0
   

"End-Timers" a threat to world peace ?

 
 
EpiNirvana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 06:58 pm
Heres my take on the middle east:
After the attacks on 911 bush (being a christian) saw it as a sign of the end times. So he thought it inevitable for us to have a war with the middle east. The PNAC convinced him to attack Iraq. This positioning is perfect with afganistian to surround Iran. To bad it back fired and which now puts the whole world in jeopardy.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 07:51 pm
Setanta wrote:
Communists may despise organized religion, but it is bullshit to claim that "atheists" ever went to war to kill religionists. The "kulaks," mostly, but not exclusively Ukrainian who died (and there were not tens of millions who died) because of Stalin's deportation of them died because Stalin understood that peasants who own land want revolutions to end, and he didn't intend to let the revolution end and deprive him of his authority for totalitarian measures. They died because they were deported and could not subsist, not because "atheists" were killing Orthodox Christians.

You need to learn a little history:

Quote:
After the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian czar in 1917, 300 bishops and 40,000 priests were killed for practicing their Orthodox faith, said Leonid Mickle, protodeacon at St. John the Baptist. The Soviet government persecuted Christians, destroyed thousands of churches and imposed control over the administration of the church.

Within 10 months, 20,000 members of the clergy were executed, causing many Russians to flee the country and establish the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, whose parishes now are scattered worldwide, Father Mickle said.


Soviet persecution of church mourned
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 11:47 pm
brandon dont forget China .......communists/athiests...now persecute christians.......the only allowed churches are govt sanctioned churches while most of the christians have to go into hiding to worship God...if they are found they are imprisoned, tortured and some are killed.....
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 04:16 am
Re: "End-Timers" a threat to world peace ?
real life wrote:
Not all believers in the end time actually believe the same thing. There are many quite significant variations.

Broadbrushing all of them together, as it appears the documentary may have, is either done in ignorance or by deceit.

Not all believers in end time support settlements on the West Bank, for instance.


Ah yes, what we need is a little bit more clarification, seeing as you haven't seen the documentary. Though the language could be a lot clearer, Mr. Robinson was clearly focusing on those whose belief in the End Times is actively making things worse...

Such as not caring about the environment, helping Israelis maintain illegal, trying to steal oil from the Arabs with an Israeli oil well... etc. etc.

One Professor within the documentary made it very clear that the nutjobs that Robinson was talking about were not representative of the whole.

I notice that in the last posts, once again the religionists of these forums have once again chosen to bury their heads in the sand and blame everyone else and say, "ooh, but these guys are equally comparable." Yeah, your point is? Does that stop them from being any worse? Does that mean we can ignore them?

No.

Everytime someone criticises a certain element of religion, usually a dangerous element, people go up in arms and protest at the criticiser. Take the Muslim riots, for example. Take the Christians that boycott this or another. They talk about being persecuted, when it's just valid, constructive criticism.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:41 am
Re: "End-Timers" a threat to world peace ?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Not all believers in the end time actually believe the same thing. There are many quite significant variations.

Broadbrushing all of them together, as it appears the documentary may have, is either done in ignorance or by deceit.

Not all believers in end time support settlements on the West Bank, for instance.


Ah yes, what we need is a little bit more clarification, seeing as you haven't seen the documentary. Though the language could be a lot clearer, Mr. Robinson was clearly focusing on those whose belief in the End Times is actively making things worse...

Such as not caring about the environment, helping Israelis maintain illegal, trying to steal oil from the Arabs with an Israeli oil well... etc. etc.


Rather subjective examples.

'Not caring' about the environment? By whose criteria?

'Stealing'? By whose judgement?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
One Professor within the documentary made it very clear that the nutjobs that Robinson was talking about were not representative of the whole.


Glad to hear it (I think). I don't think that I would characterize someone as a 'nutjob' who had a difference of opinion with me over some point of eschatology.

Again, not having seen the documentary, I am not sure whether these are engaging in some dangerous behavior, or simply voicing their opinion. If it is the latter, I am all in favor of their free speech.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I notice that in the last posts, once again the religionists of these forums have once again chosen to bury their heads in the sand and blame everyone else and say, "ooh, but these guys are equally comparable." Yeah, your point is? Does that stop them from being any worse? Does that mean we can ignore them?

No.

Everytime someone criticises a certain element of religion, usually a dangerous element, people go up in arms and protest at the criticiser. Take the Muslim riots, for example. Take the Christians that boycott this or another. They talk about being persecuted, when it's just valid, constructive criticism.


How can you compare riots with some deciding not to spend their money somewhere ( a boycott)? Are they are at analogous? Sorry I don't see your point here, Wolf.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:45 am
Re: "End-Timers" a threat to world peace ?
real life wrote:
Glad to hear it (I think). I don't think that I would characterize someone as a 'nutjob' who had a difference of opinion with me over some point of eschatology.


It's not just a difference of opinion. They're trying to bring about the End of the World. If that isn't the sign of a deranged mind, then what is?

Quote:
Again, not having seen the documentary, I am not sure whether these are engaging in some dangerous behavior, or simply voicing their opinion. If it is the latter, I am all in favor of their free speech.


Didn't I make it clear? These people aren't just speaking out their minds. They're doing their best to ensure the End of the World comes about. They're teaching Ugandans that their suffering is because it is the End Days, and they shouldn't expect things to get better; this makes them do nothing more than pray.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
How can you compare riots with some deciding not to spend their money somewhere ( a boycott)? Are they are at analogous? Sorry I don't see your point here, Wolf.


Because both aren't addressing the problem. The former is an extreme reaction, whereas the other is a mild one, however, both are ignoring the problem.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:54 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
You need to learn a little history:

Quote:
After the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian czar in 1917, 300 bishops and 40,000 priests were killed for practicing their Orthodox faith, said Leonid Mickle, protodeacon at St. John the Baptist. The Soviet government persecuted Christians, destroyed thousands of churches and imposed control over the administration of the church.

Within 10 months, 20,000 members of the clergy were executed, causing many Russians to flee the country and establish the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, whose parishes now are scattered worldwide, Father Mickle said.


Soviet persecution of church mourned


Your source is statements of members of the Russian Orthodox clergy, who are not necessarily to be considered unbiased sources. I've read these charges before, and they proceed from a disingenuous description of events after the Revolution. Between the time of the Russian Revolution in March, 1917, and the Bolshevik Revolution in November, 1917, General Kornilov, believing he had the support of the Moscow Soviet (soviet simply means committee, and soviets had been established in most major cities of Russia, long before the Bolsheviks took over; what we call St. Petersburg, then known as Petrograd, was originally governed by the Soldiers and Sailors Soviet), lead an uprising against the government of Kerensky. It was one of many events which helped to undermine Kerensky--but the troops Kornilov thought he would bring to Petrograd were diverted by railway officials, as the Bolsheviks had control of the railway unions. Kornilov was arrested, but many local community leaders, including Russian Orthodox clergy, supported a return to Tsarist government, even though the Tsar had abdicated shortly after the Russian Revolution.

When the Bolshevik Revolution took place in November (October by the Julian Calendar, which Russia was still using, and hence, the frequent Soviet use of the term "Red October"), there were two members of the Bolsheviks in Petrograd: a newspaper editor and former Bolshevik bank robber named Joseph Dugashvili who used the alias Stalin, and a Bolshevik organizer named Lev Bronshtein, who used the alias Leon Trotsky. Trotsky had broken with Lenin after the 1903 international, but had "returned to fold" in time for the Russian Revolution. They were castigated by Lenin when he arrived in Petrograd, but Lenin was a careful manipulator of men as well as of ideas, and he used them both. They rose to power during the civil war which ensued.

When Kornilov had threatened Petrograd, more than 25,000 Russians, many of them practicioners of Russian Orthodoxy, had volunteered to defend the city. Trotsky succeeded in taking control of these troops, and soon took command of the entire Red Army. Stalin, working with Felix Dzershinky, a Pole who commanded the first state security apparatus, the Cheka (ancestor of the NKVD and the KGB), set out to eliminate the ideologically "impure" from the local soviets in Russia. All three men looked for counter-revolutionaries among the Russian Orthodox clergy as well as among aristocrats and army and navy officers. A civil war raged in Russia until well into the 1920s. Many members of the Russian Orthodox clergy joined the counter-revolutionaries, because the church had formerly been an agency of the imperial government which paid their salaries and maintained chruch property--with government support withdrawn, the church was collapsing.

Admiral Alexandr Kolchak organized a counter-revolutionary group to fight the civil war against the Bolsheviks. His slogan was "For Faith and Fatherland," and under his command, the "White Russians" (not the usual ethnic designation, this referred to counter-revolutionaries as opposed to the "Red Russians") fought a civil war against Trotsky's Red Army. Kolchak intentionally appealed to the Russian Orthodox clergy for support, and pinned most of his hope on popular support to the idea of defense of the church. Therefore, thanks to Kolchak and his lieutenants, many members of the clergy raised funds, harbored fugitives, stored weapons and munitions in churchs, and otherwise acted in a manner which was considered insurrectionary by the Bolshevik government.

You may argue that the actions of the Orthodox clergy in support of Kolchank and the White Russians was laudable, and that the Bolsheviks were basically evil. However, you cannot escape the fact that the Orthodox clergy were condemned and executed exactly as and for the same reason as anyone else seen as insurrectionary were. The civil war dragged on after Kornilov's execution in 1920, lasting the longest in Chechnya, Ingusetia and Azerbaijan. Do you allege that the Red Army were attempting to exterminate Muslims because they fought in those regions? Orthodox clergy who were killed, and churchs which were destroyed fell victim to the error of the clergy in backing the wrong side in the civil war. After the collapse of the White Russian insurgency, there was no active government program to exterminate Orthodox clergy. They no longer received a government salary, and their churchs and monestaries were no longer maintained by the state. Their church collapsed because of the withdrawl of state support, and many of them fled Russia because of their previous support for the White Russians.

It remains true that the Soviet state never sought to impose atheism on anyone, and did not kill people because they were christian or muslim. The member "real life" is making **** up, as he has done many times before.

You need to learn more than a little history.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 07:20 am
Thanks for that Set. Makes me feel quite nostalgic towards the old bolshevikii. That's what the end timers need. A good dose of dialectical materialism.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 07:20 am
Since it is my experience here that those with ideological bugs up their @sses, including on the topic of religion don't see things in a simple and clear manner, i'll attempt to make this clear, and then abandon the effort, because it is also my experience that the narrow-minded and the close-minded never wish to acknowledge even those things which stare them in the face.

Early christians converted people at the point of a sword, or simply killed them out of hand. The early biographers of Charlemagne and the chroniclers of his reign brag about the numbers of "pagans" which were killed in what were nearly annual invasions of Saxon lands. In one case, Einhard (also rendered as Eginhard), a biographer of Charlemagne who was raised and educated at his court at Aachen, brags that 5,000 Saxon "pagans" were killed in a single summer campaign. One reason that victors don't actually write history is because they so frequently brag about what we see as their crimes. Early in the post-Roman period in Western Europe, christians gleefully slaughtered "pagans," and "pagans" in return gleefully slaughtered christians. The Knights of the Teutonic Order used to hunt down and slaughter "pagan" Balts and Letts as though they were wild animals. The Crusaders not only slaughtered muslims in their thousands, they even once killed and ate their muslim prisoners, and we know this because the christian clergy who accompanied them wrote down an account of the episode.

The earliest split among the muslims came between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis after the death of the Prophet. The founder of Shi'ism, Ali, was the great Holy Warrior of Islam in the early days, as well as the first cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet. He held that anyone who was not a muslim and who would not convert ought to be slaughtered. But among the Companions, and all of the Orthodox Caliphs other than Ali, the policy revolved around the sunna. This is an ancient Arab term, older than Islam, which means modus vivendi, a way of getting along. Originally, it meant the behavior that proud and violent Arab nomads conducted themselves among the people of towns and cities, whom they despised, but with whom they need to trade. The Prophet used the term to show the Companions that it was possible to live among infidels, which was essential after the hejira, when the muslims were still weak, and living among those whom they saw as infidels.

So the Companions became the Sunni, those who adhered to the sunna. Those considered "pagan" still faced the choice of conversion or death--but the other "people of the book," the chrisians and Jews, were allowed to live in muslim society, with siginificant debilities, such as a special tax, and restriction on their residence and movements. The early Shi'ites (and quite a few today) felt that anyone who was not muslim was infidel, and subject to be slaughtered if they did not convert.

Christians and muslims have slaughtered many millions of people because they were "infidel." There is no equivalent record of such behavior by atheists. Certainly atheists have killed people, but there is no reliable historical record that atheists ever killed people because they would not abandon their beliefs and embrace atheism. It is only through the warping of the historical record that theists attempt to claim that "atheists," in the form of communists, killed millions. They certainly did kill many millions--but they didn't do it because of religious motivations.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 07:24 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Thanks for that Set. Makes me feel quite nostalgic towards the old bolshevikii. That's what the end timers need. A good dose of dialectical materialism.


Gasp . . .

What's this? A proselytizing atheist ? ! ? ! ? Oh, the horror, the humanity . . .

Yeah, them early Reds, they were a fun bunch. A laugh-a-minute crew . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 07:33 am
Setanta wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Thanks for that Set. Makes me feel quite nostalgic towards the old bolshevikii. That's what the end timers need. A good dose of dialectical materialism.


Gasp . . .

What's this? A proselytizing atheist ? ! ? ! ? Oh, the horror, the humanity . . .

Yeah, them early Reds, they were a fun bunch. A laugh-a-minute crew . . .
Laughing yeah i guess they did take things somewhat seriously. I like the story about Lenin and comrades having a furious marxist row on a walk in the mountains outside Geneva. It started to rain, but Lenin's mood lightened and he started to smile. He was the only one who had brought an umbrella...
0 Replies
 
Mindonfire
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 08:47 am
Re: "End-Timers" a threat to world peace ?
woiyo wrote:
fresco wrote:
A programme on Channel 4, UK today illustrated how American Christian fundamentalists with a fixation on the "End Time" ( Book of Revelation) are spending time and money influencing American foreign policy in the Middle East. Apparantly Bush no longer opposes Israeli settlements in the West Bank because "The Second Coming" requires Israeli occupation of all biblical territory.

Is this potentially even more pernicious than Islamic fundamentalism ?

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/doomsday.html

_________________


You watch too much TV.

remember, Bush is GONE in less than 2 years. That's the beauty of our system. Don;t leave these clowns in power too long.


LOL Think again
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 07:21:30