The nature of the Almighty

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

You've been bad harvey!! I don't think your Christian enough!That was the inference no? This won't do,it is divide and conquer the foe,close your ranks fellows!!

I think you're reading too much into his comment. I'm sure he genuinely didn't know that I'm a Christian.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey,

Nah,well perhaps so harvey,I can only tell you that I was aware you were a Christian.Yours is a very different style harvey perhaps that is it.I can honestly say that I have never enjoyed dialogue with a Christian as much as I have with you.I find it difficult to express but it is a pleaseing experience even when in disagreement.On the other hand,maybe your just a backslider who can talk the talk but cannot walk the walk,you are a disgrace to your race,short people got no reason to live!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

Christianity is totalitarian in the same sense that Islam is totalitarian,and as powerful as Christianity is,she wants more.As a world religion it is innate and in its doctrine to spread the one true faith. Would you have any difficulty identifying Islam as ideology?The nature of Islam and the nature of Christianity are one and the same."Christianity wants to spread like freedom." Right, like she has done in the past all around the world,the history of Christianity is soaked in more blood than all the atrocities you could name.

Christianity wants access to the science classroom on the basis that creationism is science,one would have to be a moron to believe that.Just recently the right wing Christian president Bush has seen fit to refuse guides at the Grand Canyon site from relaying the geological age of the cayon,seems it could have been dug out during Noah flood,nor are they allowed to print it for distribution to park vistors."Changed the barbaric world for the better---------listen to yourself man! Every people they came across they labeled savages,and it was believe what we believe or we will kill you,which they did plenty of.So you tell me about good Christians they can use a creative PR man.Christians are not just against the separation of church and state,not just against evolutionary biology they are against rationality itself,because it knows rationality is it's enemy,and rightly so.

I am headed for the light on god's back porch!! :p

I'm not buying into your statements here, Boagie.
(I think) you need to quantify your assertion that Christianity is totalitarian. Also, quantify your comparison of Islam and Christianity.

In order to be totalitarian, the ideology must be embedded in the political system. Clearly, that is no longer the case with Christianity, it has no Iran equivalent and no longer has an Inquisition. You can no more say Christianity is totalitarian than you can say Canada is a threat to the United States because we were at war in 1812.
Yes, in times past, the religion was bastardized beyond recognition, for the purpose of power. If you blame true Christianity for that, its tantamount to blaming the victim's of rape ...for being raped. The insidious nature of despots are the culprit, not Christ. Early Christianity was clearly not political, and Christ declared it as such to Pilate, when He said that the Kingdom of Heaven was spiritual. Jesus never preached the extermination of infidels, and the ones who did in His name, are no doubt standing before the Judge.
In that vein, I don't have difficulty identifying Islam as totalitarian ideology, by its doctrine and by its overt political systems. It's doctrine is to keep its fellowship in line with threats of rape, stoning, beheading, slavery, etc, and that doctrine was laid down and exercised by its founder.
The difference between Mohamed and Jesus is truly like night and Day.
Today, Islamic republics have plunged us into war, in lockstep with Islamic extremism and terrorism.

Separation of church and state, is a constitutional issue, constantly being decided. Its part of the democratic process, and the Church abides by the Government. The particulars of Scopes type debates deserve their own thread, but to paint all Christians with a broad brush is grossly presumptuous, it seems to me.

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

I did not say that it suceeded in qualifying as totalitarian, only that,that is its mission,world domination has always been on the mind of Islam and Christianity as world religions,it is the nature of the beast.

If you are trying to say Christianity is not a political vehicle then in view of its present activities you have out stripped your credibility.I am not talking about what Christianity should be but what it is.In its origins it was not even intended as a world religion, but a sect of Judaism.As to the horrendous pathology of Christianity it is remarked upon on a regular bases now.Mass murder ordered by god,every vile atrocity imaginable is found within its pages,there is great similarity here with Islam. "Jesus never preached the extermination of infidels." God the father did however,spare none not even the livestock.

"Separation of church and state, is a constitutional issue, constantly being decided. Its part of the democratic process, and the Church abides by the Government. The particulars of Scopes type debates deserve their own thread, but to paint all Christians with a broad brush is grossly presumptuous, it seems to me."

No,church and state are not constantly being decided,the merging of church and state is clearly against the constitution,and without a broadbrush my good fellow,generalization yes,there would be no acknowledgable Christianity to discuss.Please try not to play the victum here,as whenever a startling majority claims this status, it makes court jesters of us all.The churches desire for the melding of church and state amounts to treason------that's right, treason!

I CAN WALK I can SEE ! As you all know,I could not at the beinging of the show!!!!:p Lord be praise in glory!! :p Yes!! O'my GOODNESS!!:rolleyes: Hold my serpent would you?

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

short people got no reason to live

You're giving away your age Boagie.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1 wrote:

You're giving away your age Boagie.

As you have just done harvey---reciprocality!! Smile

Have a good one harvey!! Sands through the hour glass my friend.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

I did not say that it suceeded in qualifying as totalitarian, only that,that is its mission,world domination has always been on the mind of Islam and Christianity as world religions,it is the nature of the beast.

I think you are forgetting a key element in World Domination, the physical world. On one hand, you have Jesus saying His kingdom is not of this world, on the other there is Mohamed who commands armies to conquer and enslave. If world domination is a crime, the key element is intent. Tell me Boagie, who would you rather be approached by Billy Graham or the Taliban?

Quote:

If you are trying to say Christianity is not a political vehicle then in view of its present activities you have out stripped your credibility.I am not talking about what Christianity should be but what it is.In its origins it was not even intended as a world religion, but a sect of Judaism.As to the horrendous pathology of Christianity it is remarked upon on a regular bases now.Mass murder ordered by god,every vile atrocity imaginable is found within its pages,there is great similarity here with Islam. "Jesus never preached the extermination of infidels." God the father did however,spare none not even the livestock.

I'm saying, today Christianity is not a political ideology, where Islam clearly is. There are no Christian Republics, the only thing that comes close is the Vatican, and I doubt the Vatican guard is going to be kicking much ass with pikes in their hands and pom-poms on their feet.
You are also incorrect about the intention of early Christendom was to stay a sect. Jesus commanded His following to spread the Word, and to preach to Jew and Gentile alike. Unlike Mohamed, He ordered them to leave those who didn't believe the message, and shake the dust from the floor of those homes off their shoes.
Mohamed said, just kill'em.
To envoke an OT passage to the Israelites, in order to hold modern Christianity's feet to the fire, is misdirected scrutiny. I have already conceded that the religion was taken in vain by sadistic power mongers. What does that have to do with the true fabric in this cloth?

Quote:

"Separation of church and state, is a constitutional issue, constantly being decided. Its part of the democratic process, and the Church abides by the Government. The particulars of Scopes type debates deserve their own thread, but to paint all Christians with a broad brush is grossly presumptuous, it seems to me."

No,church and state are not constantly being decided,the merging of church and state is clearly against the constitution,and without a broadbrush my good fellow,generalization yes,there would be no acknowledgable Christianity to discuss.Please try not to play the victum here,as whenever a startling majority claims this status, it makes court jesters of us all.The churches desire for the melding of church and state amounts to treason------that's right, treason!

On the contrary, it IS constantly being decided, defined, and refined as an issue, just as everything else is. I'm fine with the status quo, but for the record, the US Constitution does not provide for a separation of church and state. It states.....
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.
Nowhere does it say that the government is to separate itself from religion, it simply prohibits it from establishing a state church, or preventing others from worship in any religion.
The issue is constantly coming to the Supreme Court, on case by case basis. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ebbs and flows, according to the court's make up at any given time. Liberal court Justices overturn previous Conservative Justices and vise versa.

As far as me playing a victim, I am far from it, and never claimed to be. Can you cite any movement, any serious proposal, anything at all legitimate that is evidence Christianity wants to merge with secular government?
It just doesn't fly. If you want to cite The Revelations and New Jerusalem, you'd also be barking up the wrong tree.

2 Replies

@Irishcop,

BTW Boagie,

I'm liking the debate, you're being a gentleman.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Harvey1

Meant no disrespect, in my small opinion, you sure do have a lot to offer.

Boagie
You know, I can understand the disdain for "religion", I argue against it all the time, for religion is for the self righteousness so those in religion can accuse others, amongst many other unfortunate things people like to do. But, why the venomous remarks toward the name Jesus?

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

Irishcop wrote:

I think you are forgetting a key element in World Domination, the physical world. On one hand, you have Jesus saying His kingdom is not of this world, on the other there is Mohamed who commands armies to conquer and enslave. If world domination is a crime, the key element is intent. Tell me Boagie, who would you rather be approached by Billy Graham or the Taliban?"

NEITHER!! I do not have difficulty identifying power mongers.:eek:

I'm saying, today Christianity is not a political ideology, where Islam clearly is. There are no Christian Republics, the only thing that comes close is the Vatican, and I doubt the Vatican guard is going to be kicking much ass with pikes in their hands and pom-poms on their feet.
You are also incorrect about the intention of early Christendom was to stay a sect. Jesus commanded His following to spread the Word, and to preach to Jew and Gentile alike. Unlike Mohamed, He ordered them to leave those who didn't believe the message, and shake the dust from the floor of those homes off their shoes.
Mohamed said, just kill'em.
To envoke an OT passage to the Israelites, in order to hold modern Christianity's feet to the fire, is misdirected scrutiny. I have already conceded that the religion was taken in vain by sadistic power mongers. What does that have to do with the true fabric in this cloth?"

What do you think World Religion means? Why are they a precieve threat to American's intellectual scientific community?They do not appear to have difficulty identifying an enemy do they.

"On the contrary, it IS constantly being decided, defined, and refined as an issue, just as everything else is. I'm fine with the status quo, but for the record, the US Constitution does not provide for a separation of church and state. It states.....
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.
Nowhere does it say that the government is to separate itself from religion, it simply prohibits it from establishing a state church, or preventing others from worship in any religion.
The issue is constantly coming to the Supreme Court, on case by case basis. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ebbs and flows, according to the court's make up at any given time. Liberal court Justices overturn previous Conservative Justices and vise versa.

As far as me playing a victim, I am far from it, and never claimed to be. Can you cite any movement, any serious proposal, anything at all legitimate that is evidence Christianity wants to merge with secular government?
It just doesn't fly. If you want to cite The Revelations and New Jerusalem, you'd also be barking up the wrong tree.

What are they doing in the Whitehouse? Bush what a piece of work!!

Actually I have found Christians not a all concerned about Christianities origins,not the Pagan rituals it incorporated nor the many details of its genisus.Jesus belonged to a sect within the Jewish church which he usurped,which later became Christianity.His crime accordding to the church was blasphemy.Nothing, absolutely nothing comes into being in isolation, including Christianity.Time itself did not really begin with Christianity. Smile

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Boagie
You know, I can understand the disdain for "religion", I argue against it all the time, for religion is for the self righteousness so those in religion can accuse others, amongst many other unfortunate things people like to do. But,why the venomous remarks toward the name Jesus?[/quote]

dpmartin,

I think with Christianity's assault upon science and reason is a major factor.A very good premise to avoid attack is not to attack oneself.We have been programed in the past into showing respect for religious beliefs no matter how absurb we personally might find them,this apparently has only served to make religion more agressive.You seem to be able to be a least a little critical as to how the name of Jesus is USED,Jesus was accordding to the Christian bible offered the power over nations and said,"Get thee behind me satin." It has been said that love is given freely but respect is something earned.To many,Christians stand as road blocks to vital issues useing ancient text in place of reason,this does not earn respect,even global warming they fought off until it was upon us all.Choseing to believe the scientists bought and payed for by the oil companies their bedfellows in the whitehouse.If the name of Jesus truely mean't today,LOVE,why would anyone wish to trample upon such a name.

Honk if you love Jesus!!

0 Replies

@boagie,

Boagie, focus on the issue. You are jumping around the issue interjecting impertainant tangents.
There is an either/or answer to my rhetorical question: "Tell me Boagie, who would you rather be approached by Billy Graham or the Taliban?" Obviously you wouldn't want to be approached by Billy, or a Mullah, but given the choice of one over the other, I suspect you'd rather have words with Billy and his Bible, than Omar and his buck knife. That, would be a no-brainer, but why?
Why is because, Omar thinks he has right to saw your head off on the Internet, in an Islamic/political struggle to take over the world.
Really, if you can't see the difference between Christian and Islamic doctrine 9-11 taught you nothing.

World religion doesn't exist, but if it did, it would not equate to world domination, in and of, itself. To do so, any religion would have to be the basis for the "world government's" doctrines, enforced by the "world military", and unwanted by the "world proletariat".

What "sect" do you believe Jesus belonged to?
He "usurped" the very types of people, you have been condemning in this thread, the Pharisees. If you adhere to the principle of non-violent disobedience of an unjust system, that makes you a "usurper"? i think not.

(BTW, I studied Physics and Astronomy, minoring in Geology, for 3 years at Ohio University, I dont turn a blind eye to science. It makes perfect sense to me. But this was one of them-there tangents I mentioned.)

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

The difference between Christian fundamentalism and the Taliban is one of power over the population,with the Taliban it is absolute,with the Christian fundamentalist,why they are praying for more!Your either/or statement is amuseing in its desire for control.Tell me Irishcop have you stopped beating your wife--yes or no---the answer is still neither.World religion does exist in intent,now,Judaism is NOT a world religion in its intent,it is a tribal religion,never intended for everyone.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

The difference between Christian fundamentalism and the Taliban is one of power over the population,with the Taliban it is absolute,with the Christian fundamentalist,why they are praying for more!Your either/or statement is amuseing in its desire for control.Tell me Irishcop have you stopped beating your wife--yes or no---the answer is still neither.World religion does exist in intent,now,Judaism is NOT a world religion in its intent,it is a tribal religion,never intended for everyone.

Ah, but your rhetorical question is in a different context, and doesn't fit the point. A better analogy might be, "would I rather beat my wife, or be decapitated by her rolling pin?". Although, I would rather neither scenario happened, I would decidedly choose to keep my head and use it to apologize to her later.
True, although Judaism will take converts, but aims to keep it in the family. However, you cited the old testament, holding Christianity's feet to the fire for it.

2 Replies

@Irishcop,

"Ah, but your rhetorical question is in a different context, and doesn't fit the point. A better analogy might be, "would I rather beat my wife, or be decapitated by her rolling pin?". Although, I would rather neither scenario happened, I would decidedly choose to keep my head and use it to apologize to her later.
True, although Judaism will take converts, but aims to keep it in the family. However, you cited the old testament, holding Christianity's feet to the fire for it."

Irishcop, Smile

Perhaps your right on the semantics,it would make little difference though if they had the same powers."You cited the old testament,holding Christianity's feet to the fire for it." Refresh my memory here,torture is against the law in America.What is it precisely you are taking acception too,that I apparently have taken out of context.

0 Replies

@Irishcop,

Quote:

The difference between Christian fundamentalism and the Taliban is one of power over the population,with the Taliban it is absolute,with the Christian fundamentalist,why they are praying for more!

Still not a fair comparison, where the Taliban and Osama, have no mercy on the innocent, and brutaly murder them, inorder to make the world fundamentalist Islamic, and under its theocracy.
Christian doctrine is to spread the word of God, crossing borders, not annexing them after conquest.

Quote:

"You cited the old testament,holding Christianity's feet to the fire for it." Refresh my memory here,torture is against the law in America.What is it precisely you are taking acception too,that I apparently have taken out of context.

It appeared to me after you cited the Old Testament that you implied that was Christian doctrine. However, many things in the Old Testament were clearly not Christian.

1 Reply

@Irishcop,

"It appeared to me after you cited the Old Testament that you implied that was Christian doctrine. However, many things in the Old Testament were clearly not Christian.[/quote]

Irishcop, Smile

I am afraid this does not help much,what did I state which you took to be mistaken Christian doctrine on my part?

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

"It appeared to me after you cited the Old Testament that you implied that was Christian doctrine. However, many things in the Old Testament were clearly not Christian.

Irishcop,

I am afraid this does not help much,what did I state which you took to be mistaken Christian doctrine on my part?[/quote]
Okay, now you're corn-fusing me. I think this tree is blocking our view of the forrest.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Irishcop,

Perhaps so! Needless to say I am not well verse in Christian doctrine.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Perhaps so! Needless to say I am not well verse in Christian doctrine.

Stick with me kid, and you'll go places. (in my best Bogart voice)

1 Reply

The nature of the Almighty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know