Christendom, the Forbidden Cultural Society

Setanta wrote:

I contradicted the first paragraph of your copied-and-pasted screed, because it made a set of claims which were bullshit. It claimed that christian and European are synonymous, and have been for 1600 hundred years--and i pointed out that this was not true, and provided examples both of parts of Europe and of Europeans which and who were not christian 1600 years ago, and who were not to become christian for many centuries to come. I also pointed out that even today, there are many Europeans who are not christian.

I agreed with you on the small fringe groups you pointed out that were quickly put down. I even showed a map showing how small the area of resistance was, and how big the areas of people were already converted were. I think you're LAUGHABLE, and you're just filled with hate which is also sad. There's not one small crack of contradiction you've been able to come up with in that article.

Charlemagne's Cathedral original complete massive structure built in 800 AD is still standing if you want to see it. There were already hundreds more churches similar in size built all over this land from the 2nd Century which many are also still standing at least partially.

Quote:

The second claim was even more laughably absurd, and false. That was that the so-called gospels were available to all of Europe in the 2nd century. That is also bullshit, so i called it.

I said copies of the "apostle's creed" was in nearly every small village by the 2nd century, which contains the entire gospel story and all that is necessary for salvation. You just simpy misunderstood. The apostle's creed is small and one page, although major parts of europe did have the major books although and were constantly mass producing copies of the entire texts mainly in latin, which is archived by the hundreds in museums, primarily on animal skins until the coming of the printing press, yet the did use a paper equivelant even in the 2,d, 3rd & 4th century famous gospels found in Britian etc.

Quote:

no plausible basis upon which to assert that your boy "Jesus" was Aryan. And i have consistently pointed out that there is no such thing as race, that there is only one race in this issue: the human race.

Who said Jesus was Aryan? It wasn't me, and it wasn't in the article, that's completely off topic. Do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Why are you afraid of Christian supremacy? What if this was about abolishing Christianity, would you still be so fiesty? That one is a more viable threat from occurring, so why dont you actually fight against something more within reality? Anyhow you dont have to worry, it could be a while until Jesus returns.

PS If there's any questions over the next 24 hours I wont be here because it is the Sabbath and have to shut off the world for at least 24 hours a week, but ya'll can feel more than welcome to join me for worship of the King Jesus our Messiah.

0 Replies

michael1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

I contradicted the first paragraph of your copied-and-pasted screed, because it made a set of claims which were bullshit. It claimed that christian and European are synonymous, and have been for 1600 hundred years--and i pointed out that this was not true, and provided examples both of parts of Europe and of Europeans which and who were not christian 1600 years ago, and who were not to become christian for many centuries to come. I also pointed out that even today, there are many Europeans who are not christian.

I agreed with you on the small fringe groups you pointed out that were quickly put down. I even showed a map showing how small the area of resistance was, and how big the areas of people were already converted were. I think you're LAUGHABLE, and you're just filled with hate which is also sad. There's not one small crack of contradiction you've been able to come up with in that article.

You grossly overrate your significance to me if you think i hate you--you aren't worth the emotional energy to me. I do hate and will always speak out against racism, and the lies of religion, which are combined in the screed you copied and pasted.

I did not refer to any "small fringe groups." The Saxons were the largest group of German tribes east of the river Rhine. Almost all of the Slavs--Bals, Letts, Rus, Poles, Bulgars, and many, many other smaller tribes, were not christian 1600 years ago. The point i made, and which you have attempted to dismiss by offering yet other lies from that perverse and hateful web site at which you dredge up this filth--is that the majority of the population of Europe 1600 years ago were not christian. In fact, 1600 years ago, almost no German tribes north of the Alps, the Franks included, were christian. Of the German tribes which were, at least obstensibly, christian, many of them, in fact, very likely most of them, were Arians--and therefore did not believe that your boy Jesus was god. And of the German tribes which were christian, many of them had already moved to North Africa. You (and the idiotic web site on which you lean) demonstrate an appalling ignorance of basic, simple European history.

As for contradiction, the opening paragraph claims that christian and European have been synonymous for 1600 years. But it claims that gospels were known in all of Europe in the 2nd century. Not only does it make this claim without reference to the least shred of evidence, and not only were the putative "gospels" not recognized as the exclusively scriptural canon of christianity in the 2nd century (an event which did not occur until the early 4th century, and in Asia, not Europe)--but the 2nd century ended more than 1800 years ago--not 1600. The opening paragraph is not only full of gross historical error, and outright lies, it blatantly contradicts itself.

Quote:

Charlemagne's Cathedral original complete massive structure built in 800 AD is still standing if you want to see it. There were already hundreds more churches similar in size built all over this land from the 2nd Century which many are also still standing at least partially.

Hey bright boy, here's a hint--800 CE is six hundred years after the end of the 2nd century. No one was building cathedrals in the 2nd century. The church which Charlemagne started at the end of the 8th century, and in which he is alleged to have been buried--at Aachen--only became a cathedral by slow accretion over a period of nearly a thousand years after that church was built. That church was the Palatine Chapel, which although large in comparison churches then existent north of the alps, only forms a small part of the present day cathedral.

You play fast and loose with truth constantly, but so does that perverse site you have linked, so i'm not surprised. "All over this land," after a reference to the Aachen Cathedral, implies Germany. Are you now saying you live in Germany? Very little of what is today Germany was directly under the reliable control of the Franks--most of what is now Germany was beyond the control of Charlemagne in his lifetime, and the larges collection of tribes were the Saxons, who were pagans, not christians. There were very, very few christian churches in Germany in 800 CE.

Quote:

Quote:

The second claim was even more laughably absurd, and false. That was that the so-called gospels were available to all of Europe in the 2nd century. That is also bullshit, so i called it.

I said copies of the "apostle's creed" was in nearly every small village by the 2nd century, which contains the entire gospel story and all that is necessary for salvation. You just simpy misunderstood. The apostle's creed is small and one page, although major parts of europe did have the major books although and were constantly mass producing copies of the entire texts mainly in latin, which is archived by the hundreds in museums, primarily on animal skins until the coming of the printing press, yet the did use a paper equivelant even in the 2,d, 3rd & 4th century famous gospels found in Britian etc.

You said? So now you are claiming that you are the author of that hateful racist garbage? I'm not surprised.

The opening paragraph, as anyone can see by looking at the beginning of this thread, contains a sentence which clearly reads: . . . as nearly every city of Europe had copies of the gospel in the 2nd Century AD via the Apostle's Creed and officially a united Christian Empire was instituted early in that century. (emphasis added) The 2nd century ends in 200 CE, just to refresh your memory. In 200 CE, the Emperor was Septimius Severus (who was, by the way, born in Africa), and christians just love to piss and moan that he persecuted them. By no means was the majority of Europe christian at that time, and it would not even be plausible to assert that most of Europe had even heard of christianity at that time.

Your assertion about a one page "apostle's creed" combined with the sentence which claims the gospel was known in Europe then constitutes another contradiction in the opening paragraph. In succeeding paragraphs, the text constantly claims that Europe has been christian for 2000 years--and yet with the historical record one can just barely demonstrate that most, but no all, Europeans have been christian for only about 1000 years. That entire creed is just drowning in bullshit.

Quote:

Quote:
no plausible basis upon which to assert that your boy "Jesus" was Aryan. And i have consistently pointed out that there is no such thing as race, that there is only one race in this issue: the human race.

Who said Jesus was Aryan? It wasn't me, and it wasn't in the article, that's completely off topic. Do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Why are you afraid of Christian supremacy? What if this was about abolishing Christianity, would you still be so fiesty? That one is a more viable threat from occurring, so why dont you actually fight against something more within reality? Anyhow you dont have to worry, it could be a while until Jesus returns.

PS If there's any questions over the next 24 hours I wont be here because it is the Sabbath and have to shut off the world for at least 24 hours a week, but ya'll can feel more than welcome to join me for worship of the King Jesus our Messiah.

As E_brown pointed out, the third "covenant" listed in that sick, twisted, racist screed reads: Blessings & protections for keeping the purity of one's blood/race. Since you're whining about the poor, poor, oppressed Europeans, E_brown asked me if your boy Jesus was Aryan, and i pointed out both that there is no way he could have been (to which you riposted with that sick and hilarious claim from that bullshit web site that Galilee was Keltic--and watch it, because my ancestors were Kelts, and i know you're peddling bullshit with that one better than i know anything else here).

No, i don't believe that it's even any better than a 50-50 shot that the putative Jesus existed, never mind having a fairy tale belief that anyone died for the "sins" of anyone else. I'm not afraid of christian supremacy, i just would never accept it, as i would not accept the supremacy of any other religion. I can think of few things which would do the world more good than the abolition of organized religion, but i don't think that it will happen, and know full well that the attempt would just bring all the nut cases out of the woodwork, eager for martyrs (so long as it were someone else who actually suffered and died). I think organized religion is a pathetic and childish exercise; but then, so much of what people in society do is pathetic and childish, and i am not foolish enough to think that one can change human nature by forbidding the expression thereof.

The rest of what you write is so poorly expressed, and so far into the realm of fantasy, as not to warrant a response.

0 Replies

One third of all Christians say: We've suffered discriminati

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

The definition of discrimination now is only PROTECTION OF THE VERY ASSAULTS UPON CHRISTIANS, THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHY IT WAS STARTED. Discrimination is a charge given to a Christian so persecuted that they are forced to disclose their injury. Well what's your other choice?

Dictionary Definition of INDISCRIMINATE: "Confused, Chaotic, Not making careful distinctions, Random, Haphazard." (American Heritage Dictionary)

Take your pick.

I am sorry... this is my favorite posting on A2K for a long time.

I am afraid you all just skimmed over the posting. It has parts that are simply priceless... go back and read it again.

heeheeheee <<ebrown>>

Nearly precisely the same words in the daily newspaper today:

One third of all Christians say: We've suffered discrimination[/b]
17.03.07

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389370-details/One+third+of+all+Christians+say%253A+We%2527ve+suffered+discrimination/article.do
One in three Christians claim to have suffered discrimination because of their religious views, according to a new poll.

The survey by the BBC shows unprecedented disquiet among church-going Britons amid claims they increasingly face prejudice in the media, the workplace and even in their own communities.

It follows a series of high-profile rows over unfair treatment towards Christians, including the case of the British Airways worker who was banned from wearing a crucifix, while Muslim employees were allowed to wear headscarfs.

A third of those polled by the BBC's religious programme Heaven And Earth, claim Christians experience discrimination in the way the media portrays them.

One in four said they thought they suffered discrimination in the workplace from colleagues.

And more than one in five said they thought Christians faced discrimination in their local communities.

It reflects a growing unease that Labour multiculturalism has led to ethnic minority faiths such as Islam and Hinduism being given special treatment.

Meanwhile, there is a fear that the historic importance of Christianity in British life has been pushed to the sidelines.

The BBC has itself been accused of blasphemy because of its decision to screen the controversial show Jerry Springer - The Opera, despite its profane portrayal of God and heaven.

Today's Heaven And Earth programme, presented by Gloria Hunniford, will focus on an example of Government prejudice against a Christian-run drug treatment centre.

Yeldall Manor in Berkshire offers successful residential treatment for young men addicted to drugs or alcohol.

The centre is run by evangelical Christians and the regime includes Bible study sessions and grace before meals.

However, their doors are open to addicts of all backgrounds.

William Hague praised its work when he was Tory leader.

But director Ken Wiltshire reveals how John Prescott's Office of the Deputy Prime Minister tried to cut their funding because they failed to meet Labour's 'equal opportunities' criteria.

He said: "We had been doing a good job helping former addicts move back into the community. So when we went for our routine review with officials we thought we would have no problems.

"But they kept asking us questions about why our staff were exclusively Christian and why there had to be a Christian component to our regime.

"There is no doubt there was prejudice against us because we are Christians. They think we are a bit odd."

Yeldall Manor kept its funding but only after a vigorous local campaign.

Recently, Church leaders launched an outspoken campaign against new Labour legislation that will force Christian adoption agencies to offer children to prospective parents who are homosexual.

Tory MP and prominent Roman Catholic Ann Widdecombe said:

"We should stand together and fight this discrimination. Christians are being marginalised, yet it is the established religion of this country."

The Rev Malcolm Duncan, of Christian campaigning group Faithworks, added:

"The Christian church is suffering more than all other faiths in the UK.

There is an aggressive secularist agenda that says it's OK to support any group ending in "ism" but not OK to support anything connected to Christianity."

0 Replies

So in true jouranlistic fashion, did the program report the percentage of other mainstream religions to see how many of them felt descrimination? What about atheists, agnostics, deists?

1/3.

Is that high? Is it low? Without reference, the fraction means nothing. Further, it's not even an impressive number to present if it is parameterized by just the Christian community.

The types of desrimination listed are fairly mild as well. Plus this was a christian program. It's objectivity is dubious at best.

I'm still not impressed by your claim that "Christendom" is taboo.

0 Replies

Try this.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

Quote:

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude: Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically Agnostics.
Most Unitarian Universalists.
Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity.

However, Wiccans and Zoroastrians are acceptable, as they believe in two deities -- twice as many as the minimum that Section 4 requires. Hindus would also be good enough because they generally acknowledge the existence of millions of deities. The number, gender, shape, size and other attributes do not matter, as long as you believe that a Supreme Being of some sort exists.

This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Seven other states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions.

In a few states whose constitutions include the text of the oath of office, the candidate must swear an oath to God. Such an oath would prevent ethical non-theists from taking office. Of course, non-ethical non-theists would have no problems with such an oath.

However, now that these Constitutions include discriminatory and intolerant language, the states are probably stuck with it. The passages will forever affirm that people who follow some minority religions were considered unreliable second- class citizens of questionable morality -- at least at the time that the state constitutions were written. They could only be removed through constitutional change; this requires at least a majority vote of the citizens of the state. With the present political leadership and religious climate towards non-theists in many of these states, this is simply not going to happen.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/26970prs20060929.html

Quote:

Veterans Denied Right to Post Religious Symbol on Headstones, ACLU Charges (9/29/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [email protected]

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit to protect the right of veterans and their families to choose religious symbols to engrave on headstones in federal cemeteries. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two churches and three individuals to compel the government to approve a long-pending application for use of a Wiccan symbol on the headstones of service members.

"The government has no business picking and choosing which personal religious beliefs may be expressed. All veterans, regardless of their religion, deserve to have their faith recognized on an equal basis," said ACLU of Washington staff attorney Aaron Caplan.

The lawsuit was sparked by the failure of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to take action on several applications to approve the pentacle of the Wiccan faith as an emblem of belief. The agency provides headstones free of charge to mark the graves of eligible veterans, upon application by a veteran or the next of kin of a deceased veteran. An emblem of belief is included on the headstone only if it is on the list of symbols approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

The NCA has approved 38 emblems of belief for veterans, encompassing a wide variety of religions. Headstones have been engraved with different forms of the Christian cross, the six-pointed Jewish star, the Muslim crescent, the nine-pointed Baha'i star, and symbols for atheists and secular humanists, among others.

Yet the agency has refused since the mid-1990s to act on requests by Wiccan families and clergy to approve use of the pentacle. In the meantime, the agency approved additional emblems of numerous other religions and belief systems as a matter of course, usually in a few months.

As a result, veterans nearing the end of life are left uncertain about whether their faith will be honored after death. And families of deceased veterans have been required, in a time of grief and stress, to undertake a bureaucratic struggle to have their loved one's wishes honored.

"The federal government's discriminatory delay in approving these applications must end. There is no good reason to deny grieving families the solace and comfort available to military families of other religions," said Daniel Mach, senior staff attorney with the national ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The ACLU said that the government cannot ban families from posting Christian crosses or other religious symbols on personal gravestones, even on federal property.

In addition to the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty, expression and equality, federal agencies are required to abide by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides that the government may "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates "a compelling government interest." According to the ACLU, no such compelling reason or other lawful basis exists for the NCA to refuse Wiccan veterans the ability to display their chosen emblem of belief.

The ACLU brought the lawsuit on behalf of two churches: the Aquarian Tabernacle Church, formed in 1979 in Index, Washington, and the Correllian Nativist Church International, formed in 1979 with offices in Albany, New York. The lawsuit also names the following individuals as petitioners:

Kathleen Egbert of Laurel, MD, daughter of World War II veteran Abraham Kooiman, a Wiccan who was buried in Arlington National Memorial Cemetery in 2003;
Patricia Darlene Howell Corneilson of Kentucky, mother of James Price, a Wiccan who was killed in action while serving in the Army in Iraq in 2004; and
Scott Stearns of Kent, WA, a retired disabled U.S. Navy veteran discharged in 1997 and a member of the Aquarian Tabernacle Church.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims in Washington, DC. Caplan and Mach are representing the petitioners in today's lawsuit, Egbert v. Nicholson.

A copy of today's complaint is online at:

This can go on all day. Christians experience strife, and that point is valid. However the degree that they experiance is no greater than any other group now or ever. Further, I'd be interested in seeing numbers about who is doing the most discrimination; i.e.- how the people who discriminate identify themselves.

0 Replies

Today's culture is counter-Christian plain and simple. It is not an even ended prejudice by any stretch of the imagination.

Diest TKO wrote:

So in true jouranlistic fashion, did the program report the percentage of other mainstream religions to see how many of them felt descrimination? What about atheists, agnostics, deists?

I know todays Christians are the least discriminatory people on the face of this world. Also the most giving and loving. You'll have to dig pretty hard to find anything contrary, while on the other hand you can turn on any television channel and see Christianity smeared & blasphemed by non believers. Any given Christian moral belief deliberately & boldly maligned & besmirched with all manner of militant occupational-like opposition.

The stuff you're digging up is the work of billions of dollars of government funded special interest groups, of which all most vile band together. Quoting the ACLU, they're very famous for representing child molesters and taking down nativity scenes on Christmas. What next outlaw santa since his name is Saint Nicholas, and was originally an actual Priest?

Anyone who doesn't want something can find a million excuses. Only the Holy Spirit can convert someone and He works within them in their heart, no man can interfere with that. For those that aren't being called they can try and find excuses not to believe. Whenever anyone really doesn't want to do anything there are always a million excuses. My motto is when I dont feel like praying or reading the bible, that's the most important time to do it. Anyhow as far as others if God is really trying to call them there is no possible way they can resist Him, so I'm not concerned, truth & good always prevails in the end. There is no evil where there is not a good which is greater.

0 Replies

michael1 wrote:

Today's culture is counter-Christian plain and simple. It is not an even ended prejudice by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not even? You need to start providing some real evidence. Christians have is EASY in comparason to most groups. Christianity is found everywere in american culture. Again, I challenge you to find a top forty song from the last 50 years that has any spiritual theme outside of Christianity. Look to the movies, Christians are almost always portrayed as positive characters, where in contrast Muslims almost always as the violent antagonist. Jews are portrayed as weak or underhanded. "Under God" was ADDED to our pledge of allegiance as a way to influence our children away from the evils of the "godless communists." We swear in on a Bible in court, doesn't that show a pro-Christan bias? If you are going to try and say that Christans have it so bad, you're going to have to show how in some way they are challenged to practice their beliefs and are in some capacity ostrisize MORE than any other religion. The Boyscvouts are the only both public and private organization in the USA. They can deny your child entry if you are not Christian, yet they recieve public funding.

Christians have it EASY and they do plenty discrimination.

Quote:

Diest TKO wrote:
So in true jouranlistic fashion, did the program report the percentage of other mainstream religions to see how many of them felt descrimination? What about atheists, agnostics, deists?

I know todays Christians are the least discriminatory people on the face of this world. Also the most giving and loving. You'll have to dig pretty hard to find anything contrary, while on the other hand you can turn on any television channel and see Christianity smeared & blasphemed by non believers. Any given Christian moral belief deliberately & boldly maligned & besmirched with all manner of militant occupational-like opposition.

You Know? Unfounded, and not an answer to my question. Re-read and address.

Quote:

The stuff you're digging up is the work of billions of dollars of government funded special interest groups, of which all most vile band together. Quoting the ACLU, they're very famous for representing child molesters and taking down nativity scenes on Christmas. What next outlaw santa since his name is Saint Nicholas, and was originally an actual Priest?

I believe that Christian churches have covered up and protected child molestes in the past and resent history. I think Religion more voer the ACLU is "famous" for that. Don't go there. Outlaw Santa: No, mandate Santa: No. I must gather then that regaurdless of the source, you support that Wiccans have the right to have the pentagram on their tombstones in a graveyard?

Quote:

Anyone who doesn't want something can find a million excuses. Only the Holy Spirit can convert someone and He works within them in their heart, no man can interfere with that.

You seem to be making quite the opposite case. So which is it? Only reason and ration can give dominion back to the mind to man.

You are free (even more free than others) to be whatever religion you wish. Christianity is mainstram and accepted by our lawmakers. Christianity has a presence in our pop culture and in many other parts of our society.

What more do you want? Just because other religions are trying to get what Christianity has, in other word trying to be equals with it, you think that they are being unfairly promoted.

Fianlly, I know plenty of christians, and you are a poor ambassador. I don't think that you stance would be supported by other christians. Certainly none so far. Even Christians who have experianced persecution for their views I feel would say that their experiance is not representitive of any real cultural stigma.

0 Replies

Quote:

Blessings & protections for keeping the purity of one's blood/race

where is that in the bible?

0 Replies

Kate - you sig is a Samuel Clemens quote, yes? BTW, I assume by your title, you are a Christian, do you agree with the stance of Michael1?

0 Replies

TKO thanks for noticing the quote. Its not a mark twain, its edmund burke....he was a british philosopher in the 1700's.

Though quite tedious, i read the article michael pasted and i notice it has strong racial undertones. I don't agree with that. It's not biblical and i hate when anyone uses christianity to breed racism or any of type of hatred....I think that in america as christians, we have been blessed. I dont have to sneak to church, hoping not to get arrested by the govt, I don't have to hide my faith in Jesus for fear that i may be killed by my family,etc..Christians in other countries have it rough...(specifically china, sudan, any middle eastern country) But i do see a more obvious disrespect in America by the non religious, to mock christianity and Christ but tread warily around other religions and their founders. One classic example we can take note of....
In 1989 when andrew seranos' "art" and I term that loosely, depicted Christ in a glass of urine, he was praised as "Unique" and "Talented" and his art was publicized in every national newspaper in america and was touted for "Freedom of SPeech" and even funded by the national endowment for the arts...but on the flipside, when cartoons, depicting mohammed were seen by muslims as blasphemous, local and national newspapers refused to run them ( in america) bc they didnt want to offend the muslim population......That, in my opinion is hypocrisy....and there are many cases in our country of similar instances(while not as widely publicized) of a general tendency to bash christians yet step lightly and respectfully around other religions.......

0 Replies

Kate - Thanks fo rthe reply. Do you believe that Christians strife is beyond that of other faiths? Or is strife itself a natural part of any belief?

Do you think Christendom is taboo? Moreover, do you think that Christianity is present in a large part of American culture?

0 Replies

I think that strife is part of any belief. All religions can point to times of persecution by others. In the bible, Christ told of those that would hate us (christians) bc they hate him. He forewarned that persecution and death could be a common occurance in the christian life. I have a book called Jesus Freaks compiled by the christian group "Voice of Martys" and "DC TALK"( a christian rock band popular in the 90's). In it they reference the World Christian Encyclopedia as stating that in 98(this book is a few yrs old now) 156,000 christians were martyred around the globe, and that number was estimated to steadily grow with each passing year. I believe that the number of christians that will die bc of their belief will continue to grow until Christ returns( just as he said)..........

As I stated earlier, we christians in america have it a lot easier than christians in other countries. The major religion in america is christianity. So far, its still safe to worship Christ without fear of jail or death. And i do believe that christianity is an important and visible factor in our culture today. Many politicians will openly denouce or support a law etc bc of christian beliefs. (you wont see that in other countries). We have christian themed movies that have been some of the biggest blockbuster hits. We have christian based songs hitting the secular charts all the time...I count my blessing to be a christian living in america.......but as i also stated earlier, the attitude of non-religious people(not all mind you) to feel the need to mock Christ and scoff at christians, has become a common trend in our society today.....

0 Replies

Thanks for the reply.

I'll try to not put any words in your mouth. I read in your responce that you believe that Christians experiance strife like all faiths. I also gathered no indication from your post that you view Christianity as being taboo. A fair summary? Further, you personally feel that there is still equity issues that Christians face. You cited the Jesus in glass of urine verses the Muhammed in a political cartoon, and the in congruency in political action taken.

I can agree to that. That was lame. I think that the political cartoon should not have recieved such attention. Irony is often a better form of expression than shock. For that reason I think the whole jesus cocktail aart is just lame. Frankly, it's low class art, it has shock but no real substance. If the artist wanted to convey their emotions towards Christianity, or if Jesus had some other analogous meaning, the only thing conveyed is a lack of talent. I looked at the picture and it isn't really anything special. Wikipedia does note that the artist never confirmed nor denied that it was urine. It could have been one of those things where someone asked if ti was urine--his urine and he shrugged and smiled for the attention. The image by itself doesn't convey "urine." Alone without a caption, I'd assume it was a normal photo witha few filters on it. I'm not defendng it, in fact, it's a little disappointing. I expected it to be more shocking.

ramble ramble. blah.

Anyway. Thanks for the reply. I gather from your posts that you are more of a conservative Christian yes? It is rare to chat with people of similar beliefs that appriciate or at least allow for plurality.

Next questions, since you've been so nice. what is your opinion on the muslims that are being held in Guantanamo Bay? If you read the article I posted earlier, should wiccan veterans be allowed to have the pentagram on their tombstone?

Thanks.

0 Replies

TKO...Yes i am a conservative christian...I believe the bible is Gods infallible innerant word. I believe that the only way to heaven is by making Jesus your Lord and Savior. Also, i am southern baptist. The article you gave was interesting. While i abhor pretty much all the aclu does, I do think that people should be allowed to place whatever religious symbol they want on their grave. My idealistic utopian society is one where everyone worships Jesus as their Savior. There would be no other gods or religions (like what is described in revelation). But for now, until Jesus comes back, I do feel that everyone should have a right to practice their religion as long as it doesnt cause harm to another individual in any way. Because, if we curtailed religious expressions of any individual group, then christianity would become outlawed as well. And that would become a problem for me. Pertaining to your question about the muslims at guatanamo bay, can you give me an unbiased credible article so i can read please.......

Now my turn for the questions.....I see your a Diest....what exactly do you believe and why?

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Quote:
Blessings & protections for keeping the purity of one's blood/race

where is that in the bible?

Nice to hear from a Christian, If you dont think Christians are the Biblical Israelites , the same bride of the old testament is the bride of the new, and the 10 lost tribes end time prophecies were not meant to be understood, just as 80% of the bible which is said to concern them, then nevermind & just writeoff the doctrine as another "false doctrine", that is fine with me.

Nearly all the covenants were made specifically in the bible to seeds which God made careful detail to name their seed in the issuance of such covenants, and their children after them. Some covenants have strings attached, other covenants were unconditional, all sorts of covenants, but major blessings & protections on the seed deals with the seed of Isaac. I know to Ishmael there were not additional binding factors as to the purity of his seed, but still many covenants made to his seed that they would be multiplied as much as the sands of the sea. God has fulfilled that in the Arabic peoples. Many of the other peoples, other nations do not have these specific covenants & blessings which God said in His word were exclusive to Israel.

Even all of God's law, of which Christians are to ask forgiveness of sin, was exclusive to Israel:

Christ came "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of Sons." (Galations 4:5) Moreover, the Divine Record declares, "for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Jesus only came to redeem them that were under the law (Galations 4:5)

Romans 9:4-5 reads, "the ADOPTION pertains to Israel... and for their FLESH Christ came"
Matt 10:6 reads, "go not to the other ETHNICITIES but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
and Matt 15:24 reads, "I'm not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

"For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out." Ezekiel 34:11

Matt 15:24 "I am NOT SENT, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

The law pertained to Israel and NO ONE ELSE AS WE READ in Psalm 147:19-20): "He shewith his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments to Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." For additional scriptural proofs, see Psalm 78:5, Psalm 103:7, Isaiah 51:7, and Exodus chapters 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. The law, as confirmed by St. Paul in Romans 9:4 was exclusive to Israel. The prophet Hosea records the 10 tribes of Israel were divorced. In Jeremiah 3:8 it says Israel was both put away and recieved a bill of divorce.
Israel was then RECONCILED in Christ. See Hosea 2:16, Hosea 2:20, Hosea 3:5, Isa 54:5-8, Isa 62:4-5, Jeremiah 3:12; & Jeremiah 14. The clear message of the prophets is that YAHWEH would be fully reconciled to His bride and that a future marriage would be effected:

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. - Luke 19:10

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. - Acts 2:36

The bible declares the law to be LIBERTY (Psalms 119:44-45) it is for the highest pleasures and successes and spiritual freedom to express ourselves to the fullest. We're not under it, but we know right from wrong by it. The creator/manufacturer always knows how the parts work best since they designed them. It's the same thing with God's law.

Since, "where there is no law there is no transgression", and as the several verses above show that no one but Israel were given God's laws, it must be concluded only the pure seed of Israel has the ability to sin.

According to Deuteronomy 23:2, even if you had detectable mixture (bastardization/admixture/adulterization) within your lineage 10 generations back you were not allowed into the congregation of God. You had to be authentic unadulterated / non bastardized seed. (this is King James version, not my opinion, so leave me out of it, if you have a problem with it, take it up with God, I didn't write the bible, and most on here dont believe the bible but still want to debate me & bring me into the factor which is wrong.)

I hope you can not be like pigs who trample the pearls of God's word underfoot and turn to rend us, but are able to exercise intellectual dialog on precise biblical foundations. Anyhow, so what if you aren't entitled to a blessing, that doesn't make God racist. He's only choosing kings & priests who will be overcommers in this age who will rule & reign with him in the next age. Like he told the woman who begged her daughter to be healed, "it's not right for me to take my children's bread and give it to the dogs", and she recognized God is only coming for His own sheep in this generation and said , yes but the DOGS are allowed the bread crumbs that fall off the master's table. Since she recognized she was a dog, and not one of God's sheep of Israel she was blesesed. Not for opposing God's order. If she resisted & opposed God's order she wouldn't have gotten blessed. There are thousands of different blessings in the bible, and some are conditional, some are not.

0 Replies

Kate I will address you post later, right now I feel I should reply to Michael1.

Michael1, I am interested in what genetic traits you have, the differences you parents may have, and how you identify by ethnicity.

For the record, I am being very amiable to you sir concidering you claim goes directly to the idea that as a multicultural person; Half Scott-Japanese, makes me a lesser person than someone of "pure blood."

You see there is a problem...

Quote:

I hope you can not be like pigs who trample the pearls of God's word underfoot and turn to rend us, but are able to exercise intellectual dialog on precise biblical foundations.

when you post something like this you're simply asking for too much. Right now, if you are blessed with anything, it's my kind disposition, and dominion over my own rage at you hate speach. The truth is you either want a nice responce, or you want the responce your post's warant. You can't tell us that we have to be happy about the ideas you spit out.

BTW, who says that you can set the rules of what we can discuss? I can' only have "precise biblical" dialogue? I'm not allowed to share the real experiances I have had?

The TRUTH is that there is nothing wrong with me as a half Scott-Japanese. I am PRIVILAGE to everything that you are by natural law. I am not encapsulated by race or my skin color, but by my character and the merit of my efforts. We all get wet in the rain, and I'm sure your waste smells as bad as mine.

Shita shiki naka ni mo reigi ari, friend.

Since you're so into the whole race thing, I'm interested to hear you thought's on the tower of Babel, and the story's credibility. How precise is that?

0 Replies

Quote:

Nice to hear from a Christian, If you dont think Christians are the Biblical Israelites , the same bride of the old testament is the bride of the new, and the 10 lost tribes end time prophecies were not meant to be understood, just as 80% of the bible which is said to concern them, then nevermind & just writeoff the doctrine as another "false doctrine", that is fine with me

michael, the only thing I inquired about was the blessing you wrote pertaining to pure blood/race.....?? that's not biblical...our salvation doesnt hinge upon our race/blood.
Galations 3:28 There is neither jew nor greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Now my turn for the questions.....I see your a Diest....what exactly do you believe and why?

Actually I'm a Deist. It's my fault, I should have spent 1 second spot checking my spelling before picking my screen name... it's pretty bad. It would be like if your name had acidentally ended up as

"Kate4Chris03"

Thanks in advance for reading a really long post.

anyway, it's a slly thing, and for whatever reason, I have decided to keep it as my name.

I choose to identify as a "Deist" as opposed to identifing as an "Agnostic," because I felt that the idea of agnostic was associated with being confused or it implied that I was waiting for something.

Before I specifically tell you what I believe, I will tell you that I have been exposed to several religions as a youth.

On my mother's side fo the family my Grandmother is LDS, my Grandfather is an Atheist. My mother who was married once before marrying my father was married to a Jehova's Witness, and my half brother in his earlist years was raised as a JW.

On my Father's side, My Grandmother was raised with Japanese Shinto (Shamanism), however she didn't continue to practice as she grew up. My Grandfather was raised with no religion, but after WW2 he became a Lutheran and later a Decon (<--spell?) in the church. Many years later he left and decied to not identify as any relgion, but independantly studied many buddhist readings and incorperated many elements into his life philosophy.

Directly, my mother also raised Mormon, in her later years began practicing Native American Spirituality (Shamanism). My Father was not forced as a child to attend the Lutheran church, but instead was fairly apothetic towards religion until later in his life. My mother and perhaps the presence of children now, compelled him to slow down and explore the meta-physical world. My father would mostly identify as New Age. My sister is not sure how she identifies.

As for myself, I was never forced to attend church as a child (about 4th grade to 6th), but because I had many friends who did, I would go to a local baptist church. I was fairly invovled, and liked the people a lot. I sang in the choir, and participated in other community events. In Middle school, I found a new church, the Church of the Good Sheppard. I joined a youth group named Alpha. We offered Christian support to our friends and organized after school events that were safe etc. I was a very well accepted leader in the group. In high school (my sophmore or junior year) the Alpha youth group broke up. I was given the free range to find a new church; a new faith. Concurrantly at this time I began to become more aware of current events from around the world, I learned about science. I still identified myself as a Christian through high school. when I stopped is hard to pin point. I for a while identified as an Agnostic, but for the reasons written above, I felt that it lack the descriptive qualities for what I was experiancing.

So there is the background. That's the stuff that happens before college etc. I know I haven't mentioned yet what I believe, but I thought it important to first establisht that I have certainly been exposed to all sorts of religions, and at my own initiative.

It was not passive, but a passion.

Having experianced so many different religions, I comfortably say this first belief.

1) Relgion and Spirituality are not one and the same.

With a new and more open mind, I started experiancing people who used to be just like me. They knew what they believed, but they knew it like someone knows things on a list.

2) I believe that more truth lives in great questions, rather than grand answers.

I certainly uphold that churches (temples etc) are incredibly benificial to communities and are a great place to develop character. Having said that, I see religions taking tha approach that all things can be taught; we are to be conditioned.

Example - One can't learn how to be patient, they can only take advantage of the opportunities to practice patience.

Then there is the Quid pro quo that came along with many religions: "Believe that [insert] or else [insert penalty here]." Generally hell was the most popular.

3) I believe in that there are greater reasons to be "good" beyond the consequence of sin or the unknown.

I don't believe we need the definition of a infoulable "perfect" god to model our behaviors as to not be a reproach to our conscience.

Those with "belief" or "faith" will always be in envy of those who have the blessing of "discovery," and discovery is not a destinatinon, it is not rigid. It is a process.

4) The answers will never be as valuable as the jouney to find them.

Lastly, as this is turning into a very long post, thoughts on "God(s)."

I do not believe that if their is a God, that it has given s any reason to believe in it. This isn't an argument against the existance of God(s), but I choose to remain with that which is tangeble. If God exists, and has a conscience, I dont believe that it is active in the every moment of everything and everyone's existsnce, further, I don't believe "god interviens." I don't think that existance of God or lack thereof is nessisary at all to the notion of an afterlife or such concepts as a "soul."

If I had to summarize why I left relgion, and began my transistion into Deism, it culd be summarized in a lyric from a friend.

"Don't give me something to believe in, give me something that believes in me. Give me something human."

I could elaborate more, but I was just told that I'm taking up too much of the internet.

0 Replies

TKO thanks for responding....

Quote:

Actually I'm a Deist. It's my fault, I should have spent 1 second spot checking my spelling before picking my screen name... it's pretty bad.

lol..that is pretty funny...Hey, i spelled it wrong also, but i will give you the blame for that bc i was looking at your id. Very Happy

wow you have a wide array of religions in your background. My family is mostly christian, and in that, southern baptist or methodist for the most part.

Quote:

Relgion and Spirituality are not one and the same.

I would have to agree. Now be aware Im only speaking from a christian standpoint(mainly bc I know my belief is the only correct one) Very Happy

But i have known many people that think if they attend church, sing in the choir, go to events, they are saved. They feel that if they do all the right things on the outside then they are doing everything right. Statistically, these type of people will eventually leave the church and the religion. Why? bc they never had a personal relationship with Jesus. (please note that im not talking of you personally, or trying to be rude)..
This is the religious. The problem with this, is that it contradicts what the bible says about being a christian. To be a christian, one doesn't just attend church or believe there is a God. To be a christian, one must have an actual, personal salvation experience. You have to be born again and have the Holy Spirit indwelling you. For me, i can't just walk away bc i cant deny Him who is in me. I read stories all the time of christians in sudan, iran, china,etc that have willingly died (not by strapping on a bomb and harming others) but bc they have refused to reject Jesus. People, even self professed christians, wonder, why not just deny Christ so you wont be killed.....The only thing i can say is that these true christians have JEsus in them and know he is real and they love him so much that they would rather suffer in the flesh than deny him......That is the difference between being spiritual and religious...One will walk away for any reason, and One will stay no matter how hard it gets because they truly are disciples.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Quote:
Nice to hear from a Christian, If you dont think Christians are the Biblical Israelites , the same bride of the old testament is the bride of the new, and the 10 lost tribes end time prophecies were not meant to be understood, just as 80% of the bible which is said to concern them, then nevermind & just writeoff the doctrine as another "false doctrine", that is fine with me

michael, the only thing I inquired about was the blessing you wrote pertaining to pure blood/race.....?? that's not biblical...our salvation doesnt hinge upon our race/blood.
Galations 3:28 There is neither jew nor greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I'm sorry I didn't realize there were no more males or females in existance any longer. I thought that was only talking about spiritually. Of course works can never earn our spiritual salvation. Physical blessings and callings upon the seeds God covenanted to Abraham and His seed For Ever have nothing to do with salvation. SThere are something like 100 verses saying the "blessings" made with the seed of Israel is FOR EVER, blessings have nothing to do with salvation. Rom 11:1 "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."

Yes I've heard many saying the Israelites are now irrelevant like to quote that verse:

Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

If there's no more male or female then why are we wearing clothes? Why would do we dress like a male or dress like a female. It is talking about spiritually. Israelites still exist physically today just as much as males and females still exist.

0 Replies

Christendom, the Forbidden Cultural Society

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know