. That is what is being discussed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Note, I dislike both expressions. The go blow up something is a bit different though.

Additionally, and this is some of the reason I really dislike 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!' is that I haven't seen anything else make more people leave Christianity then that.

A lot of people drift away, that is true, but they still consider themselves Christians.. or Christian related. It is the 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!' which makes people very upset, once they start thinking for themselves.

I will do my best to convince people that that isn't a good method to win souls.. but I won't be in favor of not allowing them to express their conscious.

JM

But some Christians can't see why that pisses people off.

(my personal beleif.. and the beleif of my church, is that if you aren't saved (which is between you and Christ) then when you die you cease to exist.. and I think this is a better beleif.. but I want to be able to express my beleifs, so I am in favor of others being able to express theirs)

(note, I am in favor of you expressing your beleifs in this thread, in your community, and at the polls.. I am just trying to get you to change your mind)

Why should it matter if I believe and am wrong, or do not beleive and am equally wrong? Which flavour of Xanity am I supposed to follow?

Shouldn't it matter more how I lead my life? The good I do for others, no matter the shape of the ultimate authority?

[notyoueither]

I will do my best to convince people that that isn't a good method to win souls.. but I won't be in favor of not allowing them to express their conscious.

Oh, and I am not for banning Ben telling me I am damned. I will maintain my right to tell him he is full of **** in return though, and that such pontificating is not particularlly helpful in most settings.

The only part in this where 'allowing' comes into play is what should be allowed in schools.

We disallow a lot of things in schools that are fair game in adult society.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Why should it matter if I believe and am wrong, or do not beleive and am equally wrong? Which flavour of Xanity am I supposed to follow?

Shouldn't it matter more how I lead my life? The good I do for others, no matter the shape of the ultimate authority?

My beleif once more.

We are all wrong, and it is not about following the right type of Christianity. All following truer types of Christianity does, is keeps you from making mistakes.. like that of 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!'. (At least I think it is a mistake)

What does matter is accepting Christ's gift, whatever form that acceptance might be. (Can some accept without even knowing of Christ's existence? I think so. I think it is easiest to accept if you are Christian, because things should become more clear).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I will do my best to convince people that that isn't a good method to win souls.. but I won't be in favor of not allowing them to express their conscious.

Oh, and I am not for banning Ben telling me I am damned. I will maintain my right to tell him he is full of **** in return though, and that such pontificating is not particularlly helpful in most settings.

The only part in this where 'allowing' comes into play is what should be allowed in schools.

We disallow a lot of things in schools that are fair game in adult society.

So Ben is OK as long as their are no 6 yearikds reading this thread? He can announce his position only in buildings that allow in only people of age?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No, it's not.

Your home is your home, still with some restrictions there on how you treat your children.

School is where the state begins to have a direct interest. Home schooling would be another case entirely, but still parents do not enjoy carte blanche to do with their children whaterver the hell they want.

We aren't talking about physical abuse here.

You are in favor of banning this sort of teaching, because you believe it is wrong. But what about your creationist neighbor? Isn't he in favor of banning the sorts of teaching he thinks are wrong?

The fact of the matter is that we put parents (and rightfully so, the state has a very poor track record here) in charge of their childrens education (you can call it indoctrination if you wish). Parents can't sit around teaching their kids all the time, so they send them to school.

At least in the US, there are public schools which are state run, and there are private schools, which are privately run. Parents can choose where to send their kids (as long as they have the finances), as such, they can choose how their kids are educated, when the parents aren't home.

If that includes things like 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!' or 'girls should wear hoods at all times' then that is up to them.

When you start to tell parents what they can and can not teach their children, you are in a dangerous area of thought control.

JM

[SlowwHand]

Snipers kill 17 Iraq Shiite pilgrims

By QAIS AL-BASHIR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Snipers firing from rooftops and a cemetery killed at least 17 people and wounded dozens Sunday in a series of attacks on a Shiite religious procession that drew hundreds of thousands of pilgrims to Baghdad. The "terrorist assaults" took place when the pilgrims were walking through Sunni areas on their way to the shrine of Imam Moussa Kadhim, one of 12 Shiite saints, Health Ministry spokesman Qassim Allawi told The Associated Press.

In one neighborhood, security forces and Shiite militiamen in flak jackets were seen exchanging gunfire with unseen assailants who were firing from houses and buildings. Some of the attackers were firing from behind tombstones in a Sunni cemetery.

The violence defied a weekend driving ban to prevent car bombs amid a cycle of ***-for-tat attacks by Shiites and Sunnis in
Iraq since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra. The sectarian warfare, along with the deadly Sunni Arab insurgency, has become the biggest challenge for the U.S.-backed national unity government.

Thousands of extra U.S. troops also have been deployed in recent weeks as part of a security crackdown in the capital as many fear the bloodshed, which is claiming about 100 lives a day, could lead to an all-out civil war.

The ceremonies at the shrine in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Kazimiyah continued despite the attacks, which Allawi said occurred in three or four neighborhoods at least a mile away.

Shiite pilgrims, wearing white shrouds to symbolize their willingness to die for Islam, chanted "God bless (Prophet) Muhammad and his descendants," as they converged on the area.

Shiites believe that Kadhim, who died in 799, was poisoned in prison by a Sunni caliph. He is buried inside the sprawling golden-domed shrine along with his grandson.

"We heed your call, Oh Imam!" the pilgrims sang before entering the compound, beating their chest and flagellating themselves with steel chains in a traditional Shiite expression of grief.

Last year, the government said about 1,000 people died during the Imam Kadhim commemoration when rumors of suicide bombers triggered a mass stampede on a bridge across the Tigris River. It was the biggest single day death toll since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Saddoun Abu al-Ula said 17 pilgrims were killed during Sunday's attacks. He also said 253 were injured, most in falls as they ran in panic. Police also said four militants, including two snipers, were killed.

"We are responsible to make this work, despite these challenges," Abu al-Ula said. Scores of militants were arrested, including some of those who fired on the pilgrims and others who were planning to, he added.

Reporters saw women in black "abayas," an Islamic female gown, helping each other as they ran for cover. Many took refuge under an overpass, ducking in fear at the sound of gunshots. A cleric in a dark gray robe and white turban, holding a gun, was seen being pushed away from the scene by a security personnel.

"I was walking and someone got shot in front of me. It wasn't random fire, it was a clear sniper attack," said Mohammed Jassim, 32.

He said he could hear the faint crack of the shots despite the noise from the procession. "People panicked and started yelling 'it came from here, no from there.'"

Fadhil al-Sharaa, an aide to Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki claimed some 1 million people attended the procession, but other officials were more conservative, putting the figure at between 200,000 and 300,000.

Shiites were prevented from mustering huge crowds at religious ceremonies during
Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime. But since Saddam's ouster in 2003, Shiite politicians and religious leaders have encouraged huge turnouts as a demonstration of the majority sect's power.

The Kadhim ritual is taking place during a major U.S.-Iraqi security operation aimed at curbing the Sunni-Shiite violence. Nearly 12,000 U.S. and Iraqi troop reinforcements are coming in to take control of this city of 6 million people neighborhood by neighborhood.

___

Associated Press correspondents Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Vijay Joshi in Baghdad contributed to this report.

Yes sir, Christians are the one to be concerned over.
I don't remember a Baptist ever taking shots at our Methodist church.

[Barnabas]

No, christians only believe that those christians of other denominations may have a harder time going to heaven, obviously that is as dangerous as strapping a bomb to your body and exploding in a building killing dozens of people.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where did I say that?

Never said you had. Hence the question. I was trying to get a better idea of what causes friction and what does not.

A Christian who prays in public does not cause friction, while a Christian who tries to evangelise does. I really don't see any distinction between the two, both are public expressions of faith.

No, it's not. I also find people who kill doctors to be harmful (beyond offensive). I find Phelps offesnsive. There are others who go beyond offensive.

As do I. Beyond these folks though we are left with the question of what to do with the vast numbers of Christian fundies who don't shoot doctors, and aren't members of Phelp's small group. Statisically, you have a negligible chance of running into either.

Feeding children threats of damnation to get them to fall into line I find both harmful and offensive.

As opposed to saying, if you keep bothering your sister, I am going to send you to your room without dinner? I don't see why a Christian parent cannot discipline their child by warning them that Christ sees everything they do.

I am saying that harmful expressions and practices should be restricted by the state in schools, and in some cases beyond schools.

And if one religion preaches that killing others gets you 72 virgins, does that warrant disproportionate restrictions? You seem very eager to find examples of Christian 'harm' while ignoring the elephant in the corner.

BTW, are people still berating women seeking abortions on their way to the clinics? There is further harm.

Finally! A much better argument on your part since this is an activity supported by the church unlike shooting abortion doctors.

I'm sorry, Ben, but I am failing to grant a large difference between the imam promising 72 virgins and the priest forcing brimestone down the throats of youngsters to gain their 'belief.'

I should think there is considerable difference. In the latter case, the priest is trying to get folks to repent of their sins. What harm does repentence cause to society from the folks who choose to comply?

In the former case, people die for complying to the imam's call for suicide bombers receiving there reward. In this case there is substantial harm incurred through obedience. I don't see this in the Christian case.

What happens afterwards may be different, but the twisting of young minds by adults who should be ashamed of themselves is not much different in immediate effect. That being the effect on young minds that should not be subjected to such abuse in the pursuit of an education.

So telling people that they are sinful is a form of abuse? Gosh, I guess we should be saying that everyone is a perfect angel and that they aren't responsible for the evil things they do or the harm that they inflict on others.

Gee, that would be a much better way of ensuring that no one gets hurt. Or perhaps we can call for responsibility, to protect the folks who do get harmed by our sins by calling folks to curtail their sinful behaviour.

Of course. Obey or burn! That seems to be the message every bit as much as love and charity.

I dunno. I think it's quite a bit of love that God can forgive us for all the sins that we have committed if we are willing to trust him and to repent of our sins.

Nothing to do with love or charity there.

What the men clearly meant is that people could be non-Christian if they choose and not be deprived of the state of grace that some Christians believe to be their exclusive domain.

Which is not different from what I said earlier of those who do not know Christ since they have never heard of him. That was the citation from Romans, the law still applies to them, but only through their conscience.

According to them, what matters more in the equation is how one leads one's life whether one accepts Allah, a stone their ancestors live in, or admit they do not know. Even those who say there is no God are admitted mercy by a God who is not so self important as to demand that His fallible creatures be correct 100% of the time.

First off, why is it self important for Christ to say, I am the way and the truth and the life? He wants to bring people to him and if he is right, then it's not about being 'self important' but in telling the truth.

Secondly, that's why we can be forgiven in the first place. God does demand perfection, but doesn't condemn us for falling short provided we repent of our sins.

Finally, you seem to believe that it is possible for someone to live a good life? What is the good life? Do you believe that it is possible to live entirely without sinning?

Who says they don't believe in anything?

They fail to agree with you about my coming breakfast of brimestone, but that does not mean they believe nothing.

Where did I ever say that you NYE are condemned to hell? I can't read your heart.

Are you threatened by the concept of Christians who do not believe in damnation based on dogma?

Threatened? Hardly. More closer would be the question of what's the point? If one can get to heaven without believing in God or doing anything, then why be a Christian in the first place?

BTW, which dogma is a real guard against buring? Are Anglicans going to burn? Mormons?

Go with the original and accept no substitutes.

In all honesty, for Anglicans, it depends on the church you go to. Some are good, in that they believe Christ was the son of God, and others not so good, in that they believe that he is not.

For the mormons there are many good people there in how they live their lives, but unless they see Christ as God too, they are going to have difficulties following him and his teachings.

Is Phelps going up while an aethiest who leads an otherwise saintly life is going down?

Define the good life NYE. I think the real question is whether any of us lead a good life when we are so full of sin.

This is especially important on this topic when it comes to young minds and the attitude of 'what harm is there'? There can be a lot of harm.

If teaching children about God is harmful, then so is teaching them math.

And communities that insist on keeping multiple child brides, and people who want to kill doctors, and 200 or so kool-aid drinkers, and another 50 or so at Koresh's compound, and people who show up at funerals of strangers to berate their families, and, and, and...

Right. Which brings you up to a proportion of maybe 1 hundredth of a percent of these Fundies in general.

Please don't insult us with feigned innocence and a whitewash, Ben. You know very well that a great many insults to God have been carried out in His name and we don't have to go back very far to find them

There have been many. You have managed to find one instance of a 'harm' that is approved by most fundamentalists, a harm that is no different from the myriad of anti-war protests that are also considered to bring more good then harm.

Now I am late and must go.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm


The Hare Krishnas ? They're an exception , but they're the most visible because they have taken up missionary work . I've read some of their stuff . They've picked up their theology straight from Christain monitheistic ideas . They're very intolerant - they believe in Christian ideas of heaven and hell . Hindus aren't supposed to be missionaries , as least not in the conventional sense of the term . Any missionary activity , in my opinion , should be restricted to the historically Hindu territories . I've come to the realisation that missionary activity is a sign of deep insecurity , which these people exhibit . They do not practice the form of Hinduism which is common in India , they tailor Hinduism to suit Western audiences who are more comfrotable with semi-Christian ideas . Personally , I disagree with them .

But anyway - I didn't say yes .

There was also some guy named Baba Ram Das who had a similar organization in the US. He fled the country to evade tax evasion charges - he evidently didn't understand that onloy so much would be allowed tax exempt for religious purposes. I'm certain he retreated to India.