Posted by: TLC ®
06/28/2003, 09:17:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Welcome back Martin!! I clicked on the link which seems to have the aura of attracting rather radical and over simplified viewpoints of solving grandiose and multifacted problems that humankind is faced with. Typical religious nuts.In reading the article that you presented, I could not help but notice that, given a change in language and era, the retoric would not seem very much out of place in a beer hall in Munich in the late 1920s. Frightening? I fear, that as the future presents the world population concerns that we all know are most likely going to be a reality, this type of rabble rousing will be more acceptable as a rational approach to the problem. Of course it will be hiding under the sheep's clothing of a religious franchise on the "truth". As in the past, a desperate people could be made willing, again, to follow a messiah of some sort to solve perceived major global problems, including murdering all who oppose their "Rightous" goals. Again, good to have you back, Terry
Modified by TLC at Sat, Jun 28, 2003, 09:20:22
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
06/28/2003, 16:45:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think I would rather go to the hell this site claims would be the fate of those who fail to believe as they do than worship a God as vindictive and intolerant as the one they preach. How like the Medieval Christians and today's militant Muslims they are who have the attitude "Either convert to my faith or be killed! TLC is right. This is the kind of attitude that spawns and nurtures monsters like Adolph Hitler!Gunnar
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
06/28/2003, 17:31:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
This really is a disgusting site. On the next page of the link you provided, it saysThis article is not meant to influence anyone to commit the crime of murder. It is meant to show that the american constitution and its amendments are not the noble documents many people think them to be. They are really MURDEROUS documents. The criminals who possess a deeper understanding of the satanic wisdom contained in those documents realize that fact. They know that any crime can be committed "legally" if it is done the "right way" - acccording to the dictates of the constitution. It is the "ignorant" who do not realize this fact, and so, they get caught and punished for their crimes because they commit their crimes "unconstitutionally." How anyone can conclude that the constitution is a murderous document containing Satanic wisdom is beyond me. I guess there really are Christian Taliban. Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Sat, Jun 28, 2003, 17:31:49
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
06/29/2003, 00:56:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
Red is Red, Green is Green and woe betide the next colour blind person to enter THAT room.
|
Posted by: johny ®
06/29/2003, 02:49:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi.
The scriptures are there to ultimately save us or to gain a better after life and life while we are here, the sins you mention from the bible are truth as it is, anything else is like an opium to dull the senses to the consequenses of sin, which man may enjoy while this life remains,but when the truth is finally revealed and we are left to face the punishment for the sins, I can hear it now, "I wish I had listened" alas it may be too late by then. We may develop sophisticated debating skills to convince ourselves and others that to sin is okay, but alas self deception is the only friut of this.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/29/2003, 05:31:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
... to suffer the 'automatic DEATH PENALTY' for 'blasphemy against the true God', who is, of course, the fundamentalist Christian God, not your 'idolatrous' God of 'flesh and bone', you filthy heathen!"Anyway, that's what Robert T. Lee of the Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the TEN COMMANDMENTS told me. I can just hear it now, when Reverend Lee comes to butcher you and your pagan family, "I wish I had listened". Alas, it may be too late by then.
- Martin
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/02/2003, 17:40:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
If it makes you feel better, call me names .It makes little impact on me. if you were of more consequence then I would worry
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
07/02/2003, 18:50:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
if you were of more consequence then I would worry Is that statement an accurate reflection of your religious beliefs and feelings? Are some people of more consequence than others? What would make Martin of greater consequence?
By the way, did you even understand Martin's post?
Modified by Craig C. at Wed, Jul 02, 2003, 19:41:30
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/03/2003, 22:51:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
His title "You, LDS abomination, shall be among the first" Is very insullting and I dont propose to let it have room in my mind.Martin is possibly a nice guy, but when he starts to show me that then he will have my respect.but he isnt going to draw me into a slanging match.And yes I do understand what he is aluding to. Finally I think all people are born as important as each other and in fact are equally valuable to God , no matter what they do , unfortunatley by our choices we have to accept the consequences of our actions, and become lesser or greater depending on the nature of what we do. Do you understand what I am saying?
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
07/04/2003, 01:02:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
Johny,You say that Martin's choice of title, "You, LDS abomination, shall be among the first" is "very insulting." It’s only insulting if you fixate on the word “abomination”, do not understand the post title in the context of the rest of the post, and do not understand satire. and I dont propose to let it have room in my mind. It’s quite obvious you have not allowed it “room in your mind.” You say, And yes I do understand what he is aluding to. So far, you show no evidence of that. Finally I think all people are born as important as each other and in fact are equally valuable to God , no matter what they do , unfortunatley by our choices we have to accept the consequences of our actions, and become lesser or greater depending on the nature of what we do. Do you see the inherent contradiction in what you just said? You ask, Do you understand what I am saying? I understand that you are saying that all people are equally valuable to your version of God - no matter what they do - but some people become of lesser value depending on what they do. Oh yeah, makes perfect sense. But I’ll freely admit that I don't understand what you mean by this: he isnt going to draw me into a slanging match [emphasis added]. I never heard of a "slanging match" before, though it does sound kinda' fun. Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Fri, Jul 04, 2003, 16:08:06
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/07/2003, 07:02:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks for the cordial maner you approached your reply.
"Finally I think all people are born as important as each other and in fact are equally valuable to God , no matter what they do , unfortunatley by our choices we have to accept the consequences of our actions, and become lesser or greater depending on the nature of what we do." Do you see the inherent contradiction in what you just said? I see why you may think there is a contradiction, but while God loves us the same no matter what we do,the choices we make determines our greatness or otherwise, for example A judge in a legal case is bound to give you a sentence for certain crimes,even if he happens to like you personally, he cant let his personal feelings influence his sentence, except he may give you the lightest sentence permitted by law.God is no respector of persons. but his love is always there for us, how many parents have loved their kids and yet punished them for wrong doing?
I cant see any contradictions.
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
07/04/2003, 19:19:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
It appears that you missed the point that it wasn't Martin who was calling you names. "LDS Abomination" is what Robert T. Lee would have called you, and Lee is the one with the attitude that your concept of God is blasphemy that would earn you a death penalty, not Martin. This is what Martin was trying to point out.Speaking of blasphemy, the Biblical, Old Testament mandate of death for blasphemy is so incredibly stupid and short-sighted that it could not possibly have been mandated or endorsed by any being intelligent, just or exalted enough to deserve the appellation "God." Putting people to death merely for advocating a mistaken religious belief set an extremely foolish and dangerous precedent that virtually guaranteed that anyone preaching a doctrine or admonition that was contrary to what their contemporaries (particularly the local rulers) wanted to hear, whether it actually came from God or not, would be accused of blasphemy and stoned to death. In the New Testament, Jesus often complained about how the Jews' forefathers stoned to death God's true prophets. Such stoning to death of even some of the "good guys" (from the Biblical perspective) was a direct consequence of the very idea that "blasphemers" should be put to death. The Spanish and Italian Inquisitions certainly used the Biblical injunction against and mandated penalty for blasphemy as justification for their atrocities. If God really initiated and mandated such a practice, He is a certifiable idiot! Gunnar
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/07/2003, 21:40:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
While you may be correct in that he quoted someone else,he did however choose the quote and therefore I associate it with him.
|
Posted by: victoria! ®
07/08/2003, 10:35:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello johny, Well, it's a sad commentary when I have to intervene during vacation but here's my best shot at helping you understand. Take a look at Martin's opening post where he closes with: "Ah, yes; I'd almost forgotten why I've so long been of the view that Bible Christianity is one of humanity's greatest evils. I'm reminded of the great irony of the hymn's refrain: "You'll know they are Christians by their Love..." " He is pointing out the obvious hatred in Robert Lee's extreme fundamentalist wacko-ism. He quotes Lee in his post to you. He SAYS he is quoting Lee. He places the quote in "quotes". johny, no serious poster on this board (including Martin) would ever refer to you as "you LDS abomination". Martin, for example, has no religious axe to grind with you since he has no religious affiliation. Martin might call you alot of things johny, but he wouldn't call you an "abomination". Think about it johny. The only type of person that might call you that is a extreme fundamentalist Christian...like Lee. THAT is what Martin is pointing to in his post. He goes on to compare that type of extreme fundamentalist bigotry/hatred with a hymn on Christian love. See? Okay, my work here is done. I shall now return to swimming in tribal waters. Springsteen rules! Jersey Girl on location ;-)
Modified by victoria! at Tue, Jul 08, 2003, 10:40:18
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/09/2003, 07:15:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
If I have misjudged you, then I am truly sorry martin.:)I still holds to my other comments re gods laws etc. Johny
|
Posted by: Martin ®
07/10/2003, 04:55:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Johny,I must say that I'm rather surprised (and just as disheartened) that my simple satirical post had to be explained to you so many times, but I'm glad you seem to have come to kinda sorta understand my point a little bit. One of which was (straight from the horse's mouth this time) that people like Lee are (among a great many despicably odious attributes) vicious separatists, intent on condemning anyone and everyone who differs in even the smallest way from their own personal theology. There is no question at all that, as a member of the LDS Church, Lee and his ilk would condemn you and your family to death for blasphemy just as rabidly as he would condemn myself. One moral of the story is that, unless you want to be like Lee, you should spare others your self-righteous sermonizing and fear-mongering, "lest you be judged" yourself. Since you feel that living by "God's" laws (whatever you imagine they happen to be in your own mind) is necessary, by all means live by them! I respect those incredibly rare Christians who are sufficiently honest about their faith that they actually live according to the few morally praiseworthy tenets found in the Bible. But don't presume to tell me or anyone else what "God's" laws are, okay? You have no more of a justified idea of what they might be than I do.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Jul 10, 2003, 07:30:36
|
Posted by: Martin ®
07/10/2003, 04:40:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
You know, Vicki, sometimes you're pretty great, not to mention genuinely perceptive. And those times are getting more frequent, too!Thanks.
- Martin
p.s.: Please don't quote this back to me someday merely to demonstrate that I am often -- but certainly not always -- one of your fans, ok? I kinda like the fact that I find it easy to stay open to change, and I don't enjoy regretting it.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
07/15/2003, 03:33:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Martin, I read this post of yours probably 4 times. Maybe it's because I've just gone from sea level to 7800ft but I don't understand your p.s. comment. Can you say it another way? Vicki
|
Posted by: Martin ®
07/15/2003, 07:21:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well, I hope I won't regret this. I'm just going to answer your direct question then drop this entire sub-discussion...After I returned here after my extended absence (which -- contrary to some truly absurd and insulting comments by JAK and that former pop singer whose name I can't recall right now -- I didn't lurk to read at the time), I went back into the archives to catch up on what I'd missed. I discovered that you had posted an entire personal email of mine without permission in which I'd said some nice things about you. The intent of your post was obviously first and foremost to throw those words back in my face as snidely and forcefully as possible, but also to try and make me look like a fool. You were pissed off and looking to strike back, even though I had already left and was unable to defend myself. My postscript in the post above was intended to ask you not to do that kind of thing again and make me again sorely regret ever writing anything nice about you. Shall we drop it again now? Please?
- Martin
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
07/15/2003, 14:05:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
Martin, I did not post any of your emails on this board. I included a repost of one of your posts on this board. It was in a post to Ramona and you can find it on page 8 of the archives along with my closing remarks to you. You are wrong about my intentions but I refuse to discuss it further on this board. Martin, this place can be so much fun and I don't know how arrogant this sounds and actually I don't care (!), but you and I pump life into the discussions here. We say what others are too shy to say or maybe too dignified (wow, what does that say about us, huh?:)and dish it straight up. We should have never put eachother in the positions that we did here. If I could go back in time I would change many things, but I can't and neither can you. Let's take eachother as we find eachother today and let tomorrow take care of itself. It will be alright so long as we move forward. I don't want to discuss this again on this board. It doesn't belong here and it never did.
Vicki
Modified by Victoria! at Thu, Jul 17, 2003, 12:25:15
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
06/29/2003, 19:16:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
The idea of what should and shouldn't be sin existed well before Christianity or even Jahweh was invented. The very fact that you consider the moral code to be so relevant is not because of your faith, but because your mind has a predisposition to give it value.People without your faith in the "origins" of these moral codes can accept them just fine within their own worldview. Homosexual companions can choose to be faithful one to the other. An atheist undergrad student may decide to not have sex until she gets married. A child in a hunger-devastated town in Africa may choose to steal fruit from the tree of the bad man in town rather than from the kind man's tree. etc.... All these moral concepts don't exist because they were taught to us by Christians, Jews, or any other religion. They exist because they were so relevant to the human mind so as to be transmitted from generation to generation. I leave it to you to find the consequences of this. TV
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/02/2003, 17:43:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
God's law is the only law a wise man will listen to .
as contained in the scriptures. If you or I do anything that is not Gods law then we will ultimately reap disapointment. unless however we repent.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
07/02/2003, 18:23:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
God's law is the only law a wise man will listen to as contained in the scriptures. If you or I do anything that is not Gods law then we will ultimately reap disapointment. unless however we repent.What if God's law tells you to lie? Would you be unwise to refuse? Will this reap disappointment unless you repent? What if God's law tells you to take another wife. Would you be unwise to refuse? Will this reap disappointment unless you repent? What if God's law tells you to take as your plural wife the wife of another man. Would you be unwise to refuse? Will this reap disappointment unless you repent? What if God's law tells you to kill somebody? Would you be unwise to refuse? Will this reap disappointment unless you repent? What if God's law tells you to kill lots of people? Would you be unwise to refuse? Will this reap disappointment unless you repent?
Modified by Craig C. at Wed, Jul 02, 2003, 18:41:16
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/03/2003, 22:55:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
I can see your drift, but if we obey God all will be well, as God knows the whole picture , we do not.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
07/04/2003, 00:39:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
if we obey God all will be well, as God knows the whole picture , we do not. Yes, that's exactly what those terrorists thought as they flew those planes into the World Trace Center. And that's exactly what John D. Lee and other Mormon pioneers thought as they slaughtered the Fancher party. > Mountain Meadows
Modified by Craig C. at Fri, Jul 04, 2003, 13:37:05
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/07/2003, 07:15:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
I did not say "if we obey what we think is Gods will" I said if we obey his will. there is a difference.
I dont accept the LDS people have done any major wrong in history though I see attempts to make it seem that way.God has sometimes commanded his people to do harsh things, I accept and again I say he knows why, and we have to have faith to accept these things.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
07/07/2003, 10:54:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
Johny,You say, I did not say "if we obey what we think is Gods will" I said if we obey his will. there is a difference. Other people. such as the 9-11 terrorists, are equally convinced that they know God's will. Why are they wrong and you right? What makes you so sure that you know God's will and they did not? I dont accept the LDS people have done any major wrong in history though I see attempts to make it seem that way. Did you read the information on the link I provided? Can you provide evidence that even one word of it is false? You cannot change history by denying it ever happened. Holocaust deniers can not change the fact that it happened. The bones of some of the slaughtered people at Mountain Meadows were recently accidentally exhumed. It was in the newspapers. The bullet wounds were quite apparent. How do you think those bones got there? Ask someone you trust and who is knowledgeable about Church history whether the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. God has sometimes commanded his people to do harsh things, I accept and again I say he knows why, and we have to have faith to accept these things. Are you saying that God commanded the Mountain Meadows massacre? Do you also believe that God commanded the events of 9-11? Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Mon, Jul 07, 2003, 11:00:02
|
Posted by: MaryC ®
07/07/2003, 21:21:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
Craig-
I'm new to the world of posting. Found this site (& believe.net where I am "faithandworks") by search words "Mormon" & "leave church" hoping to find some LDS victims wanting info & encouragement to be truly Christian. It's good to remember that humans are pretty quick to do stuff we know is wrong then find an excuse, such as divine inspiration, when it is plain ol' sin. Folks do what Adam & Eve did when they wanted to be just like God. He said they can't DO that and they tried anyway; now the LDS tells followers they can go one better and actually BE gods. Wrong. Scripture says not to kill, to forgive "70 x 7" (aka "endlessly"), to share with the hungry, etc. When people claim to get private messages to violate those rules, they are falling into sin by acting on Satan's temptation to think they know better than God. Literally, the oldest con in the Book. Moral codes have the same axioms because they are based on "natural law," present because God made us to know & love Him in this world and be with Him in the next. (My Church teaches that God wants us all in Heaven and by His mercy that is possible.) It matters not if He made people instantly in a day or gradually over millions of years, the premise is same. It is illogical to think God would want people murdering others, because He already said killing is wrong, and God wouldn't contradict Himself. (The question of a "just war" emerges here.) His morality is tidily in order. In faux KJV lingo, "Followeth the foundational rules lest thou fallest for false prophets tripping on power who createth layers of confusion and sales of behemoth profits by multitudes of new-writ bookes; yea, verily, carde-sharpes in a house of cardes."
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
07/08/2003, 12:03:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Mary, While I can appreciate your desire to save a few souls, I have to tell you that the whole premise of the Bible and Christianity makes no sense at all to me. The Bible is a book filled with half-truths, lies, and myths - mixed with some history to give it a veneer of historicity. Sorry, but, in my opinion, you are as much a victim of deception as any member of the LDS church who you would seek to make "truly Christian." Regards, Craig
|
Posted by: MaryC ®
07/08/2003, 16:57:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Craig-Did I say anything about saving souls? No. Why assume that? What's irrelevant:
-(1) Whether I'm deluded now by virtue of having faith in the teaching of the Church or was deluded in the past when I did not.
-(2) That the Bible is, yes indeed, an eclectic hodgepodge of source material from many places & 3 languages: Hebrew for the Jewish Torah (aka OT), Aramaic and Greek for the NT. (The Catholic Church also relies on Tradition; Protestants reject it for "sola scriptura"/Bible alone.)
-(3) If all followers of faiths-- Hindus, Taoists, Rastafarians, etc.-- are victims of lies & myths. What's relevant:
-(1) LDS members vehemently claim to be Christians.
-(2) The belief system of LDS contradicts Christian theology. I point this out in the way that Michael Moore,* in "Stupid White Men," says that when Democrats act like Republicans they're not being Democrats.
-(3) When LDS and others (e.g. the death-dealing Lee) create new religions which are logically inconsistent with Christianity, their followers should be informed of that. It is unfair to tell someone they are Christian and oh, by the way, that God might require them to murder people. *I'd add a link to Moore's site if I knew how, for his essay on planning his "Bowling for Columbine" Academy Award speech while at Mass. --MaryC
Modified by MaryC at Tue, Jul 08, 2003, 17:00:10
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
07/08/2003, 18:22:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Mary, You ask, Did I say anything about saving souls? No. Why assume that? Previously you said that you were hoping to find some LDS victims wanting info & encouragement to be truly Christian. We can argue about the semantics (of saving souls), but that sounds a lot like someone who has come here to help those poor lost Mormons. I assume you are Catholic. Am I wrong? I also assume that if you are Catholic then you believe in the Bible. Am I wrong to assume that? You say, What's relevant: -(1) LDS members vehemently claim to be Christians Yes, we just completed a VERY LONG AND BORING discussion about that topic on this forum. We argued it to death. I have no interest in further discussion of that topic. (2) The belief system of LDS contradicts Christian theology. As if there were one SINGLE Christian theology... (3) When LDS and others (e.g. the death-dealing Lee) create new religions which are logically inconsistent with Christianity, their followers should be informed of that. It is unfair to tell someone they are Christian and oh, by the way, that God might require them to murder people Yes, and now are you going to tell me that Christian denominations, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have no blood on their hands? Good grief, woman. What about the Inquiistion? What about the Crusades? What about the slaughter of untold thousands of native Americans? All in the name of Rome. Talk about throwing stones in a glass house! Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Tue, Jul 08, 2003, 18:25:17
|
Posted by: MaryC ®
07/09/2003, 16:23:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Craig, RE: "poor lost Mormons"
I'm available to anyone "wanting info & encouragement," as I said. "Wanting"= receptive, of their own volition. RE: Am I Catholic?
Yes, for 12 years, after a non-religious background.
Do I believe the Bible?
Yes, I believe it contains truth revealed in a variety of literary genres. The Catholic Old Testament is same as Jewish Scripture was until 90 A.D. By then, all scripture was translated to Greek by Christians; 7 original Hebrew books were lost & Jewish scholars removed them rather than accept the Greek versions. Christians kept using them; they were removed by reformers for the Protestant Bible in 1500's. The New Testament is same for all Christians. RE: "one SINGLE Christian theology".
Since 1500's, many versions, but Christians share basic beliefs, as best I can describe: 1. God the Father, Creator of Heaven and earth, eternal, was not human. 2. Jesus Christ, Son of God, born of Mary, became a man fully human and fully God, is the Savior/Messiah prophesied in OT, crucified, died, buried, rose to Heaven, will return to judge. 3. The Holy Spirit (Hebrew "ruah" air/breath) moves among us in prayer & faith, is invisible, not a physical person. 4. Baptism is received only by the living; marriage ends at death; no pre-exisiting spirits; no reincarnation; no magic, no divination. RE: "blood on their hands".
As I said 7/7, humans commit sins of their free will and try to justify them. The point is, does a church, or law, or one's own conscience formulate a consistent guide (moral code/set of norms/creed) or not? If a consistent guide is provided and a person violates that, they have chosen to do wrong & they are accountable. If an inconsistent guide is given, with contradictory, confusing norms which include approval of sin, the believer would be in a double-bind. Tough call as to their accountability if they sin; but the person who originated that guide IS accountable; the Catholic term for that is "capital sin," the worst kind as it leads other people into sin. Logically, God wouldn't give a mixed message.
Violation of a consistent moral code does not nullify its validity. If someone has been taught by his parents that stealing is wrong, but steals a bike, does that imply that his parents are incapable of teaching not to steal? If the next day, his sister sees a child shoplift in a store, should she be laughed at for telling the child that stealing is wrong, because her parents have a thief in her family? The following array of behavior does not excuse ANY of the immorality. I'll try not to "wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics" (Ronald Knox).
Judas Iscariot: one of Jesus' own 12 apostles, accepts money in exchange for betraying Him, hands Him over to be crucified. The Crusades: wars with Moslems over holy land, esp. Jerusalem, ca. 1100-1300; French Crusaders decided to also kill Jews along the way, including those whom their own archbishop tried to protect; war with the Albigensians. (Meanwhile, Aquinas, William of Ockham, Francis of Assisi, etc. tried to restore purity, voluntary poverty and scholarship to the Church.) The Inquisitions: 1184-1231, to torture/kill heretics; in 1478 Spain requested the ecclestiastical court to exterminate Moslems who had settled there; Rome, begun 1542, Galileo among those condemned. Accurate records of large numbers of people killed were not kept. Bad Popes and Priests: Debauchery, excesses, abuses, self-serving machinations, yielding to temptation. I don't have names & dates, but can research them. These men were ordinary people who were called to be holy and chose to be heinous. Henry XIII created the Church of England, had Catholics Thomas More and John Fisher executed in 1535. (Depicted in movie "A Man for All Seasons.")
Protestants burned "witches." Queen Mary had Protestants killed, Queen Elizabeth had Catholics killed. Martin Luther and John Calvin had people executed.
The Nazis killed Jews, Gypsies, etc. including Catholic priests; Fr. Maxmilian Kolbe could have lived, but he took the place of a married man who is alive with grandchildren now. This kind of choice leads to criticism that Catholics try to get to Heaven by doing good works, ergo, they don't have faith. The KKK lynched black people (Billie Holliday's song "Strange Fruit"); they also killed Catholics ("papists"). Today many people will die of disease and starvation, conditions related to poverty, war, colonialism, greed. The Pope asked the U.S. to forgive the debts of impoverished nations who cannot pay; I don't know what the response was. Actor Martin Sheen and other Catholics are among the protesters trying to get the School of the Americas closed, now nuns are serving prison time.
1971, Leonard Bernstein wrote "Mass," critical of right-wing politics, with help from Fr. Philip Berrigan, who'd been outspoken against segregation and was serving 11 years for Vietnam protest.
The Catholic Church has been blamed for not "doing something" to stop Hitler-- whatever that could have been-- yet when priests help the poor in Central America, they are blamed for being Marxist liberation-theologists (depicted in movie "Romero").
Catholic bishops offer a book and video recommending the environmental protection of the Columbia River watershed; that'll inevitably provoke accusations of being pagan animists. RE: "What about the slaughter of untold thousands of Native Americans? All in the name of Rome."
Would you please provide dates, places, or names of tribes, and info about how those murderers were identified as being Catholic? I will be glad to research this. Constance
"The beginning of wisdom is: get wisdom, at the cost of all you have, get understanding..." Proverbs 4:7
|
Posted by: victoria! ®
07/09/2003, 22:04:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Craig, In your post you write: "You say, What's relevant: -(1) LDS members vehemently claim to be Christians Yes, we just completed a VERY LONG AND BORING discussion about that topic on this forum. We argued it to death. I have no interest in further discussion of that topic." No, Craig, we didn't. If you are referring to the discussion between Dan and myself, the topic was whether Mormonism is Christianity. Not whether or not Mormons are Christians. Those are two very different issues. I do agree that it was long and boring. Contrary to what Mary C. implies, many if not most Mormons are likely Christians and she is completely wrong in daring to characterize the walk of another believer. Her judgement on Mormon's contradicts the Bible. Jersey Girl on location ;-)
Modified by victoria! at Wed, Jul 09, 2003, 22:29:42
|
Posted by: MaryC ®
07/12/2003, 08:39:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria:RE: "Her judgement on Mormons contradicts the Bible." 1. It's not my judgement, it's my agreement with others' discernment . Source: Gordon H. Fraser, "Is Mormonism Christian?" Moody Bible Press, 1977. (He is a Protestant, so I'm not just quoting someone from my Catholic tradition.) "The Mormons use the name of Jesus Christ in the title of their church, but any discerning Christian will readily observe that this is not the Jesus Christ whom we worship as the eternal Son of God who died for our sins according to the Scriptures." (p. 61)
"Mormon thought cannot comprehend the oneness of the Trinity...." (p.72)
"We have been discussing doctrine-- Christian doctrine versus Mormon doctrine. The line of cleavage between the two is very clear," (p.188)
|
Posted by: Martin ®
07/10/2003, 05:18:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Mary,I genuinely admire your principles vis-a-vis your belief that people like Islamic terrorists make up their own self-justification for mass murder and then try to force it retroactively into Allah's mouth, but I feel I should try to inform you about one point in particular. When the crafter(s) of one or two of the three biblical Ten Commandments wrote "Thou Shalt Not Kill", it meant "Thou Shall Not Murder Without the Consent of the Elders an Orthodox Socially-Conforming Adult Jewish Male who is Not a Slave and Never Disrespects His Parents and Never Utters the Word 'Jehovah' and Respects the Sabbath and Doesn't Eat Snakes and Kills Sheep the Proper Way, etc., etc., etc." Scholars tell us that essentially no one at the time imagined for a moment that this Commandment was meant as anything like a general ban on killing people! Heavens, no! That might actually have deterred them from so frequently butchering so many suckling infants who didn't belong to their own tribe! No, if you want to invoke a truly loving and humanitarian universal ethic opposed to killing, you must close your Bible and turn instead to the purely secular. Human codes are far more just and moral than your "God's".
- Martin
|
Posted by: MaryC ®
07/12/2003, 10:40:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Martin- In Hebrew, there were about three long Commandments on one tablet and maybe seven on the other. (Reformers changed them to show that Catholic graven images are evil; guess Michaelangelo wasted his time. Movie "The Agony and the Ecstasy" is good.) Jesus' answer, when the Pharisees corner him on the "greatest" commandment, that the first is to love God and the second is like it, to love your neighbor, refers to the two tablets- one to love God, the other to love people. The rest is details. (Doesn't matter to me if the tablets "really" existed... did, didn't, the point is made.) Codes of behavior can be secular: formalized as civil law or constructed informally as social norms; or can be sacred: revealed as an aspect of the divine. As I see it, followers of a faith have it as an extra source along with the same set of laws and norms as those without faith. It's not an either-or. But faith can't be put on the shopping list. My patience is tried by sappy Christian-lite. Bible verses everywhere: in frosting on a cake and on 3x5 cards as wedding shower entertainment. Gaah. My own experience of God remains a surprise after 12 years. I was 40, secular, twice-married, through grad school -except thesis- and mucking along with money and health problems. Sure, I was having an awful time. I was not looking for religion. No one came to my door (lucky for them). But the strangest thing just sort of happened, and I was calling the Catholic church nearest my home, and their annual class was going to begin in, oh, three days. OK. I kind of drifted along, no big deal, even baptism was just... nice. And then I wrote my thesis. It was when I got involved with the man who's now my husband that my faith life really went crazy. He was ragging on me with questions I never thought of. So we read a lot of history, 2nd-3rd century stuff. To his dismay, he began to see things he didn't want to, mostly that he'd been lied to by fundamentalists. And I got stronger in my faith. Beyond my intellectual thinking, there's just this presence, like someone turned on a light to clarify everything. I could no more extinguish the Holy Spirit than I could intentionally forget how to read.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
07/12/2003, 21:44:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thank you, Mary, for giving us of your perceptive thoughts. I have considerable respect for those with more enlightened and genuinely loving Christian attitudes and outlook, and it would seem that you are in their number.
Respectfully, - Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Jul 12, 2003, 21:49:51
|
Posted by: johny ®
07/09/2003, 19:01:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
I note that some members were involved with this event, htough to what level it is not clear. I still stand by my opinion that the church has done no harm to | |
|
Signup with Paypal and get $5
