Yes, as I stated before, most philosophies are passed down at a young age to others. young minds can be encouraged towards violence with any skilled 'leadership', regardless of the philosophy or book or quotes they use to do it.

Okey, Voile - let's bring it down a notch, no need gettin' the blood pressure up. Let's get some clarity so we can discern where we agree, and where we don't.

First off - I grew up a Catholic - and never, in my entire 55 years have I met any professed Catholic who has read the bible - other than Miquel. (Lonely Walker) That is sort of irrelivant and off-point, but I will say this, I don't believe you'd find all of those Catholics you spoke of agreeing with the idea that Hitler was a Christian!

And we've looped around to this once again. We are in agreement about fanatical, legalistic Christian fundamentalists - who, by the way, I consider no more "Christian" than you actually do, because they twist and contort the philosophy so far beyond how it was intended - that it is no longer Christianity as far as most Christians are concerned.

Now - please - answer me this.

Where is the best place for one - ANYONE that is, to get their definition of a Christian. Let's start there, so you and I can at least agree on what the definition of one is. I will defer to you to get us started with a definition we can both agree on.

But where does this perception you have come from? Any casual perusual of even simply the gospel of John would cause anyone to doubt that the "Hating of Muslims and Gays" could be discerned from the philosophies of the gospel. So - again, whee does this "perception" that this is a part of Christian philosophy come from? Now, I'm not naive enough to not know exactly where it comes from. I've listened to the George Carlin's of the world, and know what they say - but I don't consider their "perception" of Christianity as anything but skewed - and certainly wouldn't adopt it for my own without reading the bible for myself. Which is exactly how I ended up reading it in the first place.

And there is little to stop anyone from not considering those who misrepresent a philosophy by their actions, as falsely representing that philosophy - when their intent is to discredit the philosophy in any way they can. If only to justify it to themselves.

I think Samuel Beckett best described this type of additude in Waiting for Godot. "There's man all over for you - blaming on his boots the faults of his feet."



Though you may see Bin Laden as a product of his interpretive understanding of Muslim beliefs - do you see him as Representing Islam? And Atheism is the belief in Secular Humanism. It's a belief system equal to Christainity in all of it's structure. It is a religion. To say it isn't is misrepresenting it. If we said that Christainity is the disbelief in man being capable of his own salvation - would we then say it's not a religion?



To claim that Hitler is a Christain - is admitting that his actions represent the philosophy - is it not? If I were to witness an Atheist standing up in a town meeting advocating school prayer - I would tend to doubt their claim of being an atheist befor I would question my understandingof Atheism. Would you not do the same?

Actually Markum, you're just a tad off. The reason WHY he was crucified was because he claimed to be God. The gospel message, is that He WAS! But you are right in that he never came out and said "I am God". It's just something that he never denied when asked, and the writers of the Gospels, and epistles were never in doubt that Jesus was the "son of God" as they understood that phrase in Judism, since they were all Jews. (With the exception of Luke)

You will find that most of the horrid leaders we have had on this planet all claim some religion and there are quite a few who were Christian.

The issue there is that Christianity meshes well with horrid acts, not whether the person was a devout Christian or not.

All religion mesh well with violence and hatred, they teach it.

You cannot teach a religion without teaching superiority, division, and righteousness.

If a person feel all of the above about other humans there you have the soup of war, violence, hatred, etc....

Unless a person can believe that their religion is NOT THE ONLY TRUE RIGHT WAY FOR ALL HUMANS, they will have the problem of being the catalyst to hatred, war and violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

Adolf Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic. According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was a religious sceptic,[1] while his mother was a practicing Catholic.[2] According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Church, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.[3] Georg Ritter von Schönerer's writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Hitler.[4] At the Benedictine monastery school which Hitler attended for one school year as a child (1897-98), Hitler became top of his class, receiving 12 1's, the highest grade, in the final quarter. He also sang in the choir at the monastery.[5]
[edit] World War I experiences


Public statements

In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and his belief in the "Aryan" Christ. Joachim Fest wrote, "Hitler knew, through the constant invocation of the God the Lord (German: Herrgott) or of providence (German: Vorsehung), to make the impression of a godly way of thought."[7] He used his "ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity," according to Ian Kershaw. Kershaw adds that Hitler by this ability also succeeded in appeasing possible Church resistance to anti-Christian Nazi Party radicals.[8] For example, on March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people.[9]

http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Napoleon.html

Napoleon Bonaparte had a strong belief in God, but he voiced many criticisms of organized religion.

He is frequently quoted as saying: "As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them." However, other quotes by Napoleon indicate a strong belief in Jesus Christ. Possibly Napoleon's views changed over time, or possibly some quoted have been inaccurately attributed to him.

A number of quotes attributed to Napoleon indicate a utilitarian view of religion. "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."; He also said: "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich" (quoted from Robert Byrne, 1,911 Best Things Anybody Ever Said, 1988).

From: Ervin Shaw, "Napoleon Bonaparte: 'Emperor' to EMPEROR" webpage, posted circa 2000, latest addition 14 August 2005; in "Christian Testimonies" section of "The Truth . . . What Is It?" website (http://poptop.hypermart.net/testnapb.html; viewed 7 November 2005):

"I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity..." So says Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), emperor of France.

Napoleon expressed the following thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, "Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?" The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:

Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. . . . I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man; none else is like Him: Jesus Christ was more than a man. . . . I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me . . . but to do this is was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lightened up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. . . . Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Whatever else one may say in response, it is difficult to explain this away as mere eloquence. In fact, it was to counter mere eloquence and such artificial power that Napoleon said what he did. With unbelievable insight, he saw how Jesus Christ conquered. It was not by force, but by winning the heart.




If you think about the way to power, for anyone, it is through fear. People fear death more than anything, religion addresses this fear, so if you can make people believe that if they follow you they will not truly die but live forever in a paradise, you can have complete power over them and what they do.

You will find that most of the horrid leaders we have had on this planet all claim some religion and there are quite a few who were Christian.

The issue there is that Christianity meshes well with horrid acts, not whether the person was a devout Christian or not.

All religion mesh well with violence and hatred, they teach it.

You cannot teach a religion without teaching superiority, division, and righteousness.

If a person feel all of the above about other humans there you have the soup of war, violence, hatred, etc....

Unless a person can believe that their religion is NOT THE ONLY TRUE RIGHT WAY FOR ALL HUMANS, they will have the problem of being the catalyst to hatred, war and violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs


I believe Christ is the only way to Christ. I dont feel better than anyone and the point Jesus made is that all are sinners(not anyone superior). People inject their ego into things. Many think 'non criminals" are superior to criminals,,is that the responsibility of the justice system?

Eljay,

Down a notch??? Blood pressure up??? You must have had a hard christmas. There isn't a hint of stressful intent in any of my comments as you seem to imply.

And, you missed the answer and point I was making in my previous post.

Far from stressful, I thought the post was clear in establishing that the question you keep asking, is a trick question.

All christians get their definition of what it is to be a christian from the bible.

A trick question I say, because you imply that it might come from somewhere else, which is a false and misleading premise. All the different definitions of 'christian' come from the bible. They may not agree with your interpretation of the radical and 'littearist' 'words-for-word' interpretation of the book, and thus the definition YOU derive from it, but the definitions of 'christian' all come from the bible.

You will argue that yours is the purest, the most 'true to the word', and that anything else is a perversion. '... they added stuff!!!' or they don't interpret this part or that part as it should be (like YOU DO!...) you will claim, '...forfeit christians all of them!!!...'

You need to regroup, and ask yourself where you're going with this 'divisive' and 'self-righteous' mentality.

Claiming that all catholics are forfeit christians, whatever your reasons for such claim, robs you of all credibility, and puts your reasoning in the camp of the warring and divisive fundamentalists.

If you are not a fundamentalist as you claim, and I trust you when you say that, you must revisit the divisive, self-righteous and moralizing language which contaminates with fundie dogma, your otherwise well-intended comments.

And since you and I agree on the essence (radical extreme and fundamentalist christians are a perversion of all that is christian), then you and I can join forces Eljay, you as a devout and bible sourced christian, and I as a 'cultural' christian, in lovingly and compassionately denounce the destructive and hate-filled words and actions of fundamentalist christians.

You will certainly agree that the various forms of fundamentalisms around the globe cannot be fought by our brand of christian fundamentalism!?!?!?

That's the '... an eye for an eye...' of the old testament!!! Certainly not Jesus's wisdom!

What is the sourced of the various definitions of christian ??? ALL BIBLE SOURCED!!!

Now let's denounce christian fundamentalism, as Jesus denounced the Pharisee's, and move on.

And if you'll forgive me pile-ing on...

The mere fact that you find "horrid leaders" claiming some affiliation with religion even relevant demonstrates how you are a representative of what you're so rightiously complaining about.

To me - christianity merely informs me that EVERYONE is a "horrid leader" of their own reality - and consider their opinions superior - are as divisive as can be because they chose to point out how guilty those who are "religious" are - thus demonstrating a rightiousness determined by their own set of values and morals. It isn't the cause of it. They have a term for this - it's called "human nature". I defy you to name one person - religious or otherwise who ios not guilty of some degree of what you are so quick to point out the "religious" possess. As though you don't, or couldn't possibly - because you've "cleansed" yourself of all religion.

Wake-up. Religion has little - if anything to do with the worlds' problems. People have EVERYTHING to do with the ills of our world.

Okay - so we're getting closer to an understanding.

I'm not saying there aren't these "Fundies" that you know I've gleaned from your posts over the years, we're in agreement of what that means - though I tend to think they've jumped off the wagon_carrying_christian_hay-ride, let's say for the most part, that I can trace back when they went from true believers to radical legalists, and won't agrue they represent the most radical of what we all believe to be "christian".

And just to be clear - I've never claimed that "a Catholic is not a Christian", for there are untold numbers of true believers who aline with Catholicism as their chosen denominiation - if only to remain claiming that to which they were born to (as is the case with infant baptism - a discussion for another thread at another time).

What I AM saying - is just claiming to be a Christian -BECAUSE one is a Catholic, is an invalid premise, and assumes facts not in evidence. I would cite Hitler as a glowingexample of this. Stalin as well, another "laspsed Catholic" as they say. Darwin also comes to mind. Hard to claim a moniquer of Christianity while denying God as the creator - wouldn't you say?

I'm also not arguing that most radical understandings of what Christainity is centers on interpreting the meaning behind the passages. That sort of goes witohut saying. But I find it difficult to believe that someone is a Christain who habitually breaks even the ten commandments with malice - as Hitler did. I don't think there's a "fine line of interpretation" to agree that he wasn't a Christian, and to claim he was demonstrates even the most basic of laymens definition of a christian. That has been my only point. I've never even offered MY definition of a christain to support that arguemrnt - because it's too obvious.

By the way - I hope your holidays have been enjoyable. Mine have been wonderful.

Thank you Eljay. My christmas with 2 'brand new' little beings of grandchildren was most enjoyable!!! And I'm glad to hear you also had an enjoyable christmas.

My comment about a 'hard christmas' was responding to your '... bring it down a notch', and 'blood pressure up' comments, which certainly didn't match my reality.

Now, there's a point where the 'getting closer' to an understanding, MUST LAND a constructive and common understanding!!!

This post raises the counter productive (for non-christians) and anti-christian (for christains) words and actions of christian fundamentalists (the only fundamentalists that are the responsibility of North American societies), and suggests that we all have a responsibility to denounce it, and support those whom are honest enough to move away from it.

So beyond 'getting closer' to an understanding Eljay, can we say that we both agree to DENOUCE, AND/OR SHOW DISSENT towards the doctrines and dogmas of a highly vocal group of christian radicals whom give christianity, and western civilization as a whole a bad name.

I genuinely think that whether from a political, social, or religious standpoint, christian fundamentalists have over extended and abused the privileges freedoms granted by the very society that has granted them those privileges and freedoms.

I wouldn't of telling even the christian fundamentalists what they should think or believe. But where the abuse is committed is where they (small minority) come an impose their 'view of the world' and beliefs, as you have often said, on the rest of society as a whole, with total disregard for well established societal principles, laws, and in the end the very constitution.

Let's keep those radical members of our North American family in line Eljay.

Nice post voileazur, now getting "good" Christians to know the difference is a whole other issue, many of them vote the extremist's agendas and think they are honoring their god and being "good Christians".

For example I considered them voting again for the Dippic (2004) to be extreme and that became painfully obvious later. When the Dippic was running in '00 I was already worried that he'd play the C card for all it was worth. Now we are in two wars and still trying to repair the damage...do the Christians take responsibility for this...well of course not, they will just again vote for the candidate that is "doing god's work" and ignore humanity's needs.

The other poster you are debating with shows the signs of extremisms, denying historical facts and playing the "not my church" card.

You can somewhat divide them, the extremists love Palin...Huckabee.

Good luck reaching some people tho~. Even the "good Christians" ignore the bad ones or are themselves just in denial that anything is wrong, the "it's god's will" types.

PEACE.

oh no not the definition thing ...the best way to handle this is to give a definition that can't be disputed

a Christian is a religious person of worship that choose to replace Yahweh with Yeshua

The problem is that they, being the religious, cannot see the wrong they do in the name of their religion.

You cannot show them their extreme ways because they do not see it in themselves.

When you point out the superior nature of all religions, you get the, "well not me" but there is no way "it is not them" if they believe the religion.

Those who created religions were not stupid in the ways of mind control.

They have put the concepts into the doctrines of the religion to make people believe it is all for the good of all when in truth it is not.

Religions teach division, superiority and hatred.

If your religion is the "one and only true right way" then you are wanting to be and believe you are superior by following it. this also teaches divisiveness. How can we all be one human race if we are not because of the superiority of some?

Any belief that targets a certain human characteristic and ostracized it teaches hatred. Homosexuality is firm example of this. There are others though.

The definition of Christianity is the belief that Christ existed and that he was at the least in contact with God.

It covers a lot of religions.

christ isn't a "religion" he is truth. Alot of the bible is a documentary of his life, not considered in any history because it is around God. And God is not put into our history's as to not offend the non believers. So there for they had to put it all in what we call the bible. But the bible was written down on documents through the years of Jesus being here, and then was put together in the bible as a whole.

No dude, the bible was written about 200 years after your Jesus guy lived. It's a hand me down of folklore and was used to set up rules to tell people how to live, basically to control the masses....I don't need ruling so no thanks. Where do you see and can you prove when it was written?

Dragoness said:

"The problem is that they, being the religious, cannot see the wrong they do in the name of their religion.

You cannot show them their extreme ways because they do not see it in themselves.

When you point out the superior nature of all religions, you get the, "well not me" but there is no way "it is not them" if they believe the religion.

Those who created religions were not stupid in the ways of mind control.

They have put the concepts into the doctrines of the religion to make people believe it is all for the good of all when in truth it is not.

Religions teach division, superiority and hatred.

If your religion is the "one and only true right way" then you are wanting to be and believe you are superior by following it. this also teaches divisiveness. How can we all be one human race if we are not because of the superiority of some?

Any belief that targets a certain human characteristic and ostracized it teaches hatred. Homosexuality is firm example of this. There are others though."


Made me think of the concept that dividing religions will help reduce their power to phuck things up. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) mentions this in his writings but even if they divide further then we are still left with their extremists...at least the division keeps them out of governments better, kept Palin away from the buttons so far but it's this overall environment today of extremisms that still threatens progress and justice.

Things may be getting better.

In case some missed it there's a link on the 1st post to get help.

yes the "bible" was written after Jesus. That is because the bible is combined of many documents that was wrote while he was here.

That's why acts, revolations, john, and so on aren't called chapters, they are called the books of acts, the books of revolations, ect. And all these were written while he was here on earth.

"War Is Over
(if you want it)"

great job Cowboy, the bible is a collection of 39 books in the old testament and 27 in the new testament. They were written over a period of 1400-1800 years by forty different authors beginning in 1450BC.

One of my uncles is responsible for some of the proverbs.

My third cousin's (twice removed) recipe for strudel appears just between the Revelations and the Prophecies.