|| Replies ||

User	forfila | 2007-03-23 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Understand this, until perhaps the last 100-150 years almost everyone was religious, also we have had wars since man remembers; so is it we are separably both creatures of war and creatures of religion. We all breath oxygen, we all go to war; so is oxygen to blame, religion has been used as an excuse to conquer and impose ideals upon societies; god is always disguised as some version of righteous scripture; obviously fabricated by their own will in its depiction. It all gives the soldiers a security in feeling they are serving a higher purpose, because in the equal battlefield the front lines of higher moral own the victories, In my view war is demonic and religion is dispelled as something it never was.

User	silent_death12 | 2007-03-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	that always goes back and forth though..... for as many (and I’m just using this an example; christianity could by all means be interchangable in this case with any other religion/belief system or lack thereof.) christians that have killed or started wars in the name of a deity or because they feel the religion itself "calls for it", there are just as many people of the same religion who have not and would not to the same things....

User	Toxic_Rayne | 2007-03-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I agree with you a little bit Chicken, but the fact that people cause wars over religion, then doesn’t religion cuase the war? It’s a bit complex, cuz you could argue back anf forth for both sides and wind up with the same thing. They are both causes for war, both equal, and both to blame. *tox*

User	ChickenLittle | 2007-01-17 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Thats the dumbest thing ever. Religion doesn’t cause war... people cause war. If people didnt care about other people’s religion then wars would decrease by an amazing amount.

User	Outlaw | 2006-12-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I think dismentled is saying what I mentioned earlier, it’s not really about the religion itself, but the individual. Because, if there is one thing you must learn about democracy is that it makes everything relative to the individual, I mean it’s built around individualism because of the contemporary lifestyle in richer countries. Pick a word, any word... I will show you how I could make it both a reason for peace and war just because I say whatever the hell I want. When it really comes down to it, it’s just about what you believe in, and what you believe in is relative to who you are - that is why certain peace lovers use violent means to oppress pro-war mongrels, and vice versa. The only real solution to that as a problem is getting rid of the individual factor, or the freedom of speech one. Either way, means no more "real" democracy.... And those are just short term solutions. There will shurely be an insurrection....

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-12-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8

User	dismentled | 2006-12-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Who are you to proclaim who is and isn’t a "real" christian? Isn’t that for your "god" to decide? As far as Hitler, he was actaully jewish(the whole suicide things like him putting his money where is mouth is). I"m not sure where the whole "murdering christians" thing is coming from. Cause I was talking about ALL religions, I’m not singling out any. Whether you’re Christian, jewish, pagan, or what have you, it’s irrelevant when it comes to violence. An individual, and only an indivudal(s) is to blame for what they do or don’t, not their supposed religion!

User	Jeniffer | 2006-12-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	People like Charles Manson are not real Christians! I don’t understand the logic of excusing Muslim suicide bombers as " extremists" whose actions dont reflect on the Muslim religion because it is a religion of peace, and at the same time saying that Christians are really violent because there are wackos out there who either call themselves Christians or do evil things in the name of Jesus.

User	Blue Monk | 2006-12-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Gee, when I consider that Chairman Mao, Joe Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph what’s his name, etc. were not Christians and add up the numbers of people they murdered (many millions) I wonder about the "murdering Christians" bit. I’m sure there are more mentionables who were non-Christian. Heck, those guys didn’t have any religion that I know of except worship of self. True Christians (followers of Christ) believe in loving one another and turning the other cheek. Of course that’s difficult when the other guys are busy bombing and shooting you - trys the patience that does.

User	dismentled | 2006-12-23 |
Subject	untitled
Message	People cause wars, not religion! If one chooses to start a war in the name of their beliefs than that is an individual act on his/her behalf not on behalf of the religion. Also, I don’t think, that lack of religion is a cause for violence. The most violent people I know are "christians". The biggest killers, whether it be serial, mass, or from a governing position are notorious for possesing religious beleifs. For instance, Charles Manson felt it necessary to have the crusification of Jesus Christ shown everyday due to it’s importance. The practioners of "jihad" are obviousily, not lacking religion. And Bush pursued his "war on terror" because "god" told him to. All you have to do is look through history, and see all the wars, and violent acts that have been acted out either "in the name of..." or by people of any religion. Naturally, since, we as humans are to blame for our actions and not some "god" it really doesn’t matter what beleifs you posses, athiest are no more/or less liable than those of other beleifs. And for those of you who do believe in the Christian "god" it’s no secret that the greatest "gift" he bestowed upon mankind was free-will(or 2cd. greatest, been awhile)

User	Question Mark | 2006-12-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	There is a lot of depth to this topic, but for now I’ll just say this: many wars have been, will be, and are being fought over religion, but religion is not the cause. Humans are the problem, in my opinion.

User	mae | 2006-12-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Yup. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2006-12-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Think "first fruits" and "first born" and you begin to understand what God claims as His.

User	mae | 2006-12-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The Jews didn’t have tithing. This is not correct. There were two or three tithes - the correct number is disputed because of a differing understanding of the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Go to http://www.plim.org/Tithing%20Pt%202.htm for an explanation. mae

User	mae | 2006-12-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	requirements and rituals are just different nowbecause we are doing it to His teachings. You’re going to have to explain that one, Chell. How will Jesus have a problem with our doing something according to his teachings? mae

User	Chell | 2006-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	**The religious leaders had come up with all kinds of new interpretations and requirements through the years. That was one of the problems Jesus had with them.** You’re absolutely right. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God was available to everyone and they didn’t have to go through rituals or pay the money in order to get there. And I think that will be part of the problem he will have with current religons- the requirements and rituals are just different nowbecause we are doing it to His teachings.

User	mae | 2006-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Chell - I did make the assumption that a good, God-fearing Christian would never vote for John Kerry- a man who was pro-choice, supported extending the Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples, supported the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, supported gays and lesbians having the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals, and supported the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which would allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military. This was your statement, Chell, along with the one about Bush. So you see,either way I voted you would have found something to bash me about. Therefore, as I said, I shall keep my own counsel. And Chell, given the influx of worshippers during Passover, do you think the only place they sold sacrificial animals was in the temple grounds? It wouldn’t have been able to hold them all. The fact is, Christ said they were turning God’s house into a marketplace and a den of thieves. They were cheating the people. There is no law saying animals can’t be sold outside the temple walls. Jesus was talking about God’s house - the temple. How do you know the people weren’t cheering him on? Yes, it says they were amazed - he was forcefully evicting a powerful group of people, backed by the powerful Pharisees and Saducees and he was doing it WITH AUTHORITY. People were often amazed at the confidence Jesus showed in his teaching. That doesn’t mean they weren’t in favor of his action. I happen to think they were. You don’t. We have a difference of opinion, and opinion is all it is since that is not addressed at all. Chell - The way things were being run was the way they had run since Moses had taught God’s requirement of sacrifice for sin approximately 1406 years earlier. Well, now, that’s not exactly true, is it? The religious leaders had come up with all kinds of new interpretations and requirements through the years. That was one of the problems Jesus had with them. mae

User	Chell | 2006-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	**What they were doing was blasphemy and that was what Christ was angry about.Good grief, they were selling animals for worshippers to sacrifice!** Let’s talk about that historical context you’re so fond of. The story of Jesus in the Temple occurred during the time of the Passover. This was the biggest Jewish festival and scholars estimate that around two and half million Jews would have been in Jerusalem to take part. The Jews were REQUIRED to sacrifice cattle, sheep, and doves for the forgiveness of their sins. (Keep in mind, no savior had been sacrificed for the sins of the world at this time and God’s chosen people were following God’s law.) Most Jews traveled by foot in those days. They came from hundreds of miles away. They wouldn’t have been able to bring their own animals for sacrifice- and the animals themselves had to be approved by the proper authorities before they could be used to atone for sins. Can you imagine two and a half million people showing up dragging inappropriate sacrificial animals which would have to be checked by temple officials during Passover into Jerusalem every year? The temple offered the sell of those pre-approved animals to these travelers so that the city wouldn’t be overrun with livestock. The Temple apparatus brought in huge revenues for simple matters like purification and the forgiveness of sins. Archaeologists have discovered 150 mikvehs around the Temple. Mikvehs are ritual baths which Jews use in order to purify themselves before any act of worship. Jewish people could only enter the Temple if they were ritually pure and almost everyone arriving in Jerusalem for Passover was deemed ritually unclean. They had to use a mikveh before they could fulfill their religious obligations. The priests controlled the mikvehs and charged people to use them. The money’s raised during Passover went to raising the sacrificial animals, keeping up the temple and the mikvaehs, and paid the room and board for the Temple priests, workers, and Rabbis so they could dedicate their lives to teaching God’s laws. They were not ordinary people working the fields or the nets. They wouldn’t have had time to hold normal jobs. The Jews didn’t have tithing. The sell of the animals and the profit off the currency exchange was kind of like tithing. It kept the temple running. Jesus in the temple sotry, taught that the elaborate purity rituals were unnecessary - the Kingdom of God was available to everyone and they didn’t have to go through these rituals or pay the money in order to get there. (Again, the idea that religion and money shouldn’t mix.) The Jews were very careful about blasphemy within the temple. They had not forgotten how quickly their God could be brought to anger. The teachers of the law would have raised holy Sheol had the selling of the animals or the exchange of money been seen as blasphemy. The way things were being run was the way they had run since Moses had taught God’s requirement of sacrifice for sin approximately 1406 years earlier. **They wouldn’t have been standing there confused that he wasn’t being more compassionate. They’d just been cheated by these merchants - and they knew it. They’d have cheered to see Jesus chase them from the temple.** But they didn’t. They weren’t cheering him on-they were simply amazed by his teachings. And I’d bet that many of those Jews didn’t get a chance to atone for their sins during this Passover- as was the law- because Jesus had just run off all their sacrificial animals in a fit of justified anger. Oh, and I never said, or asked if, you voted for Bush. My exact statement was: Our current president was re-elected on the votes of Christians. If you felt that statement was a direct reference to the way you voted, then I don’t need to make any assumptions. **As far as my particular ’sect’ of Christianity, all that matters is that I am a follower of Christ… the particular church I attend does not matter.** That has been my statement from the beginning. It doesn’t matter which church you attend. Thank you for agreeing with me on that point. Maybe you can answer me this: If the church one attends doesn’t matter, why are most Christians so adamant about converting people to their particular sect’s beliefs?

User	mae | 2006-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Chell, can you not see the difference between what people who shunned Jesus himself were doing and what those who were defiling God’s holy house were doing - and the reason for Jesus’s differing reactions? It had been prophesied and Jesus knew it, that he would be shunned, that he would not be received and that he would suffer. These people were only carrying out prophesy. But the moneychangers were sitting in the very house of God, making a mockery of his justice and grace. What they were doing was blasphemy and that was what Christ was angry about. As far as my ’concept’ of Christ - I have taken my concept directly from the words of the Bible, leaving nothing out nor adding anything. I see the love that Christ offers and I also see what he demands. When did these people hear Jesus? What? Do you think they sat in the temple for 24 hours every day? EVERYone had heard OF Jesus and most people had heard him speak or been told of his teachings. They were not unfamiliar with Jesus. Besides which, they were sitting IN THE TEMPLE. They knew what they were doing was wrong. They didn’t care; they were out to make a buck. Good grief, they were selling animals for worshippers to sacrifice! I don’t think the Bible or Christ’s teachings fall apart in the light of the modern day world. What I was speaking of was looking at the context for your statement about what you or the people watching Jesus would have been doing. They wouldn’t have been standing there confused that he wasn’t being more compassionate. They’d just been cheated by these merchants - and they knew it. They’d have cheered to see Jesus chase them from the temple. And no, Chell, I don’t interpret the Bible to fit my ideals. I try to fit my ideals to the Bible. I’ve had to change the way I looked at some things through my life because they didn’t fit what the Bible said. As far as my particular ’sect’ of Christianity, all that matters is that I am a follower of Christ. I have said that I am not a Catholic and so my understanding of Catholic tradition can be off sometimes, but the particular church I attend does not matter. I believe in the Bible and I believe in Jesus Christ as God and the only son of God. Base your assumptions on that - better yet, don’t make assumptions. We have a secret ballot in this country, do we not? If you think you can goad me into giving that up with your comments, then you have underestimated me. I’m of the opinion that it is better to address the issue and leave the person out of it, anyway. When you make comments about how a person voted, etc., you can easily cross the line into making personal attacks. Besides, I can see from your very comments that I’d get blasted no matter which way I voted. If I said I voted for Pres. Bush, then I’d get it from all those who think he’s failed us (most particularly you, Chell); if I said I voted for John Kerry, you’d tell me (like you just did) that I wasn’t a good Christian. So I think I’ll just keep my own counsel on that issue if you don’t mind. mae

User	Chell | 2006-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	**At what time in your life have you ever gone into a place, dumped the stuff people were doing for their livelihood on the floor, scattering it all over and mixing it up, wove a whip from cords and told the people to "Get out!" - and not been angry?** I wouldn’t enter someone’s place of business and dump their livelihood on the floor- but apparently, if I was following your concept of Christ, I could do so without reproach- as long as this violent act was carried out on God’s holy ground. You believe that Jesus had to be angry to do what he did in the temple. I believe Jesus taught love and was the perfect example of love. Even when he rebuked a sinner’s behavior, he never got angry with the sinner. Jesus didn’t get mad when Judas betrayed him. He didn’t get mad when his apostles fell asleep – three times- when he asked them to keep watch while he was in the garden of Gethsemane. He didn’t tell the disciples to grab a whip and beat the people of a town who shunned them or treated them badly. He told them to leave and shake it off (another example of turning the other cheek.) There is an example of this in Luke, Chapter 9: “As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.” (And to hold to context of the time…for all the contempt between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees, there was a gaping schism between the Jews and the Samaritans during Christ’s time.) **If a person was seeking the Lord, repented of their sin and asked for forgiveness, Christ’s heart and arms were wide open to them. But if their hearts were hard toward the things of God, he didn’t waste time with them. He knew who was going to turn to God and who wasn’t. Christ had compassion on those who repented. Where does it mention - in any of the Gospels - that any of these men repented?** Were these people given a chance to hear Jesus’ words and repent before they were whipped? Other than a couple references about Christ in the temple as a child, it appears the first time these sinners got to meet Jesus it was at the business end of a whip. Seems to me that beating someone with a whip is the wrong way to get them to soften their hearts and repent of their wrong-doings. **Once again, you are leaving out the context of the time and making conclusions to fit your own set of ideas. Why not look at the way life was then and correctly assess the incident, then extrapolate the lessons given to your own life?** Do you not interpret the Bible to fit your own set ideals? Isn’t that exactly the reason there are so many differing, and conflicting sects of Christianity? Isn’t that why we go rounds about how it ‘should be’ understood? I have supported every statement I have made with passages from the Bible. And if the Bible truly is the inspired word of God, it should not fall apart when looked at from today’s perspective. The lessons of the Bible are timeless, unable to be altered by the way life is now. Love is love, compassion is compassion, sin is sin, and judgments are judgments-regardless of the age. **Re: George Bush and representative government. Chell, whether you like it or not, this administration represents you as well as me as well as anyone else who lives here. Besides which, I’ve never told you who I voted for. Once again, you are making conclusions about me based on incomplete knowledge of the facts.** Was I wrong in that conclusion? If so, I apologize. I did make the assumption that a good, God-fearing Christian would never vote for John Kerry- a man who was pro-choice, supported extending the Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples, supported the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, supported gays and lesbians having the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals, and supported the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which would allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military. It would help us all out if you’d actually state your religious affiliation. You have never mentioned which set of beliefs you attend- other than to say you’re a Christian- so if I and others have made erroneous conclusions about your beliefs or their influences on your political choices, it might because you haven’t declared which sect of Christianity you belong to.