Posted on 08/09/2005 6:45:50 PM PDT by Crackingham
He may have been eating the paste, but you were sniffing the rubber cement. They came here for opportunity. The colonists were loyalists for quite a long time. Even at the time of the revolution people were torn between loyalty to the crown and the need to stop the crown's abuses.
Once again, you were close.
Exodus 20:4:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above , or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
But you stopped just shy of the prize ...
Exodus 20:5:
Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God ...
Carving a crucifix as a tribute to the majesty of Christ's suffering, then using it as a focus for your prayers isn't bowing down to the crucifix or serving it.
Nice try. And it got you to open up a Bible, instead of using it to prop up your shrine to the Great Pumpkin.
... while the peace-loving Saxons were sitting around campfires humming "I Want to Teach the World to Sing."
Oh, and I believe these incidents of rampant Christian oppression took place some ... what ... 1,500 years ago? Care to dig into some of the predations committed by the pagans around that same period? Or in the vast centuries before Christianity arose? Nah. I didn't think so.
Including the Separatists who had fled England for Holland? I'm wondering why they would forsake their homeland if they were loyal to ... their homeland? I believe it had something to do with their being denied the right to practice a conservative form of Anglicanism.
Even at the time of the revolution people were torn between loyalty to the crown and the need to stop the crown's abuses.
Right, and one of those abuses was the crown's demand that all English citizens follow the liturgy of the Anglican church, however corrupted it had become. While that specific abuse wasn't cataloged in the Declaration of Independence, it was certainly a motive for the emigration of the Pilgrim settlers at Plymouth.
We didn't use rubber cement in class. You must have gone to a Wiccan school, where latex was part of the curriculum.
> Care to dig into some of the predations committed by the pagans around that same period? Or in the vast centuries before Christianity arose?
See any of them claim to be "religions of peace?" Nah. I didn't think so.
How about taking away previous resurrection tales?
But my point doesn't require anything to be a central tenet of Christianity. All it requires is that pagan practices live on in current Christian societies and practices, and they do.
About Maypoles, check here. They're very common in Europe.
The Bible does not advocate the disenfranchisement of women.
It's about versions. Differrent Bibles say different things, so it helps to not stick to only one version. The Bible treats women as property in all versions.
If you take joy in your service, you're not truly being "oppressed" at all, are you?
You're still saying the same thing: slavery is okay because you'll get better in another life. Sorry, slavery is not okay.
Mother Teresa probably didn't consider herself "oppressed" even though she lived in utter poverty and squalor.
Voluntarily, as her life's work. Not as a slave.
How is it doing wrong to others? By what standard of right and wrong?
Holding someone against his will, forcing work without pay. With people like you, no wonder slavery flourished in Christianity.
I'm unsure how you can differentiate if you have no fixed standard.
Learn to read. The standard is whether it harms others. Unlike Judeo-Christian rules, which can become antiquated over time (eaten any pork lately?), that standard never changes and is always applicable to any situation.
And what cosmology have the Wiccans invented that they don't feel the need to define "sin" even though they define "evil?"
Sin is an offense to a god. Muslim women may be punished in certain parts of the world for removing their veil, as it is considered a sin (violation of the rules of god, and therefore an offense). But who is hurt in such an action? Can you say that was evil? There is no relation.
Wow! That WAS simple.
Their concept of harm is somewhat like the reverse of Buddhism as the Dalai Lama teaches it, "That which brings the greatest happiness." If you don't understand the concept and feel like saying "Yeah, but killing a bunch of people makes me happy so it's okay," then I refuse to educate you further on the world's religions. Look it up for yourself.
Remember, ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever. Decide which one you are.
However, if by definition, God is the author of Right and Wrong, then any offense against Him is also, by definition, Wrong.
You're right. The first time my son speaks up at me I'll stone him. That is, after all, right according to God.
>Exodus 20:4:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above , or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
>But you stopped just shy of the prize ...
What, you mean at the *period*? The commandment says what it says. Part of what it says is: "don't make scultpures or paintings." Full stop. It then has further commandments as to what not to do with a sculpture if you happen to have one, you infidel.
> Carving a crucifix as a tribute to the majesty of Christ's suffering
Gets you damend, it seems. And what's so majestic about capital punishment?
See Christianity evangelizing into pagan Europe on the pretext of being a "religion of peace"? Only if you took the wrong pills again.
One is not contingent on the other. 20:4 says don't make one, period. They are separate orders.
And it got you to open up a Bible, instead of using it to prop up your shrine to the Great Pumpkin.
What gave you the idea that I was a pagan?
Did I claim otherwise? It was a reminder to you that your religion isn't exactly without blood on its hands.
I don't get it. Witch case are they being asked to review?
Those were the religious ones, not the rest of them.
While that specific abuse wasn't cataloged in the Declaration of Independence, it was certainly a motive for the emigration of the Pilgrim settlers at Plymouth.
Because it wasn't an issue to those who founded our country. Benjamin Franklin is famous for being torn between loyalty to the crown and a desire to stop abuses.
> See Christianity evangelizing into pagan Europe on the pretext of being a "religion of peace"?
I remember hearing something about God loving people. Clearly I misheard.
Let's jsut hope that nobody ever proclaims that Christianity has peace as a goal, as they'd be wrong.
Which witch case are we talking about again?
Pagan symbols have been co-opted by Christianity. Their pagan symbolism has long since expired.
It's about versions. Differrent Bibles say different things, so it helps to not stick to only one version. The Bible treats women as property in all versions.
Property? Hardly. Oh wait. You must have the Revised Standard Groovy Bible. The one written by the Rev. Gloria Steinem with concordance by Bella Abzug.
You're still saying the same thing: slavery is okay because you'll get better in another life.
No, YOU'RE still saying the same thing: "I've been told all my life that slavery is 'wrong.' I don't have the critical facility to look at it any other way, so I accept that it must be wrong." However, what makes it wrong is that it causes suffering -- by your own definition. If the slave is not suffering, indeed, if he is taking great strength from his ability to serve his master well, then how is that wrong, even in the moonbat world of the Wiccan?
Sorry, slavery is not okay.
Why, because you say it's not? Maybe the slave doesn't want or need you to "save" him. Maybe he's content to serve a more deserving master. Oh, but he doesn't have the right to view his situation that way because you read Uncle Tom's Cabin in junior high.
Voluntarily, as her life's work. Not as a slave.
It was her attitude, not some arbitrary designation, that made her joyful in God's work. The same attitude can apply whatever one's station.
Holding someone against his will, forcing work without pay.
What if it's not against his will? What if he asks no pay? Where's the harm? "Slavery" is a word. It only becomes oppressive when the slaves view it as such. Or when self-righteous busybodies like you decide to impose your worldview on everyone else.
With people like you, no wonder slavery flourished in Christianity.
I don't believe slavery requires Christianity to flourish. You might want to examine the history of your pagan ancestors before being too critical of Christian practices.
Learn to read. The standard is whether it harms others. Unlike Judeo-Christian rules, which can become antiquated over time (eaten any pork lately?), that standard never changes and is always applicable to any situation.
Reading has always been a challenge for me. Thank you for the advice. And I'm sorry for being so obtuse, but I still don't see any clear differentiation between what harms someone and what doesn't. Isn't that kind of a relative concept? I mean, I may not view a certain behavior as particularly harmful, but the victim of that behavior may. Please bear with me as I try to sort through this patchwork of gibberish.
But who is hurt in such an action? Can you say that was evil? There is no relation.
I can't say I know much about sin in the Muslim world. It seems to be much broader than it is in Christianity. As I said, in Christianity, the aim is not to serve people, but to serve God.
Their concept of harm is somewhat like the reverse of Buddhism as the Dalai Lama teaches it, "That which brings the greatest happiness." If you don't understand the concept and feel like saying "Yeah, but killing a bunch of people makes me happy so it's okay," then I refuse to educate you further on the world's religions.
You'd have to START before you could go further. Your concept of harm is borrowed from the reverse of Buddhism? So it is NOT "that which brings the greatest happiness"? Your powers as an educator are as lamentable as your powers as a debater.
Remember, ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever.
That's okay. You'll never live that long.
Decide which one you are.
False dichotomy. I choose "C -- None of the above."
You're right. The first time my son speaks up at me I'll stone him. That is, after all, right according to God.
I wouldn't do that. You'll get in trouble with the temporal authorities. And the Goblin Circle will take away your magic wand.
But gaining the help of pagan locals does. You know, the locals they later went on to destroy.
Only to those who have forgotten, or not bothered to research.
Property?
Yep, look it up.
If the slave is not suffering, indeed, if he is taking great strength from his ability to serve his master well, then how is that wrong
The world passed you up about 150 years ago, time for you to go back. And if a young girl is sold into white slavery to work at a brothel while she is well taken care of, I guess that's okay. Or why don't I just grab ny neighbor (he's black) and tell him he's my slave. I promise to take good care of him. OTOH, while he's Christian, I doubt he'll believe this load of bull.
I don't believe slavery requires Christianity to flourish.
I know slavery has a long tradition. However, Christians like you make claims with the end to continue slavery. It's a good thing not all Christians are like you or the Abolitionists would have never turned this country towards ending slavery.
You'd have to START before you could go further. Your concept of harm is borrowed from the reverse of Buddhism? So it is NOT "that which brings the greatest happiness"? Your powers as an educator are as lamentable as your powers as a debater.
I'm used to working with brighter students, and I've worked with some pretty dumb ones. It's not borrowed from, but similar to. "Do that which causes the least harm" is essentially the negatively-phrased version of "Do that which brings the greatest happiness." However, it is more passive, not pursuading people to proactively cause happiness as Buddhism does, only not to cause harm (as in the Hippocratic Oath).
You'll get in trouble with the temporal authorities.
Yeah, but I'll be in good with God for bashing my young child's head in with a rock. Glory be!
They may have been "insignificant" in Mrs. Pastejar's history class, but to the rest of the world, they were the original Settlers.
The vast majority who came to escape religious persecution were Deists and Jews.
Oh, so Mrs. Pastejar's History class had a Creative Fiction core? Pure bunk.
The Mayflower Compact was about business, not religion.
From the Mayflower Compact:
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
The word "God" occurs four times in the Compact (if you include the Latin Domini. The word "business" does not occur at all.
Yep, the Mayflower Compact was about business. And paste is made for eating.
How many did they murder in Salem?
Twenty. One died in prison while awaiting execution.
What a fun religion...
Thanks! It can't compete with naked orgies in the woods but it has its moments.
You get to murder people who have a different belief than yours!
Oh yeah! Look at Samson. Slew 10,000 Philistines. Wit yo mama's jawbone. And that was in the early days of the Old Testament.
Looks like the Muslims are just following your example.
Yeah, Christians were the first people to ever kill folks who disagreed with them. The Romans never did. The Greeks, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Huns, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Mongols, the Celts, the Vikings, the Normans, the Saxons, the Arabs, the Persians, the Spartans, the Bulgars ... none of them ever did that. The whole idea of killing strangers originated with those gnarly Christians.
An offense to God? Whose God?
The Christian God, I suppose. I don't know. I wasn't there. But I think it's explained in the context.
They aren't an offense to my God.
What, you mean the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh?
You must be calling that Satan guy God.
No, we call him the Devil. Old Scratch. Lucifer. Prince of Darkness. His name is legion.
What makes you think that God would care more about you than a Pagan?
I didn't say God cares more about me than a pagan. I said that God is offended by certain behaviors, and that He allows -- and in some cases requires -- that those behaviors be punished, the offender's professed religion notwithstanding.
Common sense is just reason and I see very little of that in the Evangelical community.
With your head so obviously stuck where it is, I'm surprised you can see to get out of bed in the morning.
Without God's gift of reason, we are just naked apes. God wrote the Universe and gave us reason. Man wrote the Bible and gave us Hatred.
Sounds like you've been reading your Watchtower again. I guess it's better than eating paste.
I'll take God over your hatred, thank you!
I don't expect you'll recognize Him when you see Him. But I'm fairly sure He'll recognize you. .
Sounds like people loyal to the crown to me. You just provided the evidence to make yourself lose. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.