# National Prayer Day....



## Cruentus (May 6, 2004)

Not to be nitpicky here, but am I the only one that thinks a national prayer day is kinda stupid and uncalled for?

I consider myself more religious then the majority, yet, a national prayer day seems kinda dumb.

If your religious, shouldn't you be praying every day? 

Is there a religious person out there that actually NEEDS the government to deligate a national day for "prayer" for them. I personally want my government to stay out of my religious business.

I don't know...what do you think?

 :idunno:


----------



## MisterMike (May 6, 2004)

There's a national day for just about everything now. I think it is just to bring attention to different cultural items.

Some days probably need less reinforcement, like http://www.nationalblondeday.com/

 :boing2:


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 6, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Not to be nitpicky here, but am I the only one that thinks a national prayer day is kinda stupid and uncalled for?
> 
> I consider myself more religious then the majority, yet, a national prayer day seems kinda dumb.
> 
> ...


I never pray and when I read this thread title I considered whom or what I might pray for. Now you are saying its dumb? Don't you see? This day is not about you its about me!!! Oh well, its off to damnation, "La La LaLa La La, La LaLa La Laaaaah."
Sean (www.iemat.com)


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 6, 2004)

Yes, well, national prayer day is when large aggregations of people go to an specified area and pray together. There is strength in numbers and God says that when 2 or more gather in his name and pray together, he is in their midst. In Florida, at the Daytona Beach Race Way (NASCAR), we have one going with Casting Crowns(Christian Band) and some guest speakers. We pray as one nation, under God. That's what national prayer day is SUPPOSED to be. We pray for our nation, what we've been through, asking God to protect. There is so much more to pray for. I can't make it to the raceway tonight, as I have to work because it is a super busy night at work tonight. But my mom and friends are going. 


And on a side note: being religious doesn't mean that you have to pray. Being Religious can mean that you are working so hard and faithfully at Martial Arts that you have it as your lifestyle. Or you are religious about working. Your a Work-a-holic. I'm not really Religious. Not in the sense that alot of people have said about religion. I'm religious about Jesus Christ. 

Religious has turned into a term used to describe some nutcases who sit around all day, have no fun, read ancient manuscripts, meditate and moan and hum and chant and all that crap. Not that it's what it means to me, but to ALOT of people I know, that's what it means. Heh...kinda funny.


----------



## Cruentus (May 6, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I never pray and when I read this thread title I considered whom or what I might pray for. Now you are saying its dumb? Don't you see? This day is not about you its about me!!! Oh well, its off to damnation, "La La LaLa La La, La LaLa La Laaaaah."
> Sean (www.iemat.com)



 :rofl:


----------



## Cruentus (May 6, 2004)

ShaolinWolf brings up some interesting outlooks that many people have, that just don't sit well with me.

Many people believe that we should all, "Pray as one nation under God" like the pledge. However, this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to religious nationalism. Those who don't fit with my WASP (I'm no WASP, I am speaking hypothetically) values don't belong in my "Nation," because we believe in praying as one nation. Don't go against the government because even though it may seem like wrong things are happening, we are all doing it for "God." We can march into any country and impose our will and values on them because we are somehow the chosen nation because we believe in God.

I love my religion, but I love having the right to my individual beliefs without the government butting in. I think that the more we allow religion into our government (I am talking actual religious beliefs, not just morals and ethics), the farther we open pandoras box. It is just to easy for Government, controlled by business interests, to use "religion" as a means to control the public. 

I'm going to pray that the government stays out of my business on this national prayer day.


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 6, 2004)

I don't mind it,since nobody's forcing anyone to pray,but it reminds me that I do not pray enough.I think if it inspires a few more prayers,it's worthwhile.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 6, 2004)

I don't believe that the government is always right...all that is wrong that we are doing for God would only be what's wrong in human eyes. I mean, it's just impossible to do wrong FOR God. All wrong is done against God. I mean, God is Truth, and Purity. Wrong does not equal either of those. 180 degrees of those. So, though many claim in the name of God to do wrong, it's just selfishness and self-righteousness, along with justification. I'm not getting into the political side of things, but not everything the Government does it evil/wrong, though I know plenty of people who have a whiplash attitude where they recoil and strike like a rattlesnake when they here anything good about the government that people deem worthy of righteousness.

Anyways, Wrong is not Right, therefore it is not of God. But what's right in the eyes of man is not always right in the eyes of God. Vice Versa.

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 7, 2004)

"We pray as one nation, under God?"

Include me out--but thanks for the beautiful summary of what's  wrong with any, "National Prayer Day."

If you're wondering why the tone, it's because a) I resent having federal money used for this stuff; b) I'm pretty tired too of people shoving God down my throat.

What's that bit in the New Testament? The one that introduces the Lord's Prayer? The bit about not praying in public, as do the Pharisees and Saducees, but praying in private?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 7, 2004)

Yes, but that's been taken out of context. The meaning behind it is not to be a hypocrite. There are actual people out there that pray earnestly and honestly, from their hearts. That bit about the pharisee is to not be a fake. Don't go out in public to pray and think your better than the next person because you pray. That's just as bad as not praying. That's what it means. 

That Pharisee in Jesus' parable is self-seeking, and self-serving. There was a tax collector right next to him asking for forgiveness from God and the Pharisee was thanking God that he was not a sinner like that man. The pharisee was a hypocrite.

:asian:


----------



## loki09789 (May 7, 2004)

Any of these honorary days are recognition days, not days of obligation (Paul, your Catholic take on this is showing , my question is how can we, as Catholics have days of obligation and still exercise free will...just joking  - if I didn't say that someone would start firing off tangents.)

I think it is fine to have the separation of church and state, but I think it is impossible to separate the two entirely because of the inherent power of religion as a moral force in our country.  I am not just talking about "MY" religion, but all religion.  People debate/lobby over abortion based on religious ideology as one platform is one example off the top of my head.

The whole point of separation of church and state was to prevent the 'new world' government of the US didn't fall into the power struggle traps that the 'old world' governments fell into between 'divinely ordained' leaders and the influence of a national religions creating partisan politics between earthly leaders of nations and religious leaders of the masses (Anglican, Catholic France, ....).  Remember that some of our history is influenced by the Reformation movement.

This National Prayer day is no different than National Secretaries day or any other "day" on the national calender.  It is a demonstration of tolerance/recognition for those who pray across all/any religious or theological beliefs.


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 7, 2004)

Paul, I think you explained that very well,with one exception(please don't take offense),The language of "separation of church and state" does not exist in the constitution.What it does say is, something to the effect of(I don't remember the exact wording-but this is close) Goverment shall make no laws in respect to religion, and shall not establish a national religion.IMHO,this means that goverment cannot influince religion,but does not prevent religion influencing goverment.I don't think it is a bad thing for people to think there is a seperation of church and state.This basic misunderstanding has lead to the United States having the least religious violence of any country in the world.Keeping religion out of public schools has been the biggest factor.Since religious education for children is soley a parental responsibility,this in effect protects children from being influinced by other religions while attendind public school.I think the "National Pray Day" is a good thing as long as goverment does not make it manditory and does not imply favortism to any specific religion.


----------



## loki09789 (May 7, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> Paul, I think you explained that very well,with one exception(please don't take offense),The language of "separation of church and state" does not exist in the constitution.What it does say is, something to the effect of(I don't remember the exact wording-but this is close) Goverment shall make no laws in respect to religion, and shall not establish a national religion.IMHO,this means that goverment cannot influince religion,but does not prevent religion influencing goverment.I don't think it is a bad thing for people to think there is a seperation of church and state.This basic misunderstanding has lead to the United States having the least religious violence of any country in the world.Keeping religion out of public schools has been the biggest factor.Since religious education for children is soley a parental responsibility,this in effect protects children from being influinced by other religions while attendind public school.I think the "National Pray Day" is a good thing as long as goverment does not make it manditory and does not imply favortism to any specific religion.


Thanks for the tweek.  I was close though


----------



## MisterMike (May 7, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This National Prayer day is no different than National Secretaries day or any other "day" on the national calender. ...



Hey Hey Hey!!!! That's National Administrative Assistants Day to you bud!   :redcaptur 

(j/k)


----------



## loki09789 (May 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Hey Hey Hey!!!! That's National Administrative Assistants Day to you bud! :redcaptur
> 
> (j/k)


I'm not worried about politically correct titles when I am too busy harassing them and smoking illegally in my office building and drinking on the job..

They do get harder to chase around the desk when I drink.... but I care less when they get away


----------



## MisterMike (May 7, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I'm not worried about politically correct titles when I am too busy harassing them and smoking illegally in my office building and drinking on the job..
> 
> They do get harder to chase around the desk when I drink.... but I care less when they get away



  :rofl:   :rofl:   :rofl: 

Gosh, men are suchth pigs.

 :viking3:


----------



## Cobra (May 7, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Not to be nitpicky here, but am I the only one that thinks a national prayer day is kinda stupid and uncalled for?
> 
> I consider myself more religious then the majority, yet, a national prayer day seems kinda dumb.
> 
> ...



Well for once I actually agree with you. I didn't read the other posts, but I would like to say I agree. They shouldn't make a national prayer day. By doing so it only implies that there is only one day to pray, thus making prayer seem less important.

And about seperation of church and state. I think that there needs to be a little involvment with religion on the government otherwise the government will make fewer ethical laws causing immoral chaos. But religion shouldn't be a staple in the government, just keepin some of it's principles in it like in christiantiy.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 7, 2004)

You know what I find funny about this?

The number of people who scream "Its wrong to shove God in my face" but then think its ok to scream to everyone else about being Gay, Black, hating Bush, a woman, etc etc etc...

What they are really saying is:

"MY OPINION OF SOMTHING I WANT EVERYONE TO ACCEPT IS OK, BUT YOURS ISN'T"

Bah.  I'll give up my Right to stand on the corner and scream at you that you are going to hell when you FORCE them to take "Queer Eye" off TV.


----------



## Cruentus (May 7, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You know what I find funny about this?
> 
> The number of people who scream "Its wrong to shove God in my face" but then think its ok to scream to everyone else about being Gay, Black, hating Bush, a woman, etc etc etc...
> 
> ...



heh. The irony is interesting.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 8, 2004)

Yeah, I see your point. I'd forgotten all about "National Say A Gay Prayer to Satan Day," and "National Worship Black People Day."

I find it ironic that people have such little faith that they must bring in government to enforce their particular religious beliefs.

Oh well. I also see nobody bothers to actually read their Bible on these matters, and obey the injunctions about praying in private.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 8, 2004)

Umm...like I said. God says that when two or more gather in his name Jesus is in their midst. That means don't only pray in private. I mean why would we pray in church as an assembly if we are only to pray in private? God wants us to pray together and fellowship, not just be religious monks who live as austere hermits who are sworn to never marry. So, people have read their Bible on these matters, that's why it's National Prayer Day. Gather together and be or the "2 or more". There is Strength in numbers.

In Reagan's 1987 proclamation, he stated, "On our National Day of Prayer, then, we join together as people of many faiths to petition God to show us His mercy and His love, to heal our weariness and uphold our hope, that we might live ever mindful of His justice and thankful for His blessing."

And I agree with Technopunk. People say all that junk about us shoving God down their throats, yet those crappy people with the turtles on the beach shove it down our throats when each time more and more of the beach is sectioned off for the turtles. And the Gay Rights movement. So, I agree with Technopunk.

And then there is this lady in Colorado who wants to stop Prayer of all kinds and stop Churches and such. Wants it petitioned. Bah! The lady is fruity. I think that impedes on us, since she's willing to go along with abortion and Gay acts. She has no problem with them, yet she wants to have everything her way. Well, they can kill me before I stop talking to God.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 9, 2004)

So, first off, the Gospels are wrong, or at least completely contradictory, in insisting that the single best-known Protestant prayer should be done in private. Hm.

And second, SW, you don't distinguish between people who ask for the right to live their lives as they choose, without interference, and people who enlist the government and its police/regulatory power on the side of their version of God. Hm. 

Third, the complete illogic of that theocratic position won't have the slightest effect on anybody. Those of you who are sure that you and only you are right, and sure that you and  only you have a right to use the government to enforce their own beliefs on everybody, will continue to be sure about themselves. Congratulations. It's a view you share with the present government of Iran.

I'm not in the least surprised. Lots of  folks simply have no idea what it means to live in a democracy. What I don't get is why you're so insecure in your beliefs that you feel you need the government to promulgate them. 

Yes, I know, the gays and lesbians and whatevers are Polluting Our Precious Bodily Fluids. Ya know, it's funny--they aren't the guys who come to your  door while you're taking a shower and insist upon handling you pamphlets. They aren't the ones who insist on, "prayers," of one kind or another at all sorts of public functions, whether or not the audience shares their beliefs. They aren't the ones who try to pass laws establishing their beliefs and only theirs as public  policy, they aren't the ones who try to get teachers fired for teaching wacky stuff like evil-lution, they aren't the ones who demand tax dollars for schools with bans on interracial dating, and on and on and on. They aren't the ones who hit church Sundays, and then on Monday go out and push the economic system that keeps a big chunk of the world in poverty. And they aren't the ones who get likkered up on weekends, and drive around looking for "them," to bash. 

Oh, and they also aren't the ones who are smugly sure about who goes to heaven and who burns in hell for eternity, a really charming--and moral--Theory of Everything.

But hey, hang on to that moral certainty.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 9, 2004)

Sometimes it seems as if the people who *really * want the government out of our lives are the people on the left.  This isn't always the case, but man, this hypocrisy on the right has got to stop.  They have no problem with telling people how to live their lives and should find the kohones to admit it.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Yes, I know, the gays and lesbians and whatevers are Polluting Our Precious Bodily Fluids. Ya know, it's funny--they aren't the guys who come to your  door while you're taking a shower and insist upon handling you pamphlets. They aren't the ones who insist on, "prayers," of one kind or another at all sorts of public functions, whether or not the audience shares their beliefs. They aren't the ones who try to pass laws establishing their beliefs and only theirs as public  policy, they aren't the ones who try to get teachers fired for teaching wacky stuff like evil-lution, they aren't the ones who demand tax dollars for schools with bans on interracial dating, and on and on and on. They aren't the ones who hit church Sundays, and then on Monday go out and push the economic system that keeps a big chunk of the world in poverty. And they aren't the ones who get likkered up on weekends, and drive around looking for "them," to bash.



Man, you just DON'T want to open your eyes do you? DO you think for one minute no one would SCREAM at me for having a "Straight Pride Parade"?  I would put MONEY on the table YOU in fact would have a fit.

But its ok for Gays and Lesbians to walk down Halsted Street waving a giant Penis in the air.  If *I* did that I would go to jail for indecency.  

But that's not a Double Standard. Thats not them insisting on (Nope, sorry Robert, no matter how much you twist the facts to deny it) SPECIAL RIGHTS not EQUAL ones... 

You can see this issue with not just gays, but Womens groups, "Alternative Lifestyle" groups, racial groups, etc etc... They all demand EQUAL RIGHTS, with SPECIAL PRIVLIGES. 

I'm not aruging that this is "Wrong" I just want to know, why should the mainstream Religions be left out?

But by supporting those groups while attacking the Mainstream religious organizations, you are proving my point about the hypocrasy, Defending your beliefs that the Gays, women and racial groups have rights that should be denied to the religious groups who's beliefs you disagree with.  Thanks Robert.

You know the main difference between us?  I believe any of those groups should have the "right" to do as they please, regardless of wether or not I agree with it, so long as we ALL have those same "rights".  I only argue against them when they interfere with my "rights". 

You, on the other hand, as is evidenced by your post, think if you don't agree with their position, its wrong and shouldn't be done. 

Tsk Tsk.  And I thought you were the smart one, what with all that education oozing out your ears.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 9, 2004)

Nope, that's not the difference at all, and no amount of tsking will make it so.

The difference is that I don't demand that everybody else believe and worship the same way I do, and the difference is that I don't demand that the government push my side of things. I demand that the government stay out of issues like religion, reproductive rights, science education, etc., as much as it possibly can. 

And, I don't seem to need official sanction for my beliefs, nor do I need to wave the flag on my belief's side. 

But hey, it's not all that subtle a distinction. You think that groups of which you don't approve have no right to carry on peaceful parades. I think that right-wing religious nuts have no right to blow up clinics. You think that everybody should pray to your particular, chosen deity. I think that the government shouldn't be forcing everybody to pray to the god of a group of right-wing, Christian fundamentalists. (I notice it ain't the Episcopalians, the Catholics, the Unitarians, the etc. who are pushing this nonsense...it's the fundamentalists.) You think that employers, officials, teachers, etc., should have the right to make tit jokes to their captive audiences. I think that work, government, school, etc., should treat everybody as professional equals. You think that there are all these lesbian atheists or whatever running around loose, forcing kids to put on condoms and worship the Earth God, even though you never seem able to provide any examples. I think that when Pat Robertson actually gets on TV and announces that 9/11 was the fault of lesbians, atheists, liberals, the ACLU, he's being a creep. In other words, the difference is that I can document the gay-bashing, the attacks on women's clinics, the assaults on teachers, etc., and you can only offer, "Oh my GOODNESS, they had a Gay Pride parade in San Francisco again." 

And what're you worried about the penis in the parade for? Don't you guys HAVE "Hustler," "Maxim," and a host of others to parade?

Oh yes...another difference is that I don't support an economic system that is directly at odds with my religious and moral beliefs. But hey, JAM that camel through the eye of that there needle.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nope, that's not the difference at all, and no amount of tsking will make it so.
> 
> The difference is that I don't demand that everybody else believe and worship the same way I do, and the difference is that I don't demand that the government push my side of things. I demand that the government stay out of issues like religion, reproductive rights, science education, etc., as much as it possibly can.
> 
> ...



Huh?

Its nice that you rambled on like that... But where was the point?  It certainly didnt address what I said, it just used my comments to make commentary in other directions... 

I never said (Find me one post on this board and I will apologise) anyone should worship like me or be forced to do so... I said people who are going to scream that this (national prayer day) is wrong should stop screaming when other say things they believe in is wrong... to the best of my knowlage no one even said WHO you have to pray to on national prayer day. You seem to assume it's the "fundamentalist christian god"... Very open minded of you. 

I also never said anyone had the right to harrass anyone with "tit jokes"... the closest I came was i said that if it was going to be ok for ONE group to do somthing it should be ok for ALL groups to do so...

Uh... what's the Lesbian Aithiest Condom comment?  I don't think I EVER said anything remotely close to that, now you are just making things up to try an villify me.  Hell, I'd be the first one in line handing out condoms to kids and teaching them how to use them... I'm all for that program.  I don't dislike lesbians either... again, I said... If they have the right to do somthing EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHT...

I'm also unaware I have ever been involved in any Gay Bashing... Unless you count the time the Group of 4 Lesbians tried to start a fight with me for wearing a shirt that said "No one knows I am a lesbian"... But Id consider that "Straight Bashing" since they started it, and it was because I am straight.

The closest you have come to addressing anything I said was in reference to the parade, and I use that example to show you (Tho how you can show anything to a blind man is beyond me) that there is an "inequality" in their favor... And the issue with the penis in the parade vs Hustler magazine is simple...

If I blow up an image from hustler to poster size and walk down Halstead street in chicago, I go to jail.  They did not for inflating a giant penis and doing the same. 

But somehow your twisted little mind thinks this is fair?  yeah, ok.


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 9, 2004)

It's hard to beleive so many would actually be offended at a national day of prayer!This forum is the only place that I have heard it discussed.For those of you effended by itid anyone tell you it was manditory?Did anyone force you to pray?Big freakin deal that the goverment established this to suggest prayer!Who's rights is it violating?It does,however mean a great deal to those who do pray.It tells them that goverment acknowleges them,that's all.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 9, 2004)

Ah. I get it. 

First off, I am shocked that anyone on this forum would be so anit-American, so opposed to the Constitution, as to write, "Big freakin deal that the goverment established this to suggest prayer," given the chunk of the Consititution concerning the argument that, "Government shall make no law regarding the establishment," of religion. Yes, yes, let's just junk that, shall we? 

Second off, I sure appreciated the science-fictional premise of, "the time the Group of 4 Lesbians tried to start a fight with me for wearing a shirt that said "No one knows I am a lesbian"... But Id consider that "Straight Bashing" since they started it, and it was because I am straight." Yes, yes, yes, "I  landed on The Planet Where Women Rule, and They Made a Sex Slave of Me." READ IT IN "ARGOSY: MEN'S STORIES" Used a pipe, did they? Beat you to a pulp screaming, "heteros die," did they? Bored on Friday, they cruised around until they found an area where the straights hang out, jumped out of a car, and started belting you, did they? 

Hey, I've a question: how'd "they," know you  were, "straight?" And how'd you know they were lesbians? I mean, exactly? They have tattoos? Big hats? What was it?

As for blowing up sexual images, really, really big---y'awl looked at advertisements recently? 

Why do I assume that the folks behind National Prayer Day are fundemantalists? First, they aren't Muslims...can we agree on that? They aren't Buddhists, Jains, Ba'hai, Hindus? They aren't Catholics...or Episcopalians...it's like Pat Robertson and that sort. What, precisely, are the religious affiliations of the folks behind this stuff? C'mon...show me. It's the Oral Roberts University crowd, yes? 

Your real issue is with, a) class society, b) capitalism. As long as you blame gay people for these, you'll never understand what's going wrong, let alone fix anything. Still, I understand it's easier to get angry at silly parades in SF than it is to understand one's life.

Hey, here's a martial arts issue for you: as far as I can tell, nobody gay has EVER physically threatened me. What can we learn from this?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. I get it.
> 
> Second off, I sure appreciated the science-fictional premise of, "the time the Group of 4 Lesbians tried to start a fight with me for wearing a shirt that said "No one knows I am a lesbian"... But Id consider that "Straight Bashing" since they started it, and it was because I am straight." Yes, yes, yes, "I  landed on The Planet Where Women Rule, and They Made a Sex Slave of Me." READ IT IN "ARGOSY: MEN'S STORIES" Used a pipe, did they? Beat you to a pulp screaming, "heteros die," did they? Bored on Friday, they cruised around until they found an area where the straights hang out, jumped out of a car, and started belting you, did they?
> 
> Hey, I've a question: how'd "they," know you  were, "straight?" And how'd you know they were lesbians? I mean, exactly? They have tattoos? Big hats? What was it?




Well, lets see... so, because it hasnt happened to YOU, it couldnt possibly happen to anyone else?  I guess since you have never been killed, no one else ever has either by that logic... Death itself is a Science Fiction Topic is it?  

Weak argument.

But you are right, I cannot say with 100% Certainty they were lesbians... I made that assumption based on the fact I was at a Gay club downtown chicago, and based on the fact they were offended by my shirt, claiming that as a man I was a lesbian.  Maybe they were just really pissed off women. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for blowing up sexual images, really, really big---y'awl looked at advertisements recently?




Yeah, I see Billbords every day... show me ONE on the streets of chicago with exposed genitallia.  Certainly you see scantily clad men and women... 




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why do I assume that the folks behind National Prayer Day are fundemantalists?



Maybe I mis-read you, but I believe you called ME a fundamentalist... we have never even spoken about my religious beliefs, so Its pretty silly for you to say that about me. However, if I misread I apologise.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Your real issue is with, a) class society, b) capitalism. As long as you blame gay people for these, you'll never understand what's going wrong, let alone fix anything. Still, I understand it's easier to get angry at silly parades in SF than it is to understand one's life.



NO... once again, my statement either flew so far over your head Or you have a homosexual fixation... take your pick...

Let me use LITTLE words and speak slowly so you can get this:

I. DO. NOT. BLAME. GAYS. FOR. OUR. COUNTRYS. PROBLEMS. I said and I will say it again, and again, and again and again and again.... utill you finally hear the words coming out of my mouth and not somthing you imagine I am saying... 

MY ISSUE IS NOT WITH ANY PARTICULAR GROUP... MY ISSUE IS WITH PEOPLE (LIKE YOU, APPARENTLY)  WHO SCREAM "FORCING XXX TOPIC ON ME IS WRONG" OUT OF ONE SIDE OF THEIR MOUTH WHILE SCREAMING "NOT FORCING AMERICA TO HAVE ISSUE WITH YYY TOPIC THAT I AGREE WITH IS WRONG"

What we REALLY need to fix the problems with society are not a bunch of hypocritcal crusaders trying to force others on one topic or off another, but for everyone to live their lives... If you dont like <insert activity here> don't scream that EVERYONE should hate it, just dont take part in it! 

Newsflash pal, you cannot mandate anyones beliefs, regardless of whether they be on Religion, Racisim, Sexuality, Abortion, or any other topics.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, here's a martial arts issue for you: as far as I can tell, nobody gay has EVER physically threatened me. What can we learn from this?



Hey! Here's one for you... Iv'e never had a Republican Candidate walk up to me and tell a lie.  What can we learn from this?

get real.


----------



## MisterMike (May 10, 2004)

Here's some info on how it came about:

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0324_National_Day_of_Pray.html

"The National Prayer Committee was started in 1982 to coordinate and implement the commemorated day of prayer."

http://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/press/A0000046.html

"The National Day of Prayer tradition predates the founding of the United States when the Continental Congress issued a proclamation setting aside a day of prayer in 1775. In 1952, Congress established an annual day of prayer and, in 1988, that law was amended, designating the National Day of Prayer as the first Thursday in May."

Apparently we cannot commemorate anything anymore if it has to do with religion, bu it it's OK to put up "artistic" works like Piss Christ.

The toilet has flushed and we are now circling the drain.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 10, 2004)

Well, that was completely irrational.

First off, who among you folks has ever even seen, "Piss Christ," a lousy and really rather stupid work of art whose intent--a good Protestant intent, I might add--was to attack the commercialization and idolatry of Catholicism? How many of you guys has had one of these Parades we hear so much about  right up in your face? Ever had anybody, in school or out of it, come up and say, "Hey, I'm an atheist, and you have no right to your faith?" Had a gang of people pile out of a car, screaming, "Heteros must die!" and coming right at you, eh?

When, exactly, did this happen? To you? Personally? Thought not. You're letting the likes of Bill O'Reilley and Rush get you all fussed. It's funny--the economy's in the tank, we're locked up in a stupid war  which we're fighting stupidly. American soldiers have been caught, on camera, forcing helpless prisoners into simulated homosexual acts---and what fusses you guys is a) prayer in schools, b) gay pride parades, etc...

For about the six billionth time, not that you'll be paying any attention: the point is that the government, no matter who's in charge, has no business pushing prayer. 

And you've never had a Republican lie to you? Really? Dick Nixon ring a bell? "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES?" Iran/Contra, with the secretary of State getting off a plane in Iran with a Bible and a birthday cake, cutting a deal to sell missile and jet parts to a loonbox Islamic government, so they could illegally finance death squads in Central America? WMDs? And on and on and on...

And before you crank all up, sure Democrats have lied. 

But the biggest lie of all is the lie that prayer in public schools will straighten everything out. I just don't know if you swallow that lie, or if you simply want to use the government to make everybody pray your way.

Still waiting for a response to the question about the Gospels' injunction to pray in private. Still waiting for a definition of exactly who the folks are who are so insistent on this National Prayer Day silliness. Wait! I know...it's the Druids.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 10, 2004)

Well, originally, the country was founded by God(Jesus) Fearing men. The consititution was set by Christian Standards, but people seem to be offended by it. Yet, if you were in another country, you wouldn't have the freedom to choose so many things.

So, you don't want a national day of prayer? What about Gay day? That in itself is offensive to me. Yet, it still goes on. So many other days observed, and they offend me and many other Christians. So, why can't we have a system of checks and balances? So, we can't have what we want, yet gays and lesbians and homos can have what they want? 

Oh, now we show pity on Gays by putting stuff in schools for them in health class. Awww, now we pity the gays. Pathetic. I guess being gay really has weaker race written all over it. And what technopunk said about special priviledges for gay, LOL. And they want equal rights? Gays are put up on a pedistal and given turkish delights. Bah! Well, I think that the heterosexuals are now being discriminated in a sense, not openly, but to the fact that they ACTUALLY have to promote being gay?! hmmm. Interesting, very interesting.

I just think that if God intended us to be gay, he would have made male and female to be asexual and or atleast be able to reproduce with male-male, female-female instead of  having to do it all in a lab. Yes, I know heterosexuals can adopt, but for a number of reasons. Malfunction of sexual organs, seeing that there are so many children all ready in the world that need love, or just plan wanting to adopt and not have babys through 9 months. But Heterosexuals can make babies regardless, without laboratory equipment. Can Homosexuals? No! They cannot. 

What would happen if a whole band of  gay men(or lesbians, but just one sex) got lost in a jungle or got shipwrecked on an island nobody would think to look at? Could they create a culture there if there was just a male species? No! Considering they didn't have the lab equipment, nor the female parts or eggs. This is strictly talking men with male components and no female components, the way God made man. Or even if it was a whole band of normal females. 

See, my point is that the alternative lifestyle may be acceptable, but is it natural? Maybe in the warped mind of society, but not in the natural realm of things. Don't go into the animals, because that's a whole other story. 

Anyways, back to the national day of prayer. There is no problem with having it. I mean, So what if you think religious freaks go and pray publicly and are hypocrites in your eyes? What do you so not like about Christians other than what you seemly love to call use. Bigots? Hypocrites? 

Ya know, Man IS fallible. We all sin. We all make mistakes. Yes, there are Christians who go around and act and say they are perfect, but they just deny their sinful nature. Once we are saved, we are called saints, but we still sin. It's impossible for man not to sin. But we have forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross for US, the World. Sadly, many have so often missed the mark. I don't want to see anyone go to hell. It sucks, to say the least. 

People don't understand how easy it is to jump off that pathway to hell. They see the rocky path(the road to heaven) and think, "man, that looks tough, let's follow the yellow brick road(to the gates of hell). It's so shiny and pleasurable to look at. I'm sure it leads to the greatest place ever." I don't call the greatest place ever HELL. I call that the one place I never want to even see. Not even its gates. I'd take the steep, rocky, nearly impossible, almost vertical path to Heaven over a lifetime of heaven on earth and hell for eternity. Heaven can be on Earth, and in eternity, but it all depends on how you go about living your life. It's the Christian's duty to plant the seed throughout his/her entire life. 

:asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 10, 2004)

One question: If the Government has no right to push prayer in schools, who has the right to make it outlawed?


And go ahead and believe about the Gospels being so contradictory. Doesn't mean they aren't true. So many people say the Bible isn't true and yet, historians have looked at it for the past 2000 years for truth that cannot be disproved. For Historical evidence, for things such as the life of the Hittites, which there is no document of on earth other than the Bible. So many things you read in History have some way been pulled from the Bible and added to information to finish the Puzzle.

Even those who don't believe in the Bible have never been able to disprove it. I love that part in the Bible that some people have taken to heart. "There is no God". Bah. That was taken out of context. The whole verse read, "The fool hath said in his heart 'There is no God'."


----------



## MisterMike (May 10, 2004)

Hmm, so it is OK for gov't to make a policy based on specific races, but not recognize a day of non-specific religion.

Maybe we should put more check-boxes on mortgage applications for Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto....I'd say remove the boxes for White, Asian, African, ... I don't recall the governement being in the business of race in the Constitution either.

Yup, recognizing that day of prayer is really gonna hurt, while the Census people come around to count heads - oh and color - so they can decide where to put more tax money.

Good to see which one of these gets you all hot and bothered.

Government = racist = good
Government = tolerant of what I like = good
Government = tolerant of what I don't like = bad


----------



## loki09789 (May 10, 2004)

So much for the spirit of National Prayer Day in a democratic nation where you get to choose which way you want to go with this, but don't have to do anything with it if you want that instead.... 

It is not a day of obligation, only recognition. Such a day is only a demonstrative act of tolerance and a chance to possibly come together and learn more about each other - not to convert or bash - just respect.

I make a joke about being 'anti-politically correct' in with a satirical tone, and I get rep points taken (I have one face, you just haven't seen enough of it to know me) BUT I make a comment about the Constitutional position on religion and I get educated and informed about a subtlety of language that can have a huge impact on the reality of 'church and state' issues.... I guess it balances out in the long run.

I think, for those who are saying the day is a nice gesture/significant - "faith in works" might be the way to go - complaining isn't going to prove the point.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 10, 2004)

"Well, originally, the country was founded by God(Jesus) Fearing men. The consititution was set by Christian Standards, but people seem to be offended by it. Yet, if you were in another country, you wouldn't have the freedom to choose so many things.

So, you don't want a national day of prayer? What about Gay day? That in itself is offensive to me. Yet, it still goes on. So many other days observed, and they offend me and many other Christians. So, why can't we have a system of checks and balances? So, we can't have what we want, yet gays and lesbians and homos can have what they want? 

Oh, now we show pity on Gays by putting stuff in schools for them in health class. Awww, now we pity the gays. Pathetic. I guess being gay really has weaker race written all over it. And what technopunk said about special priviledges for gay, LOL. And they want equal rights? Gays are put up on a pedistal and given turkish delights. Bah! Well, I think that the heterosexuals are now being discriminated in a sense, not openly, but to the fact that they ACTUALLY have to promote being gay?! hmmm. Interesting, very interesting.

I just think that if God intended us to be gay, he would have made male and female to be asexual..."

Yep, that's pretty much the complete printout of the syndrome. I am being picked on by, "homos;" they are given all sorts of rights I don't have; this violates God's plan; it violates Natural Law because Adam and Steve can't reproduce; it violates This Great Country's Principles because Our Founding Fathers Were All God-Fearing Men. 

Again I ask: when was it, exactly, that Those Wicked, "homos," came to your house, attacked you on the street, cost you a job, demanded that you pray to their god? When, exactly? Never happened, did it? What are all these big "rights," y'all are so worried about? You're not upset because "they," have rights you don't--you're upset because, for religious reasons, you don't think that  anybody has the right to believe differently from you. You don't think, "they," should be allowed at all, do you? Come clean--you haven't any facts  to back up these silly claims, and you're really just objecting to gay people period, right?

I really haven't time to rehearse these arguments about the Founding Fathers like Jefferson (a deist), Franklin (a rakehell), Paine (an atheist) and others. Yes, some were Protestants. And some weren't--you need to go back and actually read a good book, so you'll know the material. 

By the way--not that it'll slow y'all down for a sec--the government doesn't have policies based solely on, "race," whatever the hell, "race," means. (There's only one race of human beings, kids. We originated in Africa. That's really the objection to evolution, isn't it? It means that--well--you know, "we're," also, "them.") The gov has policies--sometimes stupid ones--barring discrimination based on race, gender, etc. 

It's extremely convoluted logic to argue that barring discrimination is the same thing as discrimination.

Your problem, guys, is that white guys can't so easily get away with the crap they easily got away with when I was a kid. Your problem is that you've had to  allow other religions to have their say, too. Your problem is that "white folks," aren't always on top any more. Your problem is that you're confronted with the fact that it's mean-spirited stupidity to call people, "fags," and insult their beliefs. 

Hard times, indeed. But please keep going: always good to see the whole syndrome full-blown.


----------



## MisterMike (May 10, 2004)

Ahh..so they're checking my color with the census to make sure I have a diverse enough houshold. Thanx. Keep 'em coming.

Obviously discrimination is good if it keeps less white kids out of your classes huh? Otherwise it's bad.

Why do people reply with -phobia and -syndorme whenever people bring up what has already been thrown in front of them on TV, Radio, etc.

To me, if I don't want to look at two bearded guys tongue kissing on the next incarnation of Friends, that doesn't make me a -phobe of any sort.


----------



## Andi (May 10, 2004)

I was going to post in this thread a few days earlier, but I decided to wait to see how long it would take to get heated. Not long! hehe.

As a few people have already pointed out, the question is whether or not there's any point having a National Day of Prayer.  Simply put, I'd say no, I can't see much point in it myself. Do awareness campaigns like these make much of a difference? They get a mention on breakfast radio and then everybody forgets about it. (Except maybe the people that organised it.) Is the government spending shed loads of money on this project? I highly doubt it. Is it actively jamming prayer down peoples throats? Doesn't seem like it. Is it contradictory with the constitution? Well now, you guys are better educated than me on that subject.

I have to say though, I'm surprised at some of the comments here. I don't like to single people out, but Robert, as a casual observer it seemed like you were deliberately misreading Technopunk's posts. 

The 





> Iv'e never had a Republican Candidate walk up to me and tell a lie. What can we learn from this?


  quote was clearly (to me at least) tongue-in-cheek.

Also, he doesn't have a history of right-wing militant-christian evangelising on this board, so I'm confused why you seem so eager to put him in that category. You're clearly a smart guy, very well-read, and you bring a lot of insight to conversation here most of the time, but I find that you do seem to go off on one at the slightest provocation, often bringing up elaborate stereotypes that don't always correspond with what other people are talking about. I'm only saying this because I like to read the debates in this forum, and I know you have a lot to contribute, and that's great, but it's hard to digest your posts sometimes when they come across as, well, angry at nobody in particular.

So here's a question for you. You often talk about how hypocritical the conservative christians are with their faith in the one hand and their capitalist ideals in the other, but you don't often mention any other types of christians (apart from Catholics now and again). I understand you find this type of person frustrating, but they're not always representative of all christians, surely? From your posts, I might think there was no alternatives, and you've never met a decent person of "faith" in your life.

ShaolinWolf, I know you're young and a committed christian, but sweet mother of pearl, what's with all the gay-bashing? I know you disagree with their lifestyles, fair enough, that's up to you, but statements like:



> Awww, now we pity the gays. Pathetic. I guess being gay really has weaker race written all over it.


sound very hateful and do not sound at all like they're coming from somebody who has a personal relationship with the creator of love and compassion. Remember, you're meant to be God's ambassador, right? So be opinionated by all means, but there's no call for that kind of inflammatory tone. It's disappointing to see a brother behave like that.


OK well, I'm probably wasting my time getting involved here, but never mind, just wanted to chuck my tuppence in and call a couple of you on what you were saying. I'll pick on other people next time.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 10, 2004)

No, Mike, you're quite right--it makes you a guy with a remote control. Whyn't you simply use it? I know I do...to avoid, among other things, geeks like Pat Robertson.

And Andi, good points. The only reason to identify, "fundamentalists," is that I prefer to be accurate in names. It isn't Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Episcopaliaans, etc., who are pushing these silly Prayer days--it's fundementalist Christians, some of whom apparently think that the words, "religion," and, "Protestantism," are synonyms.

And as for T'punk...

"But by supporting those groups while attacking the Mainstream religious organizations, you are proving my point about the hypocrasy, Defending your beliefs that the Gays, women and racial groups have rights that should be denied to the religious groups who's beliefs you disagree with. Thanks Robert.

You know the main difference between us? I believe any of those groups should have the "right" to do as they please, regardless of wether or not I agree with it, so long as we ALL have those same "rights". I only argue against them when they interfere with my "rights". "

When, "gays, women and racial groups," start demanding that I pray to their god, passing idiot laws like the ones California has about swearing not to overthrow the Government and not being a Communist, and generally jumping out of cars and bashing people with a pipe for being the wrong color, gender or sexual preference, I'll complain about them. 

Till then--unless I missed the epidemic of lynching white guys?--nope. They don't seem to be the problem.

And by the way--these Prayer Days, screaming about gay rights, worry over parades, things--they're just distractions. The WASP businessmen who run this country are doing just fine, thank you--in part because the very peoplee they're sticking it to are obsessed with irrelevancies.


----------



## Cruentus (May 10, 2004)

I haven't read all the replies, but, holy crap.

As a Catholic-Christian, I really hope I didn't start a "christian bashers" vs. "Fundamentalists" arguement. All and all, there probably isn't anything wrong with a "national day of prayer" as a means to commemorate prayer, if that is all it does, and if there is a valid historical reason (in our U.S. history) for doing so. 

I guess I just get tired of the U.S. government allowing fundamentalist influences dictate policy. "Indecency" legislation is a good example. I don't like the stigma that we create for ourselves by presenting ourselves as an intolerant "White Anglo Saxton Protestant" (WASP) nation. If a national day of prayer dates back to early american fundamentalist Christians, then why is our country comemorating that, w/o comemorating other things involving other religions. Where is the "Diest Day" to commemorate the Diest influence on our founding fathers? Where is the "Catholic Day" commemorating when Maryland was founded by Catholics to avoid prosecution from the other protestant states? Where is the Muslim day commemorating when the first Muslims were welcomed into our nation (or, are we still waiting for that day to come)? Maybe I am wrong, but having a national day of prayer based on WASP history seems to negate other important parts of our history regarding other religions and ways of thought.

Solution? I don't know. Maybe if government led by big business wasn't trying to control what my morals and religious values should be, or what I should do with my life, how I should spend my money, or how I should think, etc. etc., then a national day of prayer as widely publicized as it was wouldn't have left a sour taste in my mouth.

I didn't mean to start a "Christian haters against christian" dispute. I only intended to discuss the issue of how involved do we REALLY want our government to be in our lives? Is a national day of prayer too much involvement? Is it part of a larger problem?

 :idunno:


----------



## Cryozombie (May 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And you've never had a Republican lie to you? Really? Dick Nixon ring a bell? "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES?" Iran/Contra, with the secretary of State getting off a plane in Iran with a Bible and a birthday cake, cutting a deal to sell missile and jet parts to a loonbox Islamic government, so they could illegally finance death squads in Central America? WMDs? And on and on and on...
> .



Hey man, I'm a little young to Bring Nixon up.

Actually, that was my point exactly...  I was saying JUST BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED TO ME PERSONALLY, (If you read my previous statement, I never said a Republican never lied to me, I said none ever WALKED UP TO ME AND LIED) doesnt mean it doesnt happen.  My point was, just because YOU personally have never been the subject of threats by Gays, doesnt mean they dont occur.  You forget, Gay people, you see, are People first and foremost, that means that there are Good ones, Bad ones, Timid ones, Violent ones, Law Abiding ones, Criminal ones... the whole gambit of human emotions run thru a person regardless of their sexual preference... 

If you think NO GAYS ever treid to PUSH their lifestyle in your face, I challenge you to listen to to morning talk radio on Q101 in chicago. There is often a Gay caller who calls in RANTING that all men are gay we just wont admit it, that women are sick and gross and should be banned from society because sex with women is unnatural... and everyone should be made to have sex with a same sex partner... etc etc... 

There. I have provided you a source you can verify, to prove it happens... quit saying I refuse to do so.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 10, 2004)

Robertson, I wasn't working on that gay issue, I was just pointing out that its a big todo and I don't care what they do with the gay issue, I don't care. I don't like the homo lifestyle, though you do. I don't think it appropriate, you do. So, unless I get face to face with you, there is no real reason to argue on here about it because all we do is state our "facts", nothing else other than swap insults, be it they are covered. But Gays do push their stuff in your face on the radio and on TV. Try and Get around it but its true.

And another thing Robertson, you love to take people's words and twist them around. You sounds like a politician. Man, I can't believe how much you sound like one. And I don't care about race or gender, just natural fact. Simulations and reality are two completely different things. homo and hetero. Pure science can show that. Of course, people like to warp science, as always. 


Anyways, yes, National Day of Prayer COULD be considered an observance day for nonchristians. But to me, it's a day when Christians from all over come together. So, to nonbelievers, what skin is it off your back that a certain day that means nothing to you has a name on it? I mean, do you actually celebrate George Washington's B-day?! LOL. My point. So, how does it bother you that there is a National Prayer day when it comes and goes like the wind for you? How does it affect you? Physically and Mentally. Don't tell me that you sit there all day thinking that a bunch of people are going to gather and pray at a designated area and Now your going to brude until they break up?!?!? That's ludicrous and you sound like a nutcase. Unless it impedes on your day, say stops you from getting work done, don't complain.

Amazing it's been 4 days since NPD ended...and we still argue over it's existence. Yet, it hasn't ended. It is everyday, though people don't recogniz it. We just have a day specified so that everyone can come together and know that there are others out there too and have the same goal.

:asian:


P.S. I know Prayer day does not automatically mean Christian. I think it is, because that's what I believe and know to be true, but I guess that's my OPINION. There are other people out there praying to who knows what. Air, and idols.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 10, 2004)

Oh, lemme see if I've got this straight, you should pardon the expression. One loonbox calls in to a radio station, and that demonstrates a giant, oppressive gay regime looking to take our Precious Bodily Fluids. Am I reading that right? That's your proof? Pat Robertson gets on nationwide TV and tells several million donors that 9/11 happened because of gays, liberals, the ACLU--no problem. 

One idiot gets on talkradio--which he does not host, mind you--and that's the evidence of conspiracy. I must be missing the big-time "gay shows," on all the major networks. Hey, was that what, "Friends," was really all about? 

And ya have nothin against gay people. You write sentences like, "I don't like the homo lifestyle, though you do," for some other reason. Hey, how precisely do you know I'm gay? And much more importantly--what, precisely, is "THE," "homo lifestyle?" And I'm curious--where exactly do you live, that, "homo," isn't offensive?

But hey, thanks for providing evidence.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 10, 2004)

Ugh.


----------



## Tgace (May 10, 2004)

Lighten up! Lets all calm down and have a moment of prayer.


----------



## Cruentus (May 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Lighten up! Lets all calm down and have a moment of prayer.



:angel:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 12, 2004)

Ugh!!! is right, Techno...Ugh.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 12, 2004)

All I have to say at this point is :feedtroll


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 12, 2004)

remove post


----------



## Gary Crawford (May 12, 2004)

I removed this and the previous post because I don't want anyone to get a negitive opinion of me.The post was a lash at rmcrobertson.I am sorry for originally posting it here for anyone who read it.I would like to address him privately,but what do ya know,he doesn't accept PM'S


----------



## loki09789 (May 12, 2004)

Gary,

good for you.  I have put Robertson on my ignore list because I have found his comments useless to me and in no way contributory to any conversations.  It really has made my experiences here better.


----------



## heretic888 (May 13, 2004)

So, if I spend National Prayer Day praying to get rid of National Prayer Day... does that make me a hypocrite?? Or just sane??

It amazes me the number of people that can't see this is an obvious violation of the separation of Church and State.

I wonder how all such individuals would feel if there was a National Meditation Day?? A National Atheism Day?? A National Voo-doo day?? A National 'Open Your Chakras' Day??

People should really try taking the viewpoint of the other every now and then. Might open you up a little...


----------



## someguy (May 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Lighten up! Lets all calm down and have a moment of prayer.


I agree.:uhyeah: 
OK seriously now does prayer day harm you?  Maybe it harms you and for that you should et up in arms.  If it doesn't then don't let it matter to you.  It may well harm you I don't know because I don't pay it any attention.  I'm apathetic to somethings and probably shouldn't be but I just don't seem to care. :uhyeah: 

oh and a couple of thoughts
1. "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."[jn 8:7
2.who are you to judge your neighbor?
[jas 4:12].
Take those how ever you want to.  The apply to alot for christians beacause I know there are some very vehemnt christains here and I know I can't change there minds on some issues but maybe the will do this.
All wrongdoing is sin...[Jn 5:16] surely judging others is wrong (see #2)
As to why I do this read Mt 18:15.  Of course to do this I have to judge peoples actions to some extent but eh *walks away humming some random tune.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 14, 2004)

I'm going to pray for a future without a need for things like prayer days.


----------



## don bohrer (May 14, 2004)

Bill of Rights 
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Don


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 15, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> oh and a couple of thoughts
> 1. "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."[jn 8:7
> 2.who are you to judge your neighbor?
> [jas 4:12].
> ...


Well, not to be nit picky, but Jas? Mt? Jn?

It's usually written James, Matt., and John

Just a side note


----------



## Cryozombie (May 15, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, if I spend National Prayer Day praying to get rid of National Prayer Day... does that make me a hypocrite?? Or just sane??
> 
> It amazes me the number of people that can't see this is an obvious violation of the separation of Church and State.
> 
> ...



Actually... I dont see whats wrong with any of those... although I would think many of them would be covered by a "National Prayer Day"... Voodoo Mumou's for example pray as part of their ritualsm as do Wiccans, Satanists, etc...

I don't think it ever stated it was National "Pray to the Fundamentalist Christain Gods" day... 

And there are National days of recognition to a lot of individual groups... which nobody ever beefs about... why is one day of recognition for "setting aside time for prayer" any different?  I mean, Government offices are closed on Martin Luther King day, but I am not African-american, so should I fight to have it removed as a recognized "holiday" because it is too specific and doesnt "apply" to my "group?"  Isn't that a bit silly?

And, as best as I can tell, separation of Church and State is a myth... the only thing I have seen that comes close to being that is the passge posted above that I read to say the government cannot tell you how to worship.


----------



## someguy (May 16, 2004)

To some extent there is seperation of church and state but to some extent there isn't nor can there be.
Lets take a religion that practices  sacraficing a animal or human.  This would offend another person outsidee of that religion.  Now then some one has to win whn the government gets involved right.  So the government will back one of the sides.  Which side wins?  Probably the one oopposed to sacraficing the animal.  Why? Because there religion is differnt than the norm.  
Our laws are also based on religion to a large extene.  Bigomy is banned.
I don't have time to go into either right now so I'll try to clarify this later if you guys want.
Peace :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 16, 2004)

Just FYI, Christianity has a tradition of animal (see the Old Testament) and human ("for God so loved the world that he gave...") sacrifice. Moreover, Chirstians who take communion in any of its forms are engaged in an act of quasi-literal (if you're Catholic) or symbolic (if you're Protestant) cannibalism. And then too, any Christian who accepts the sacrament of baptism is engaged in a magical rite in which one's sins are washed away by water, with the aid of a shaman who intervenes with God and has a special power to make the rite efficacious.

It's largely a question of what we're used to. "Other," religions (and Christianity's entaglement with "other," religions is a whole 'nother story) appear heathen, for the same reason that Homer Simpson laughs at the news from abroad: "They're funny. They wear different clothes than us."

As for the question of why the "godless," among us find this National Prayer Day crap kinda annoying, well: a) it is disingenuous to claim that this does not mean Christian prayer; b) the people pushing this stuff never seem to be anybody else BUT fundamentalist Christians (notice that, say, the Catholic bishops and the national Council  of Churches never seem to support this stuff any more); c) it's busybodyism, with a group of people who just cannot sleep at nights for fear somebody hasn't gotten The Word often enough wasting the time, energy and money of the rest of us, as though we weren't old  enough to figure things out  for themselves; d) it's largely a political issue anyway (like all this nonsense about the Pledge), pushed so right-wingers can turn to the rest of us any say, "See! We KNEW you were godless barbarians who don't deserve to live!!" e) it belongs to a distressing history of religious bigotry in this country; f) it should be none of the government's business to so much as hint to anybody who they should be praying to, or how, or when.

And by the way, kids, there are such things as Christians whose doctrine is that saying the name of God aloud, praying in public, and followwing government commands to pray, is deeply offensive.

Now let's all go read Robert A. Heinlein, "Revolt in 2100."


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just FYI, Christianity has a tradition of animal (see the Old Testament) and human ("for God so loved the world that he gave...") sacrifice. Moreover, Chirstians who take communion in any of its forms are engaged in an act of quasi-literal (if you're Catholic) or symbolic (if you're Protestant) cannibalism. And then too, any Christian who accepts the sacrament of baptism is engaged in a magical rite in which one's sins are washed away by water, with the aid of a shaman who intervenes with God and has a special power to make the rite efficacious.
> 
> It's largely a question of what we're used to. "Other," religions (and Christianity's entaglement with "other," religions is a whole 'nother story) appear heathen, for the same reason that Homer Simpson laughs at the news from abroad: "They're funny. They wear different clothes than us."
> 
> ...


Ok that was babble if I ever heard it...LOL. HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! Sorry, I just had to laugh at so many holes. Wow, do you ever miss alot. Maybe your looking at all this religion thing with the viewpoint of hatred. Your only looking at it from the outside and thus misinterpreting things BIG TIME.

First off, you are WRONG on the baptism thing and the communion thing. Baptism does only symbolize that your sins are washed away. It actually symbolizes that you publicly profess to put away your own sinful self, "washing" it away. It does not mean to wash your sins away. Only God can wash your sins away, forgiving them. And where are you getting your information? I say this because there is no such thing as a Shaman in Christian religion, just a Pastor who performs the act of Baptism. And there is no Magic to Baptism, just a public confession and symbolism of your Faith in Christ Jesus.

Christianity does not have to do with the sacrifice of animals or Humans. First off, the believers of the Old Testament sacrificed animals to God as a way of repentance, only through the blood. They were not called Christiansl; Christ was not around them, thus they were Jews. The term Christian only came up in the New Testament books. 

Christ was the Final Sacrifice for our sins, the Ultimate Atonement. Christians never sacrificed human beings. That is called murder and also God would have us sacrifice a human who could possibly turn to Him and become a Christian. Christian tradition has never involved blood sacrifices. The Jews killed Christ, not the Christians. Yes, there is a big difference there, though you obviously think otherwise. It was a one time Human sacrifice, but God sent his son for us to die for our sins and thus open a gateway to Heaven for Gentiles and Jews alike. No longer was there need for blood sacrifices, though the Jews kind of missed the whole Messiah coming. 

The Communion comment was totally off base. Protestant communion is not considered symbolic Cannibalism. Christ said "Do this in rememberance of me," so I don't think a God who is Loving would tell us to use symbolic Cannibalism in Church. I mean that might be a shot in the dark, but cannibalism is a bit, well, maybe this is another shot in the dark, a bit different than love. I mean, I'm probably totally wrong that cannibalism is love and I just don't understand the whole eating people thing. I guess you kill and eat humans to show love? Hmmm, maybe I'm just so wrong. BAH! 

Anyways, You make no sense. Your ideas for National Prayer day are messed up. You still have not provided a valid excuse for why NPD is a thing that bothers you and could make you cringe when it rolls around. The only thing that can apply there are political issues, those which you stated. We all have political issues, so get over them!!!! Remember, Church and State? 

Your pointless banter is just like a one hundred fleas trying to ram a brick wall down. SQUASH! 
Touche!:jedi1: 


:asian:


P.S. When did the Government say that NPD was a Christian day?! I think you have totally missed every post in this thread other than your own! How can you argue your point when you haven't read anyone else's other than your own?


----------



## heretic888 (May 16, 2004)

Robert and me ain't exactly the bestest of buddies, but I'm gonna have to go with him on this one...



> Maybe your looking at all this religion thing with the viewpoint of hatred. Your only looking at it from the outside and thus misinterpreting things BIG TIME.



That's funny. Y'see, I'm a raised Baptist and went to church weekly for the better part of 10+ years --- thus, I have what could be construed as an "insider's view" on the isssue.

And, as such, I don't see at all how he misinterpreted anything in his above post. Nor do I see any real "hatred".



> Baptism does only symbolize that your sins are washed away. It actually symbolizes that you publicly profess to put away your own sinful self, "washing" it away. It does not mean to wash your sins away. Only God can wash your sins away, forgiving them.



I really hate to break this to you, but you're splitting hairs here.

Whether the metanoia is inherent to the ritual itself, or whether the ritual petitions Yahveh to invoke the metanoia is of little consequence to the point Robert was trying to make. Namely, that the Christological baptism is a concealed carry-over from shamanistic times.



> I say this because there is no such thing as a Shaman in Christian religion, just a Pastor who performs the act of Baptism.



Splitting hairs once again. 

You feel justified in dilineating the role of the Shaman in traditional magical-animistic religions and the role of the Pastor in modern Christianity (as it is typically practiced) for absolutely _no other reason_ that Christianity happens to be the religion you profess faith in.

Look at it this way, if we were discussing the role of a high priest or deacon in a non-Christian religion juxtaposed to that of the traditional shaman, I sincerely doubt you would be putting forward these arguments. I could point to Mithraism as a very concrete example of this.

The only real logic here is "my religion can't have them thar' Shamens in it because my religion is special and unique and right and that Shamenysm is evil and heathen". Of course, anyone with even a cursory study of Comparative Religion would tear such claims to shreds.



> And there is no Magic to Baptism, just a public confession and symbolism of your Faith in Christ Jesus.



Splitting hairs again.

It doesn't seem to be 'magic' to _you_ because it happens to be the religion that _you_ believe in. In terms of content and claims (not going into the truthfulness of the rituals themselves), there is virtually no difference between the priest and the shaman.



> Christianity does not have to do with the sacrifice of animals or Humans.



Funny, I would consider the entire context of Jesus Christ being offered up as an atonement for the sins of the world as pretty damn 'sacrificial' in content. 

Human sacrifice, in symbolism if nothing else.



> The term Christian only came up in the New Testament books.



That's actually not true. The term 'Christian' predates any recorded New Testamental books by at leas several decades --- and it didn't always have to do with Jesus (the Simonians were the first to claim the title).



> Christ was the Final Sacrifice for our sins, the Ultimate Atonement. Christians never sacrificed human beings.



What you just described sure sounds like human sacrifice to me.



> Christian tradition has never involved blood sacrifices.



That's not true at all. Many sects of early Christians sacrificed lambs all the time (as in the "Lamb of God"), and it is figured pre-eminently an almost all early Christological art (the sacrificed Christ not actually being shown in art until the 4th century).



> The Jews killed Christ, not the Christians.



I think we're all familiar with the anti-Semitism of historical Christianity, no need to go into it here.



> It was a one time Human sacrifice, but God sent his son for us to die for our sins and thus open a gateway to Heaven for Gentiles and Jews alike. No longer was there need for blood sacrifices, though the Jews kind of missed the whole Messiah coming.



Actually, if you follow what the Bible says, the true Christian disciple is supposed to witness the Crucifixion (i.e, Sacrifice) of Jesus Christ on a regular basis, and, furthermore, is himself expected to be Crucified with Him (At-One-Ment, as they call it) --- so that he/she may then experience the Resurrection with Him as well. Traditionally, this was re-enacted annually in mystery plays/dramas.

Hey, but wait a minute, experience death of the mortal self so as to be Resurrected in harmonious Oneness with the God-figure itself?! Gee, that doesn't sound an awful lot like that "heathen" Buddhism/Hinduism, does it?? Nahhhhhhh.....  



> The Communion comment was totally off base. Protestant communion is not considered symbolic Cannibalism. Christ said "Do this in rememberance of me," so I don't think a God who is Loving would tell us to use symbolic Cannibalism in Church. I mean that might be a shot in the dark, but cannibalism is a bit, well, maybe this is another shot in the dark, a bit different than love. I mean, I'm probably totally wrong that cannibalism is love and I just don't understand the whole eating people thing. I guess you kill and eat humans to show love? Hmmm, maybe I'm just so wrong. BAH!



Actually, you are just so wrong.

"He who drinketh my blood and eateth my flesh shall partake in Eternal Life." The wine, whether literally or symbolically, equals the Blood of Christ, just as the Bread/Wafer equals his Flesh. You don't get much more cannibalistic than that.

Pretty typical Mystery School stuff, really --- most of which is just carry-overs from the old 'Great Goddess' religions of sacrificial ritual (Isis, anyone?).



> Anyways, You make no sense. Your ideas for National Prayer day are messed up. You still have not provided a valid excuse for why NPD is a thing that bothers you and could make you cringe when it rolls around.



Maybe because its pushing a religious belief or faith of _some_ kind (it doesn't matter the particular type, really) on individuals that don't feel they should put up with it. I doubt you'll find many atheists sitting around praying at night.

------------

Really, looking above, the major logic in the above arguments seems to mostly be exceedingly ethnocentric in nature. Christianity doesn't have shamanism because its _my_ religion. Christianity doesn't have sacrificial rites because its _my_ religion. Christianity doesn't have cannibalism because its _my_ religion.

Let's ignore the fact that Christianity is almost identical in content, if not actual substance, to many of those 'shamanistic', 'sacrificial', and 'cannibalistic' religions of the 'heathens' and 'pagans'. Let's ignore the fact that these same false argument would _never_ be pushed for any religion _other_ than Christianity --- even if it carbon-copied it to a T.

Because, hey, after all --- its _my_ religion, so its gotta be infallible, right??   

I reference my previous post in which I admonished taking the viewpoint of others every now and then, it will really help in opening oneself up.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 16, 2004)

'Cept for the part where the Heretic says that we are not good friends (never met him; don't know), he's dead right, far as I'm concerned.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

Heretic, I got a question for ya since you think you know so much...Are you a Born again Christian or did you just go to church? I mean I know so many people are say that and they just went to church. You obviously do not understand the Bible, otherwise you would not have made such naive statements. You basically stated what the Bible says without the knowledge of understanding. 


Baptism does not save you, only a confession of your faith and a sybolism. I guess you kind of don't get that. Obviously. You can ask any TRUE Christian if there is magic, literally, in Baptism. Not exactly. There is a great feeling that you go Baptised, and you know you did it for Christ. Also so many other feelings, but I don't think you understand. If you got baptized, you probably thought "Well, I got dunked and that's all it was." 

And If you are a Born again Christian, that was so naive. Maybe not to you or unbelievers, but in truth it is to the eyes of a believer(Christian). I know what your going to say. And I laugh until I read it. Then I'll probably laugh more. LOL.

And, Yes, I know the term Christian was only in the New Testament not being true. I was saying that the TIME of the New Testament was when the term Christian turned up. After Christ came was when. Until then, everyone was just called Jew or Gentile. Excuse me for not explaining myself further. I was making a point about Jews and Christians and the change of name and heart and distinction.

Reading between the lines helps. 

:asian:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> The Jews killed Christ, not the Christians.



Actually, the Romans killed him.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Yes, there is a big difference there, though you obviously think otherwise. It was a one time Human sacrifice, but God sent his son for us to die for our sins and thus open a gateway to Heaven for Gentiles and Jews alike. No longer was there need for blood sacrifices, though the Jews kind of missed the whole Messiah coming.



We did not. We have a strict definition of who the Messiah will be and what he will accomplish. Jesus does not meet any of them.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

Actually, the Jews did. Yes, the romans did ithe dirty work, but the Jews wanted him dead and took part in the enacting Christ's Death. Jews deny it. The Jews were God's Chosen people and When God Sent his only son to die, He was received like every prophet that had come in the Old Testament. Amazing how the Jews say they believe in God, yet they wanted nothing to do with the Prophets God sent nor Christ, the Son of the Living God?

What Qualifications of the Messiah did Christ miss?


----------



## michaeledward (May 17, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> You can ask any TRUE Christian if there is magic, literally, in Baptism. Not exactly.


So, what you are telling me, is that Pope John Paul II would say that Baptism is not really a sacrament, an entry into the body of Christ, but rather just a silly tradition?

Man, I love that.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> 'Cept for the part where the Heretic says that we are not good friends (never met him; don't know), he's dead right, far as I'm concerned.



Well, truth be told, I was being somewhat facetious at that part.   



> Heretic, I got a question for ya since you think you know so much...Are you a Born again Christian or did you just go to church?



At the time, I _believed_ I was a "born-again Christian" as you put it --- just as much as any of the would-be evangelists parading around the world now do. And that's what it _really_ comes down to, y'know --- belief (or, as some would put it, "true belief").

That's why all those Churches have such an incessant obsession with that thing called "faith". To them, that's the bottom line.



> I mean I know so many people are say that and they just went to church.



I fail to see how one's degree of conviction is relevant here.



> You obviously do not understand the Bible, otherwise you would not have made such naive statements. You basically stated what the Bible says without the knowledge of understanding.



Yeah, silly me for putting the claims of the Bible in their proper historical, psychological, and cultural context and not just blindly accepting what the Chruches spoon-feed me. Silly, silly me.   

Silly me for actually knowing _what_ 'shamanism' is in the first place, and having studied the rather perennial nature of baptismal rites (you still don't _actually_ think that kinda stuff started with John the Baptist, do you??). Silly me for actually knowing about the cannibalistic undertones of, not just Christianity, but all Hellenistic Mystery Cults --- with their obvious carry-overs from old paganistic 'Mother Goddess' religions (the artistic parallels between Queen Isis and the 'Black Madonna' is no coincidence, young bucky). Silly me for having an actual cross-cultural understanding of religious experience, and realizing just how universal and pervasive ALL religious themes and motifs really are.

Silly, silly me for having my silly 'ol education. I suppose, next time, I should just gaggle what Mr. Pastor spoon-feeds me. Maybe then I won't be so silly.



> Baptism does not save you, only a confession of your faith and a sybolism. I guess you kind of don't get that. Obviously.



Still splitting hairs, I see.

Try asking an outsider the qualitative difference of having the rite itself conveying metanoia, or whether it is just symbolic of one's attempt to receive the metanoia from Yahveh. See if he gives you any other reply but a raised eyebrow at your attempt to draw such distinctions.

And, in any event, it still reaks of shamanism.

Y'know, there's a reason in anthropology that the field-scholar attempt to have _both_ an inside _and_ outside understanding of a particular culture of practice. Namely, because a fish doesn't realize its wet.



> You can ask any TRUE Christian if there is magic, literally, in Baptism. Not exactly.



I doubt you even know what 'magic' means. It has a very specific definition in anthropology and comparitive religion (as juxtaposed to sorcery, witchcraft, and so on).

Also, who defines what a _true_ Christian is, in the first place?? The first people to use the title 'Christian' were Simonian Gnostics in the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.E., and they didn't figure Jesus into their religion at all.



> There is a great feeling that you go Baptised, and you know you did it for Christ. Also so many other feelings, but I don't think you understand. If you got baptized, you probably thought "Well, I got dunked and that's all it was."



Actually, no, but thanks for trying to put words into my mouth in a vain attempt to defend your beliefs.

_At the time_, I believed I had experienced precisely all those things --- I remember the feeling of emotional relief, the notion that I was now 'clean', and how I had promised myself to try and 'sin' as little as possible in the future to keep my now-clean slate continually 'clean'. I believed all of that, as well as believing that my Holy Father was looking out for me from above, and how truly blessed I was. This was not intellectualizing on my part, I truly and sincerely and emotionally _believed_ all of that.

And then, I grew up. I look upon all that as so much poppycock from my youth --- which it was. I am very grateful for my upbringing and the sense of value and discipline it instilled (which is why I don't perceive Christianity or exoteric religion on the whole as being 'bad'), but I disengaged from the mythicism when my mind was ready (not that I'm an atheist, mind you).



> And If you are a Born again Christian, that was so naive. Maybe not to you or unbelievers, but in truth it is to the eyes of a believer(Christian). I know what your going to say. And I laugh until I read it. Then I'll probably laugh more. LOL.



Thank you for that lovely bought of logical incoherence. I'm still trying to piece together exactly what you were trying to say.

I think what the gist of the above quotation was is "A true born-again Christian wouldn't believe that because I say so". Yes, air-tight argument there.   

I still haven't seen any counterevidence, or even any logical proofs, to attempt to dispell the claims Robert and I have made. Nor do I expect to see any --- just more vague claims of naivette and how nobody but you and your ilk are "true" Christians. I'm sure Sharp Phil wrote something about that kind of arguing....



> And, Yes, I know the term Christian was only in the New Testament not being true. I was saying that the TIME of the New Testament was when the term Christian turned up. After Christ came was when. Until then, everyone was just called Jew or Gentile. Excuse me for not explaining myself further. I was making a point about Jews and Christians and the change of name and heart and distinction.



Ummmm.... sorry, but wrong.

The Simonian sect of Gnosticism referred to themselves as 'Christians', and their cult predated the supposed coming of Jesus by at least 100 years. Nice try, but no dice.

See what good a study of comparitive religion can do!! 



> Reading between the lines helps.



This coming from the guy claiming that the Bible is _literally_ and _historically_ true?? Uhhh... yeah, right.



> Actually, the Romans killed him.



I dunno... its pretty hard to kill a myth. Unless you live in an Orwellian world, that is.



> We did not. We have a strict definition of who the Messiah will be and what he will accomplish. Jesus does not meet any of them.



Sorry, shaolin, but the man's right. One of the very interesting things about the Pauline texts, when they first arose (probably in the hands of Marcion), was the decidedly _Hellenistic_ and _Greek_ slant they gave on the 'Khristos'. The Jewish conception of Messiah at the time was decidedly different than the later Christian conception of a supernatural Savior God (very Mithraic/Dionysian, methinks).

I mean, honestly, that's what Christianity itself was --- it was a 'Jewish' attempt at a Hellenistic Mystery School. It has all the standard Mystery elements: a Holy Meal (Eucharist) in which the initiate becomes one with the God Man by consuming him, symbolic Death and Resurrection of the initiate with the God Man, the Goddess figure as the dual Mother and Bride of the God Man (symbolized in the New Testament with the two 'Marys'), a baptismal rite of metanoia (repentance), heavy emphasis on agrarian symbolism like vines, seeds, bread, and plants in general, and the strong moral emphasis on a 'Golden Rule' (ubiquitous among the Hellenistic philosophers, going as far back as Pythagoras).

All that was put within a vague Jewish cultural backdrop.



> Actually, the Jews did. Yes, the romans did ithe dirty work, but the Jews wanted him dead and took part in the enacting Christ's Death.



Prove it. Cite a historical reference from the time that claims this is so.



> What Qualifications of the Messiah did Christ miss?



I don't think what you're grasping here, shaolin, is that the Jewish conception of Messiah and the Christian/Hellenistic conception of Christ are fudnamentally different ideas and beliefs.



> So, what you are telling me, is that Pope John Paul II would say that Baptism is not really a sacrament, an entry into the body of Christ, but rather just a silly tradition?



You're more likely to hear a brief anti-Catholic rant on how the Vatican is corrupt and evil, and how Catholicism preaches paganistic ideas like the Trinity and Saint-worship and all that crud --- although, I fail to see how the idea of a 'virgin birth' and 'eating the flesh and blood of the god to achieve Eternal Life' and 'death and resurrection of the god on the third day' aren't Pagan ideas in themselves.

Oh well. Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 17, 2004)

Not the least sign that Christianity has its--let's just say, "elements"-- is that so many of its believers have a need to rant about their Only True Faith, and immediately couple this to ranting about, "the Jews." 

Charming. Shameful, but charming.


----------



## someguy (May 17, 2004)

I think we are getting to the point of splitting splits in hairs that have been split before.  I guess its kind of intresting though.  All this because of me.  Welll have fun I'll le y'all fight for abit longer then try to remember what the original topic of this was...At least this is intresting I guess.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Actually, the Jews did. Yes, the romans did ithe dirty work, but the Jews wanted him dead and took part in the enacting Christ's Death. Jews deny it. The Jews were God's Chosen people and When God Sent his only son to die, He was received like every prophet that had come in the Old Testament. Amazing how the Jews say they believe in God, yet they wanted nothing to do with the Prophets God sent nor Christ, the Son of the Living God?



Jews couldn't have cared less. The High Priest at the time was a Roman puppet. There are so many blatant violations of Jewish law in the crucifiction story that it's not even funny. 




			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> What Qualifications of the Messiah did Christ miss?




Let's see, of the top of my head...

A MAN of David's line - that's thru the father.
Will unify the Jewish kingdoms
Will bring world peace

What else do you want.


----------



## someguy (May 17, 2004)

Just for the fun of it revelations has yet to come.  As such Jesus is supposed to come back.
He was sort of a an of Davids line. I'm not up on my biblical stuff enough to go through wiht that thought I'm sure some one else will.  By the way I said sort of.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Just for the fun of it revelations has yet to come.  As such Jesus is supposed to come back.
> He was sort of a an of Davids line. I'm not up on my biblical stuff enough to go through wiht that thought I'm sure some one else will.  By the way I said sort of.



The Jewish Messiah is not 'sort of of David's line'
He is not the 'son of God'
He'll do the job right the first time.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> Just for the fun of it revelations has yet to come. As such Jesus is supposed to come back.



Technically speaking, the Revelation of John is a Christian revision of a 1st century Jewish apocalypse (meaning, they added 'Jesus' and 'Christ' in a few select places to make it _appear_ as a Christian text). Most of the stuff in there is in reference to the Roman authorities of the time.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

Yes, I'll say it. Call me a fool, an idiot, whatever you want. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS 100% ACCURATE AND TRUE. And, I'm not a Baptist. I'm a Christian. Baptist is only a denomination. Just like Methodist. I just like Baptist because it's a great, sound doctrine. No I do not go to one of those baptist, hell fire and brimstone Churches. Nor is it Fundamentalist. There are Churchs for that, but I don't really care for the screaming. 


I believe that the only way to Heaven is through a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism won't save you. Church of Christ believes that. And just to let you know, I know your thinking it, I'm not some careless, unknowledgable person. I've done my research. I don't get "spoon-fed" at Church. I believe what I'm taught at Church. But I also do PLENTY of independent studies. I imagine you think the stuff I read is a bunch of hooey, but go ahead, it's doesn't affect me. Heck, you think the Bible is hooey. I mean, you just said it's not accurately and historically correct. 

God wrote the Bible as a Love letter to us.(yes, I believe he wrote it. You think otherwise, we know that. So don't say what everyone else says. It's infallible. That's that. I believe it. You don't. So don't waste part of your post saying all that. Some of us believe it, some don't.) To teach us. Historians have found a TON of things from the Bible that they could not find in any other history log/book/tablet/etc. And when were they able to disprove the Bible. It's all speculation. the book has been finished for 2000(ok, maybe off by a few hundred) years; even the Old Testament is infallible. They can't find anything infallible. We've even found talk of the Terrorist attack back in 9/11. I'll have to find it again, but there is so much foretelling of the future, though we don't understand it all because it's from God. How can we understand everything God understands. We can't, otherwise we'd be God.

I guess We don't have much to talk about here, seeing as we are merely tearing each other's posts apart. I've done this bout several times before, on here, out there, and everywhere. It all ends the same. On here, we just argue and junk and it never does anything other than change the topic of the thread. It's really a one-sided arguement for each of us. We never see the other's point of view.

On another note, Faith is one of the only things that does matter. You can go to church all you want, sing praises til you are hoarse, read the Bible til you go blind, and even preach til everyone in your church is saved. You can even get baptized a billion times. I've see it all before. But the one thing that will keep you from Christ is not having Faith. You need to accept Christ as Personal Lord and savior and believe he died and rose for you. Saying your a sinner(I know your going to say sarcastically along the lines of, "Thank you for telling me I'm a sinner. Blah blah blah" I didn't point you out, just stated what I was stating) and asking for forgiveness. 

And the Jews taking part in Killing Jesus, That's what they'd like you to think. It's just a hush hush thing that has been denied over the past 2000 years. But I can't give you anything more than you've read.

What do you say of the Complete Jews? The term has been coined for the Jews that have fully understood Christ's Love and have turned to the Bible for answers. What is your take on that, CanuckMA?

Also, Christ was of the Line of David, look in Matthew 1:1-17. As to the other stuff, He will come back and bring world peace to everyone. Then everyone will know he is Lord. It'll be a sad time when those who are not saved see him and it's too late. They will plead and plead, but He will cast them into the Lake of fire because they CHOSE not to know him and rather follow their own whims. I know I'll get plenty of backlash for these last few comments, heck the whole post, but God doesn't want anyone to Perish, yet the majority will. 

:asian:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Yes, I'll say it. Call me a fool, an idiot, whatever you want. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS 100% ACCURATE AND TRUE.
> even the Old Testament is infallible.



Be about time you start following the 613 mitzvot then 



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> And the Jews taking part in Killing Jesus, That's what they'd like you to think. It's just a hush hush thing that has been denied over the past 2000 years. But I can't give you anything more than you've read.



Yeah, yeah. And we own all the banks, control the world. You are one sick, deluded puppy. 



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> What do you say of the Complete Jews? The term has been coined for the Jews that have fully understood Christ's Love and have turned to the Bible for answers. What is your take on that, CanuckMA?



The term has been coined by organizations like Jews For Jesus. All are Xtian orgs trying to convert Jews.  Jews care about them about as much as we care about gnats. They are annoying, but insignificant.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Also, Christ was of the Line of David, look in Matthew 1:1-17.
> :asian:



If Mary was a virgin, anf lineage if from the father, he can't be of the line of David.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

I don't believe the control the world and banks thing. Put words in my mouth, why don'cha! Jews are not nazi terrorists. I know that. Don't think I'm that naive. Amazing you put words in my mouth and then call me a sick deluded puppy for what you said. LOL...ROFL!!!! :rofl: 

:asian:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

And of course you are the only one in possession of documented proof that Jews wanted to and inded did killed Jesus. And that Jews wanted Xtians exterminated....


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

Hmmmm, ask other Christians. I'm not the only one with the "proof" a you call it. It's just plain fact.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> Yes, I'll say it. Call me a fool, an idiot, whatever you want. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS 100% ACCURATE AND TRUE.



Good for you.

You stick with your belief and faith, and I'll stick with my historical research and evidence. Then, we'll both be happy.



> And, I'm not a Baptist. I'm a Christian. Baptist is only a denomination. Just like Methodist. I just like Baptist because it's a great, sound doctrine. No I do not go to one of those baptist, hell fire and brimstone Churches. Nor is it Fundamentalist. There are Churchs for that, but I don't really care for the screaming.



Oh great, now he's implying there is a purely 'Christian' religion devoid of any denominational ties. How amusing.

Oh, and as a side note, the Baptist church I was raised on was not particularly 'fire and brimstone' (i.e., no screaming or shouting --- although there was the conception of Hell), but I would call them fundamenatalist (literalist).



> I believe that the only way to Heaven is through a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism won't save you. Church of Christ believes that.



How exactly can a collective group possess something (beliefs) that only conscious, sentient individuals have??



> And just to let you know, I know your thinking it, I'm not some careless, unknowledgable person.



Could'a fooled me.



> I've done my research. I don't get "spoon-fed" at Church.



Uh-huh. I did my "research" when I was a Baptist, too.



> But I also do PLENTY of independent studies. I imagine you think the stuff I read is a bunch of hooey, but go ahead, it's doesn't affect me. Heck, you think the Bible is hooey. I mean, you just said it's not accurately and historically correct.



Not just that, but its contradictory in parts. Now, this isn't a problem if you don't subscribe to literalism/fundamentalism, and can perhaps acknowledge a _symbolic_ reading of the Bible. If not, well, you're screwed.



> God wrote the Bible as a Love letter to us.



Sorry, God, but I don't swing that way. I'm a girl-only kinda guy.



> yes, I believe he wrote it. You think otherwise, we know that.



I don't just think otherwise, I _know_ otherwise. I have personally seen transcriptions of the Bible dating from different times (one at the 300's, one at the 700's, one at the 1300's, and one current) --- and, in every case, there have been dozens upon dozens of changes in text, wording, context. Hell, its almost universally accepted now among scholars that the 'resurrection scene' in Mark was a later addition to the original text (generally dated to the 300's or 400's).

I also know that different parts of 'the Bible' were written by proponents of different schools of thought. The Paul of the Galatians and the Paul of the Pastorals espouse decidedly different visions and mission statements.

Written by God, my ****.



> Historians have found a TON of things from the Bible that they could not find in any other history log/book/tablet/etc. And when were they able to disprove the Bible. It's all speculation.



No, its called 'proof'. If you had even a cursory understanding of empiricism and the scientific method, you'd realize this.

If the Bible claims something for which we have counterevidence (for example, that there was a census around the time the NT claims), then the Bible, as literal text, is wrong. Period. Its not a history book, its a religious text.



> even the Old Testament is infallible. They can't find anything infallible.



You realize you just contradicted yourself, right??



> We've even found talk of the Terrorist attack back in 9/11. I'll have to find it again, but there is so much foretelling of the future, though we don't understand it all because it's from God. How can we understand everything God understands. We can't, otherwise we'd be God.



Uh-huh, right.

I'm sure that it was the same verses people were claiming "predicted" World War II during the 40's and 50's. Or the founding of the United States in the 1700's. Curiously enough, however, no one seems to be able to "find" these predictions until after the events have already happened.

Hindsight is 20/20, my friends.



> I guess We don't have much to talk about here, seeing as we are merely tearing each other's posts apart.



No, I'm tearing your posts apart. You're reaking of desperation.

That's generally what happens when you get evidence vs faith --- evidence wins every time.



> It's really a one-sided arguement for each of us. We never see the other's point of view.



Oh, I see your point of view fine. Its called sociocentrism --- namely, my People/Country, right or wrong. In this case, of course, its applied to My Religion, right or wrong.



> On another note, Faith is one of the only things that does matter. You can go to church all you want, sing praises til you are hoarse, read the Bible til you go blind, and even preach til everyone in your church is saved. You can even get baptized a billion times. I've see it all before. But the one thing that will keep you from Christ is not having Faith. You need to accept Christ as Personal Lord and savior and believe he died and rose for you. Saying your a sinner(I know your going to say sarcastically along the lines of, "Thank you for telling me I'm a sinner. Blah blah blah" I didn't point you out, just stated what I was stating) and asking for forgiveness.



And this has what relevance here??



> And the Jews taking part in Killing Jesus, That's what they'd like you to think. It's just a hush hush thing that has been denied over the past 2000 years. But I can't give you anything more than you've read.



I will say it again: prove it. Cite the historical sources that prove 'the Jews' were involved in the death of this supposed Jesus Christ.



> Also, Christ was of the Line of David, look in Matthew 1:1-17.



No, he wasn't.

The New Testamental books of Luke and Matthew trace Jesus back to David _through_ Joshua (both, curiously, using different lineages, though). The rub is, however, that Joshua is not Jesus' father (according to the story) --- Jehovah is. Thus, the literalist Christian is left with with a dilemma:

1) Jesus was not born of a virgin and is not the Son of God, but is of David's bloodline.

2) Jesus was born of a virgin and is the Son of God, but is not of David's bloodline and thus not the Jewish Messiah.



> As to the other stuff, He will come back and bring world peace to everyone. Then everyone will know he is Lord. It'll be a sad time when those who are not saved see him and it's too late. They will plead and plead, but He will cast them into the Lake of fire because they CHOSE not to know him and rather follow their own whims. I know I'll get plenty of backlash for these last few comments, heck the whole post, but God doesn't want anyone to Perish, yet the majority will.



Very interesting behavior for the 'God of Love'.   

*chuckles* Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale (May 17, 2004)

ok... just a pre-emptive warning that the mods are keeping an eye on this thread.  Some posts are approaching lines we don't want crossed.

Feel free to discuss the issue at hand, which is National Prayer Day.  Feel free to take any off-topic discussion (anything not about National Prayer Day) and start a new thread.  

Thanks much!

-Nightingale-
MT MOD


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> I don't believe the control the world and banks thing. Put words in my mouth, why don'cha! Jews are not nazi terrorists.



I would hope not, or else they'd end up killing themselves.   



> Hmmmm, ask other Christians. I'm not the only one with the "proof" a you call it. It's just plain fact.



Poppycock.

I was raised a "Christian", and I have yet to see any of this documented proof or historical evidence. I, in fact, have yet to find any concrete primary-source evidence that Jesus even _existed_.

Don't say something is "plain fact" when its heavily debated and controversial.

In the end, shaolin, _you_ made the claim. The burden of proof is on _you_. Its not up to the questioner to find the evidence from your "other Christians" for you.



> Feel free to discuss the issue at hand, which is marriage. Feel free to take any off-topic discussion (anything not about marriage) and start a new thread.



Ummmm.... actually, I think the original topic was National Prayer Day.  :uhyeah: 

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (May 17, 2004)

quite hijacking my thread.

This thread is about whether or not the government has overstepped it's boundries through the national designation of a national prayer day.

This is not a thread about the "pagan" or "shamenistic" influences of Christianity, whether or not Shaolinwolf said that the "Jews" control the world or not, whether or not the Jewish "high priests" were controlled by the Roman government, whether or not Mel Gibson is the true messiah or not, or whether or not Christianity is a "poppycock" grand conspiricy to control the world.

If you want to talk about any of those things, start another thread. 

Thanks.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

Nightingale, I thought this was National Day of Prayer, not Marriage...


P.S. yes, I contradicted myself accidently. I was typing fast, Heretic. It was infallible then they couldn't find anything fallible. ok?


----------



## Cruentus (May 17, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> ok... just a pre-emptive warning that the mods are keeping an eye on this thread.  Some posts are approaching lines we don't want crossed.
> 
> Feel free to discuss the issue at hand, which is National Prayer Day.  Feel free to take any off-topic discussion (anything not about National Prayer Day) and start a new thread.
> 
> ...



heh...O.K., this time ME da moron. I didn't see Nightingale's warning before I posted. Sorry!


----------



## Nightingale (May 17, 2004)

LOL.

I was reading two threads at once.  I posted in the right thread with the wrong topic and caught it about ten seconds after I posted.  hmmph. you read it too fast.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

LOL. No problem. I understand.


:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> If you want to talk about any of those things, start another thread.



Done.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=226482#post226482


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 17, 2004)

"And the Jews taking part in Killing Jesus, That's what they'd like you to think. It's just a hush hush thing that has been denied over the past 2000 years. But I can't give you anything more than you've read.

What do you say of the Complete Jews? The term has been coined for the Jews that have fully understood Christ's Love and have turned to the Bible for answers. What is your take on that, CanuckMA?

Also, Christ was of the Line of David, look in Matthew 1:1-17. As to the other stuff, He will come back and bring world peace to everyone. Then everyone will know he is Lord. It'll be a sad time when those who are not saved see him and it's too late. They will plead and plead, but He will cast them into the Lake of fire because they CHOSE not to know him and rather follow their own whims. I know I'll get plenty of backlash for these last few comments, heck the whole post, but God doesn't want anyone to Perish, yet the majority will..."

So, paragraph 1: despite the odd phrasing, the point is that "the Jews," have been engaged in this, "hush hush thing that has been denied for...2000 years," which is to say that "they," have been engaged in this Big Conspiracy.

Para 2: "complete Jews," unlike those with no true faith, have all accepted Christianity asthe one True Religion.

Para 3: Ever' body what don't believe as I do will burn in hell forever. Because God is Love.

All of this connected to the insistence that we need a National Prayer day.

But there's no problem with the argument whatsoever. 

Just to be a jerk, if you don't like the religious principles, history of tolerance, and Bill of Rights of this great country, whyn't you go live in Iran? Their theocracy sounds like just what ya want...or if not, how's it differ?


----------



## don bohrer (May 17, 2004)

I for one am glad we live in a country were we can have a national day of prayer and that it is my choice should I choose to observe it or not. 


don


----------



## Nightingale (May 17, 2004)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a religious group declaring a "national prayer day" or whatnot.  I do, however, see a problem with the government declaring it, simply because the government cannot "respect" one religion over another, and not all religions pray.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

I agree, don. And I like this country. I am glad there is religious freedom over here. I'd be dead over in Iran or Iraq. Here, I can worship Christ Freely.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 17, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "And the Jews taking part in Killing Jesus, That's what they'd like you to think. It's just a hush hush thing that has been denied over the past 2000 years. But I can't give you anything more than you've read.
> 
> What do you say of the Complete Jews? The term has been coined for the Jews that have fully understood Christ's Love and have turned to the Bible for answers. What is your take on that, CanuckMA?
> 
> ...



Robert,

No Disrespect. I had a hard time realizing when the quote ended and your comments began. I did see the ", yet it was not obvious to the flow.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 17, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a religious group declaring a "national prayer day" or whatnot.  I do, however, see a problem with the government declaring it, simply because the government cannot "respect" one religion over another, and not all religions pray.




This is my problem. The Federal Government called for this. My Money was used for this. Your money was used for this.

What also gets me is that the company I work for also set aside some major conference rooms and had people from bible classes or study groups available for discussion. They people got paid to discuss religion. I did not. Hmmmmm Where is my Union rep so I can file a complaint. Oh wait I am salary just like they were. Yet, I was not able to take advantage of this.

Yet, this simple cost in many locations of a large company probably cost thousands of dollars. As a Stock holder and a customer I do not like what this has done to my RONA, and stock options. 

I have no problem if it was after work.

I have no problem if it was all time off without pay and in rooms not used for other business. (* The Last being very difficult to accomplish *).

Oh Well


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2004)

Actually, you would be eligible IF you were a member of an "Officially Sanctioned Religion".

Sadly, I'm not, but I took time to engage in something meaningful to my beliefs on company time as well.  My cats were very happy with the offering I presented them with and they spread their blessings unto me.

(At least thats how I choose to see the mad dash for the dinner bowl and the hair they shed on me.) 

Peace Y'all.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a religious group declaring a "national prayer day" or whatnot. I do, however, see a problem with the government declaring it, simply because the government cannot "respect" one religion over another, and not all religions pray.



Well said.



> I agree, don. And I like this country. I am glad there is religious freedom over here. I'd be dead over in Iran or Iraq. Here, I can worship Christ Freely.



Selective religious freedom, anyway.


----------



## michaeledward (May 17, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> I agree, don. And I like this country. I am glad there is religious freedom over here. I'd be dead over in Iran or Iraq. Here, I can worship Christ Freely.


Actually, Iraq has been a very secular society under Saddam Hussein. Many religions were practiced without condemnation, including Christianty. As a matter of fact, Tariq Azziz, the Iraqi Secretary to the United Nations during the first Gulf was is a Christian.

Of course, now that George W has deposed Saddam Hussein, quite probably, life for those Iraqi Christians will be quite a bit more dangerous; how's that for ironic.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/March2003/0303Allensworth.html

Of course, I'm sure these Iraqi Christians weren't practicing *your* type of Christianity, so it probably doesn't matter anyhow.

Mike

P.S. - You're right about Iran though, Christianity is not looked upon kindly by the authorities in that country.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

Seriously though, the Muslim Countries, heck the Israeli countries, HECK THE MIDDLE EAST, is not a place I want to be right now, especially being an American. I probably won't be visiting Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or the Wailing Wall, or any historical Site in the Middle East for a long time. I know the Muslims are nice and all in a sense, but the Muslim Shiite, no thank you. I understand not all Muslims are Radicals, but I don't want to go to the Middle East. Period. Heck I don't even want to go to Northern Africa, Sudan, anywhere near Saudi or Iraq. I would love to reach them, but only if its God's plan for my life as a missionary.


And MY type of Christianity...I'd say Christianity in general. In the Middle East...it's quite hard to be as pronounced over there than over here. Iraqi Christianity and American Christianity are one and the same, it's all a matter of how much Freedom you have. Big Matter of Freedom. 

:asian: 

P.S. Just Wanted to point out, I'm not saying all Muslims are Radicals. I believe and know there are plenty of Muslims that are kind and caring. I'm just talking about the Shiite Radicals Branch. Nothing more. Just wanted to point that out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2004)

*Reminder*

When engaged in the discussion of a hot/sensitive or otherwise emotionally charged topic, please refer to the following thread for allowable guidelines.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14456

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you,
The Management


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

> And MY type of Christianity...I'd say Christianity in general. In the Middle East...it's quite hard to be as pronounced over there than over here. Iraqi Christianity and American Christianity are one and the same, it's all a matter of how much Freedom you have. Big Matter of Freedom.



And this coming from the guy who earlier said that all _TRUE_ Christians (whatever that's supposed to mean) would interpret and understand things exactly the same??

Riiiiigggght.


----------



## loki09789 (May 18, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> And this coming from the guy who earlier said that all _TRUE_ Christians (whatever that's supposed to mean) would interpret and understand things exactly the same??
> 
> Riiiiigggght.


Not to mention that this devoutee goes by the handle "Shaolinwolf", are you a Buddhist monk from Shaolin who likes wolves, or are you an anamistic shaman who studies shaolin kung fu, or......


----------



## Nightingale (May 18, 2004)

Guys, lets not make this personal.  Discuss the issue, please.


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

Right, right. My apologies.  :asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 18, 2004)

Well, I chose ShaolinWolf because of the KungFu orientation; your trying to pick a fight over such petty things. And what I meant was the fact that over here we have the freedom to be as pronounced as we want. I don't even understand your criticism on that one. I was saying Christians in General. And to what point, other than your rambling, did you ask about interpreting thing? THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT WHATSOEVER. I was making the statement that we have more freedom over here than there. No comparison of who is better or more "holy" than whom. Think before you type please, and try to be more careful in the future. 

:asian:

P.S. the name thing: Could it possibly be that I like shaolin Kung Fu/boxing and Wolves?


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

Nightingale asked not to make things personal, so I'm not going to bother to respond to the above provocation ("itchin' fer a fight"). Good day.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 18, 2004)

Sorry, I was just agitated, Heretic. 


:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

Heh. No worries.


----------

