Readers’ Responses to Our Question (217)

Is it not the course of wisdom to make sure that what you believe actually is true and not simply what you want to believe? (Proverbs 1:5)
"I have my own beliefs, and I am happy with them," is the commonly expressed view. Many feel that even mistaken beliefs cause little harm to anyone. Someone who believes that the earth is flat, for example, is not likely to hurt himself or anyone else. "We should just agree to differ," some say. Is that always wise?
When it comes to religion, mistaken beliefs have historically caused great harm. Think of the horrors that resulted when religious leaders "inspired Christian zealots to pitiless violence" during the so-called Holy Crusades of the Middle Ages. Or think of the modern-day "Christian" gunmen in a recent civil war who, "just like medieval warriors who had saints' names on their sword hilts, taped pictures of the Virgin to their rifle butts." All these zealots believed that they were right. Yet, obviously in these and other religious struggles and fights, something was terribly wrong.
The Bible tells us why there's so much confusion and conflict. Satan the Devil is "misleading the entire inhabited earth." (Revelation 12:9; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:3) The apostle Paul warned that many religious people would, sadly, be "doomed to perish" because they would be deceived by Satan, who would "produce miracles and wonders calculated to deceive." Such ones, said Paul, would "shut their minds to the love of truth which could have saved them" and would thus be 'deluded into believing what is a lie.' (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, The New Testament, by William Barclay)
Unthinking adherence to what previous generations believed and did can, in fact, be dangerous.—Psalm 78:8; Amos 2:4.
A Samaritan woman who met Jesus Christ had been brought up to believe in her Samaritan religion. (John 4:20) Jesus respected her freedom to choose what she wanted to believe, but he also pointed out to her: "You worship what you do not know." Many of her religious beliefs were, in fact, mistaken, and he told her that she would have to make changes in her beliefs if she was going to worship God acceptably—"with spirit and truth." Rather than cling to what were no doubt cherished beliefs, she and others like her would, in time, have to become "obedient to the faith" revealed through Jesus Christ.—John 4:21-24, 39-41; Acts 6:7.
Many teachers and authorities in specialized fields of knowledge deserve great respect. Yet, history is littered with examples of renowned teachers who were absolutely wrong. For example, regarding two books on scientific matters written by Greek philosopher Aristotle, historian Bertrand Russell stated that "hardly a sentence in either can be accepted in the light of modern science." Even modern-day authorities often get things drastically wrong. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," was the confident assertion of British scientist Lord Kelvin in 1895. A wise person, therefore, does not blindly believe that something is true simply because some authoritative teacher says it is.—Psalm 146:3.
The same caution is needed when it comes to religious education. The apostle Paul was well-educated by his religious teachers and was extremely "zealous for the traditions of [his] fathers." His zeal for the traditional beliefs of his ancestors, however, actually created problems for him. It led to his "persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it." (Galatians 1:13, 14; John 16:2, 3) Worse still, for a long time, Paul kept "kicking against the goads," resisting the influences that should have led him to believe in Jesus Christ. It required a dramatic intervention by Jesus himself to move Paul to adjust his beliefs.—Acts 9:1-6; 26:14.
Building on the ideas and philosophies of men is like building on sand. (Matthew 7:26; 1 Corinthians 1:19, 20) On what, then, can you confidently base your beliefs? Since God has given you intellectual capacity to investigate the world around you and to ask questions concerning spiritual matters, does it not make sense that he would also provide the means to get accurate answers to your questions? (1 John 5:20) How, though, can you establish what is true, genuine, or real in matters of worship? God's Word, the Bible, provides the only basis for doing this.—John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
"But wait," someone will say, "is it not the very ones who have the Bible who have caused the most conflict and confusion in world affairs?" Well, it is true that religious leaders who claim to follow the Bible have produced many confusing and conflicting ideas. This is because they have not, in fact, based their beliefs on the Bible. The apostle Peter describes them as "false prophets" and "false teachers" who would create "destructive sects." As a consequence of their activities, says Peter, "the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively." (2 Peter 2:1, 2) Still, writes Peter, "we have the prophetic word made more sure; and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place."—2 Peter 1:19; Psalm 119:105.
The Bible encourages us to check our beliefs against what it teaches. (1 John 4:1) The noble-minded Beroeans 'carefully examined the Scriptures daily' before deciding what to believe. (Acts 17:11) It is the course of wisdom to make sure that your beliefs are shaped, not by human wisdom and desires, but, rather, by God's revealed Word of truth.—1 Thessalonians 2:13; 5:21.

Lepidopteryx--

Thank you for the kind comment. I hope others noticed that we two of very different beliefs could agree, even civilly, on something!

Perry: **In my experience, no one lives entirely in one of the two remote camps; everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense", and all have faith that the sun will rise each day, just as the great preponderance of evidence suggests it should.

Questioning faith causes us to examine the supports on which it rests, and the reasons why we accept or reject a belief. It can lead to strengthening or abandonment of a given belief, and as such is merely an intellectual tool, and so should be treated as such--it is not an end in itself.**

Nicely put. I would add just three words.
You say "...everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense"...I would say that everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense" to someone else. For example, what you beleive regarding bodily resurrection makes sense to you, but not to me. What I believe regarding reincarnation makes sense to me, but not to you.

Namaste.

It seems that one point of contention herein stems from the notion of just what faith is.

I suggest that we consider faith as being of (at least) two varieties. One is faith supported, often lazily, by experience and evidence. That is the sort of faith referred to herein when people speak of having faith that a chair will support them. Another is a faith, often denigrated as "blind", that believes something despite a lack of the sort of evidence rational thought demands in order to function.

Opinions of course vary as to the value and goodness of the two varieties of faith, as one can see here. Making the issue even more problematic is the fact that the two described strains of faith intermix frequently, producing new hybrids of faith that have more or less substantive supporting evidence than one or the other of the "parents". This leads to the problem of deciding, for those who refuse to consort with "blind faith", just how much evidence is enough, and for those claiming that faith based on overwhelming evidence is no faith at all, how much willingness to trust, without evidence, is required for faith to be of value as such.

In my experience, no one lives entirely in one of the two remote camps; everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense", and all have faith that the sun will rise each day, just as the great preponderance of evidence suggests it should.

Questioning faith causes us to examine the supports on which it rests, and the reasons why we accept or reject a belief. It can lead to strengthening or abandonment of a given belief, and as such is merely an intellectual tool, and so should be treated as such--it is not an end in itself.

A Hermit-

"Anonymous, perhaps you missed my point."

No I got your point. I don't agree. However you are moving closer to getting my point.

Try another viewing of TROTD and you will see -to support your arguments you will have to find another movie.

"The United States does not want war anymore than you do. On the other hand, neither would we care for peace at any price.."

And yes, you are right:

"We must learn the lessons of history, but they must be the right lessons..."

Christopher Hitchens speaks in support of
Sir Salman Rushdie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFicdesgXtw

Also Sir Salman Rushdie reads from
The Satanic Verses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVD_B7sBwu4

Listen and be informed..

Questioning faith? If you don't question your faith, how do you know if it's valid. We use faith everyday of our lives and yet it isn't until someone questions a part of it, that revelations and inventions are discovered. The real question should not be of questioning your faith, but questioning yourself against your faith. I mean, do you simply sit on a chair because it has four legs? Most of us glace to see what is on it, is it sturdy, etc. We don't question the chair, but our faith in if it can hold us comfortably. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that faith is all about relationship and when we take that aspect out, we are left asking foolish questions that profit us not.

There is a word being used here that I do not understand the meaning of. That word is God. Can you explain it to me?

There is no battle between science and religion. there is only a battle between the science of 2000 BC and the science of 2000 AD.

Jesus said the "Father and I are one" and you crucified him. Nine hundred years later Hijb said the" Father and I are one." and you crucified him too. What frightens you so?

There is a word being used here that I do not understand the meaning of. That word is God. Can you explain it to me?

There is no battle between science and religion. there is only a battle between the science of 2000 BC and the science of 2000 AD.

Jesus said the "Father and I are one" and you crucified him. Nine hundred years later Hijb said the" Father and I are one." and you crucified him too. What frightens you so?

Garyd,

I thought that we were talking about nations fighting against others to make their particular god...the Only True God.

Now there certainly has been people that sacrificed to their gods, even your's. Some Pagans would sacrifice animals or people to their gods...some times it was law breakers some times others... you believe in the death penalty? How many Pagans died in sacrifice to your One God?

But as a rule we do not care what god you call on...just let us worship as we see fit.

terra

Athena,
Everyopne paid taxes to Rome, jews included.
Nero was insane, not just a bad ruler...kind of like Bush.

Garyd,
Pagan is a proper name...treat it accordingly..thank you.

And exactly what was pre Roman Paganism? Mesopotamia? Eygpt? They did not fight because of their gods...well except when Akhenaten was Pharaoh. He tried to make Eygpt monotheist...people were killed that did not want to give up their old Gods...as soon as Akhenaten died, so did monotheism.

There is a connection between the fourth-century Christian extremists who destroyed the Serapeum, the most beautiful Pagan temple in Alexandria, and the 20th-century Muslim extremists who blew up irreplaceable Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

Polytheism, however, being essentially pluralistic, grants that god--or goddess--can take different forms; hence the deity worshiped by a neighbor could be as powerful as one's own. Though Polytheists do have persecutions in their past...but not for any god, but for breaking laws.
Please quote me where any Pagan society made war because of them wanting to force people to their god.

To do that the Pagan would have to believe their god was the better one...then it would not be polytheist but Monotheist.

terra

Terra,

You're not going back far enough. A good many pagan nations prior to Rome carried tokens of their Gods into battle and forced those they conquered to convert to their particular Pantheon. And no few have cheerfully sacrificed captives to their Gods and others.

Terra,

You're not going back far enough. A good many pagan nations prior to Rome carried tokens of their Gods into battle and forced those they conquered to convert to their particular Pantheon. And no few have cheerfully sacrificed captives to their Gods and others.

INDEPENDENT THINKER--

Please think again. The Bible does not, as you claim, "state that the mathematical constant pi is equal to 3". The verses typically referenced to substantiate such an argument give dimensions not only in whole numbers, but in multiples of five and ten. The entire context suggests that the text be read not as any statement as to what might (or might not) constitute pi, but rather as a description of the grandiosity of the furnishings of the Temple of Solomon. It could be compared to a person describing something--say, a house--by saying that "It's on a lot of ten meters by 30 meters." Such a statement accurately enough describes the thing in question, without getting caught up in the fact that it's really "9.93 meters by 31.16 meters". If I'm buying the house, and it's really, really important to me that I know the dimensions of the lot, I'm not likely to settle for the measurements listed in the brochure describing how grand the house is.

Anonymous, perhaps you missed my point. You're right about the structure of the movie, but wrong in it's application to the current political situation.

It's not I who am like the butler; I certainly recognize the dangers of Islamist extremism and support realistic efforts to combat it. Read my last comment again if you are still confused about this. But the real parallel, as I see it, is with the Yes-men who blithely went along with the Bush administration's reckless foreign policy, and the associated assault on constitutional principles.

It's the right wing fanatics who put their Party's political interests ahead of American principles who are like those German officer's measuring the drapes.

We must learn the lessons of history, but they must be the right lessons...

Regards

A Hermit

David, you stated that "1.) 40 different authors all from different backgrounds over a 1500 year span of time and not one contradiction."

You are wrong! In the 12th Century, Peter Abelard, a lecturer at the University of Paris, combed through the Bible and found over 1,300 contradictions in the Bible. He took his list to the Church authorities and said - hey, what about this? You know what they did? They Excommunicated him almost immediately and he lost his job lecturing!

The Bible has more contradictions in it than any politician's speech. Just the fact that the Bible states the mathematical constant PI is equal to 3 shows that it could not have been from an all-knowing "god".

Furthermore, the Bible wasn't written by "God", it was *inspired* - and inspired does NOT MEAN DICTATED.

Excerpt from today's WaPo:

More evidence of a "moderate" and "tolerant" islam or shall we say "mohammedanism". Some tolerance... and people claim it to be a peceful religion? peaceful shmeasful!!!

"Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan's religious affairs minister, said Monday of (Salman) Rushdie's knighting that: "The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title. Ul-Haq insisted Tuesday that he meant only that the award could be used as a justification for suicide attacks...() Pakistan's foreign minister told The Associated Press that Britain should not be surprised by the reaction."

"Teriffic movie. Seen it twice."

"Facile comparisons between Islamist terrorism and the rise of Fascist tyranny in Europe.. are simply laughable to anyone with a passing knowledge of history."

Maybe your memory is not that good. Or maybe you are in denial.

Don't you remember the house-party scene where Lord Darlington (Nazi sympathizer) lavishly entertains some of the German top brass, and behind his back they are quietly making note of all his fine arts, for when they finally get to commandeer his house!?

The parallels between the total surrender of will of the perfect butler to his employer and the total surrender of will of the Nazis to their Fuehrer are left implicit, but I believe they are the intellectual substructure of The Remains of the Day.

And if you can see no comparisons -keep laughing as history plays out.

Anonymous : "The Remains of the Day" is a brilliant character study, and an important cautionary tale about remaining silent in the face of the gathering storm, but the parallels are not what you suggest.

Facile comparisons between Islamist terrorism and the rise of Fascist tyranny in Europe or the challenges of the Cold War are simply laughable to anyone with a passing knowledge of history.

If there is a parallel here it is between Hopkin's too passive butler and the politicians and pundits who lay supine before the warmongering juggernaut and did nothing to oppose what has inevitably turned into a strategic disaster for the United States in Iraq. Saddam was no Hitler and the situation in 2003 was in no way analogous to Europe in the 1930's.

For the record, I fully supported the action in Afghanistan (which sadly has been for naught because of the Bush administration's lack of attention span and failure to appreciate the situation) and going after terrorist organizations. But that's not a job for an army designed to fight the Soviets in Europe, it's a job for intelligence organizations, police forces and occasionally special force commandos.

So you're off the mark in every sense with that little jab. Nice try though....;-)

Regards

A Hermit

What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?

About questioning tenets or traditions ...
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

About questioning, asking questions is encouraged by the bible as well, as it is written...

Hag 2:11 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests [concerning] the law...

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Even Apostles ask questions to our Lord Jesus Christ...

"The Remains of the Day" is

"an extremely rare example of sanity when dealing with the subject of war. Most war films concentrate on the futility and the bottom line cost in humanity, which for heightened drama is to be expected. However, it's most often an incomplete and wildly immature handling of the topic. This film addresses the folly of avoiding war thru appeasement and hammers home what might have been avoided if the British had called Hitler to the carpet early on -instead of playing chess with him. The main story is that of the butler, Stevens, an ostensibly simple character played with unimaginable complexity by Anthony Hopkins. The fascinating examination of one man's sense of duty, a devotion that transcends all other obligations and aspirations in his life has never been so poignantly or expertly presented to an audience. Everything about the film is a rousing triumph. I cannot overly recommend this."

That, and Nero needing a group to scapegoat for his own incredibly inept rulership that was bankrupting the Empire.

To be honest with you, I've never heard that before.

To The Chap - the way I heard it, early Christians were asked to pay a tax to Caesar (thus paying homage), which they hadn't been asked to pay before, because they were considered Jews and Jews were exempt because the romans respected their ancient religion.

Christians who paid the tax - and many did - were not harmed. Only Christians who refused were persecuted. They were sure they would go straight to heaven as martyrs.

Sound familiar?

Terra~
Actually, Christians were killed because of their faith. They refused to bow down to Caesar, who was viewed to be a god himself.

I agree with you that they were viewed to be planning insurrection, but it was because of their faith. They rejected the pluralistic religious views of the day and claimed a monotheistic religion -- almost unheard of by anyone but the Jews. Because they refused to view Caesar as a god, they were persecuted. Also, because they were disliked by much of the Roman Empire in the time of Nero's reign, they made for an easy escape-goat for things such as the fires in Rome. They were alienated because of their faith in a single God.

A

Glad you enjoyed it. What is it about?

Garyd,

"Dos the fact that Pagans did a remarkably fine Job of slaughtering each other long before anyone heard of Christianity".

I am not sure how this sentence was supposed to end but I guess it is a statement.
I can say that, yes, Pagans did a fine job of killing and raising havoc with others. But it was never about whose God was the correct one...no one cared. The Romans did not kill because a people prayed to a different God...the Romans put those people under Roman rule and took on that God also. They might have changed the name but the conquered people kept their Gods and ways of worship.

The Romans were the original Unitarians.

Pagans fought for land and plunder...not about Gods.

The reason Rome started killing Christians did not have a thing to do with any God...but that the Christians were trouble makers and were brewing insurrection.

BB
terra

"You might want to watch James Ivory's"

Teriffic movie. Seen it twice. what's your point?

a hermit:

You might want to watch James Ivory's

"The Remains of the Day".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ42CMK2TIA

And remember to keep that open and questioning mind you speak of in your post.

Cheers.

It is only on the shoulders of our ancesters that we can see and progress further.

Yet history would suggest that prior to Christianity what passed for morality was very much different than it is today.

The interesting thing is that if one looks at what was going on in the world at large and compares it with what the Bible offers up contemporaneously the Bible is generally far more liberal than what its contemporaries are. And please note I am not refering to what passes for liberalism in the late 20th and early 21st century which in reality is statism

CCNL:**Again, I thought the filth of Nazism and Aryanism was buried in WWII.**

Unfortunately, there will likely always be people who hate based on religion, or race, or affectional orientation, or some other ridiculous reason.

Again, I thought the filth of Nazism and Aryanism was buried in WWII. Apparently not, as an occasional Nazi troll rises from his putrid grave to make anti-Semitic comments.

See http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/jc/Talmud.html

Oops, that anonymous comment was me, of course.

GAryd says:

"Problem with the atheistic notion that Religion is the root of all evil lies in the fact if their is indeed no God then religion becomes just another tool and like all tools is morally neutral."

Actually, this atheist would agree with you absolutely here. Religion isn't the root of evil, just too often a tool for evil people. I think religion is people's way of trying to understand and make sense of the world and is no better or worse in its influence than the people practicing it.

This topic of questioning is an important one in light of that view of religion. So long as believers are open minded enough to continually question and re-evaluate their beliefs and to accept that the beliefs of others may also have value we can all learn from each other even if, in the end, we don;t always agree.

Regards

A Hermit

halozcel says:

"what you write can not be an 'excuse' for the present Cult violence all over the world."

I think I've made it quite clear on a number of occassions that it is not my intention to defend the terrorists, their sympathizers or even the religion of Islam.

My point has consistently been to point out that we should not fall into the trap of condemning all members of any group for the behaviour of some subset of that group, whether they be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs or whatever.

When well meaning, thoughtful Muslims post comments on this forum they are all too often greeted with a host of comments listing atrocities committed by Muslims and ignorantly quoting isolated snippets of scripture or remarks by the worst extremists instead of replying to the individual. I find this to be offensive and, frankly, dangerously stupid since such knee-jerk reactions just prevent the kind of dialogue we need to build relationships, tear down the walls between us and build a more peaceful world.

The bigots who post such comments are just part of the problem, in my view. I would hope we could all try instead to part of the solution.

Regards

A Hermit

GaryD - I completely agree with your comments: "the problem isn't religion per se but human beings."

"When we quit making excuses for people who do wrong and hold them accountable for their wrong doing I suspect there will be less wrong doing of whatever sort."

Sounds like you're saying morality is not a product of religion - but inherent in humans. I agree!

Same goes for Stalin and Mao. It wasn't atheism or communism that caused the evil, but the leaders themselves. By the way, it bears repeating that their ideology was communism. Atheism is not an ideology; it's the absence of belief.

Sick and Insane Teachings of the TALMUD (MODERN JUDAHISM, NO WONDER RABBI's ARE ALL SECRET CHILD MOLESTORS):

Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

A Hermit,

Hahahha! That is why I buy mostly Canadian. At least you guys haven't lost the brewing code altogether.

http://raptureready.com/soap/recall.html

Problem with the atheistic notion that Religion is the root of all evil lies in the fact if their is indeed no God then religion becomes just another tool and like all tools is morally neutral.

The problem then becomes not religion but the one using it badly. IN other words the problem isn't religion per se but human beings.

When we quit making excuses for people who do wrong and hold them accountable for their wrong doing I suspect there will be less wrong doing of whatever sort.

Does the phrase pretenders to the throne mean anything to you?

Dos the fact that Pagans did a remarkably fine Job of slaughtering each other long before anyone heard of Christianity.

Between them Mao tse Tong and Joeseph Stalin both self procalimed Atheists killed more people during their vile reigns that even the Roman Catholics managed in their entire history.

Pranked Collins/A.Hermit,

You have forgotten the war between Catholics and Orthodox for only one word 'filioque' that means
Holy Spirit...who proceeds from Father or from Father and The Son,and of course,because of political,cultural differences.It had lasted from 1054 to mongolian invasion.

And you are right,some christian groups spoiled a little after the collepse of communism.

However,what you write can not be an 'excuse' for the present Cult violence all over the world.
Problem is not 'I did so,you did so'.
Problem is 'living in civilized and contemporary manner'
Problem is 'how can we eliminate Cult of Violence'
Problem is 'how can we bring those who live in Medieval,even stone age to twentyfirst century'

Why present egyptian is more bacward then the egyptian who lived 5000 years ago?
Why all 'total islamic countries GDP value' is less then one quarter of USA where was the 'land of apachi' 200 years ago.
Please,write the 'cause' of this situation(if you know).
Please,try to understand 'cause' and wtite 'solution'

I thank you to read my post.

Anonymous writes:

"Mr. Mark --We all assume, I hope, that murder, and more specifically, mass murder is absolutely unacceptable. Would you be willing to become a mass murderer, if through your questioning, you ´rationally' came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do, even though it reverses everything you believe in?"

Your question isn't germaine to this discussion, is it? We're talking about things that CAN be questioned, specifically in the context of one's religious beliefs.

As a species, we have evolved a moral code that finds murder to be wrong and mass murder to being beyond comprehension. This stands is contrast to killing and mass killing that we find to be justified...like killing an armed intruder in your home or carpet bombing during war with incendiary devices, a la Dresden in WWII.

So I would say, yes - a priori - the subject of murder warrants no questioning because the act of murder by its very societal definition is a wrongful act. To determine that murder or mass murder was the "right thing to do" would involve redfining the word murder. We can't function in a world where black is white and up is down...unless we're Alice...or the Bush administration!

And that's why your "gotcha" question has no place here. This discussion is about people questioning within the context of their faith. The very premise allows questions to be asked, whereas your question about murder doesn't. It requires a redefinition of the word murder, so your argument becomes null.

If you say that there is no room - a priori - to question your faith, then today's faith question is moot. However, if you allow for questioning faith, then that questioning needs to allow for your finding that faith to be false, at least if we require religious questioning to be as honest and open to discovery and falsification as does scientific questioning. Limit the questioning of religious faith to, say, disallow for falsification, and you're positing an extremely lowered standard for questioning than does the scientific method. Once you've done that, you may as well make all possible answers valid - which means you're willing to accept any old opinion, not fact, as a valid answer to your questioning.

Which means that you are, in effect, engaging in a delusional act of non-questioning, gussied up in the trappings of true questioning.

Is it a religion just because someone says it is?
would anyone deny that the promotion of any group or organization, even if it calls itself a religion, or a political party, is vile and offensive - if the stated goals of that group consists of hating any specific group or religion,
to kidnap them,
torture them,
hold them for ransom,
cut off body parts,
rape them,
put them into slavery,
murder them if they do not convert to become a member of this group or club and
murder them if they dont want to stay in the club.
you see the people they hate are jews, muslimss, hindus, anynone not part of their group. so in a way they are like nazi, except this group hats many more people than the nazis ever hated.

can you guess who this group is? here is a hint.

here is what a leading Christian preacher recently wrote:

"If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious." Pat Robertson

or this:

"If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the sun or moon or any of the hosts of heaven which I have not commanded you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and stone to death that man or woman with stones." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:13)

The following is just a fraction of the repulsive behavior the Christians have been involved with over the centuries. Have a look on other Internet sites for the details of how they tortured their victims during the inquisition or a description of a witch burning (or just leave it to your imagination)...

The early years: As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire pagan priests were killed. Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain and their temples destroyed. Participation in pagan services were punishable by death in 356 (and this included children).

Murdering intellectuals: Hypatia, a famous female philosopher was torn to pieces by a hysterical Christian mob using glass fragments in a church in 415. In 1538 a university professor, B. Hubmaier, was burned at the stake in Vienna.

The Crusades: During the First (1096) and Second (1147) Crusade thousands of Jews were slaughtered. During the Third Crusade (1189-1190) English Jewish communities were sacked. In 1099, Jerusalem was conquered at the cost of more than 60,000 men, women, and children. In the words of one witness: "there was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude." The total number of victims of the Crusades is likely to be around 20 million. During the Crusades against Hussites in the 15th century, thousands were slain.

Exterminating Jews: In the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned and Jews killed by Christians. In 1348 about 20,000 Jews in Basel were burned by Christians, the next year all the Jews in hundreds of towns were killed (mostly burned). In Poland in 1648, during the Chmielnitzki massacres, 200,000 Jews were slain. Not only did the Nazis (lead by a Christian) exterminate millions of Jews but other Christians set up death camps, independently of the Nazis, and murdered about half a million victims of various backgrounds. They were even efficient enough to have a camp specifically for children.

The slaughter of Jews by Christians is particularly repulsive. I thought they both believed in the same god. One good thing about Christians is they don't have favourites - they'll torture and murder anyone or any group if it will help them gain or maintain power.

The Spanish Inquisition: In 1568 the Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in the Netherlands. Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, was responsible for over 10,000.

Witch Hunting: In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand witches (about 80% female) were burned at the stake or hanged. During the 16th century accusations of witchcraft were widespread: English Catholics were murdered by Protestants (30,000 were burned at the stake), in Germany 100,000 witches were killed. Similar behavior occurred in other Christian countries.

Christian Wars: In the 17th century, Catholics sacked the city of Magdeburg killing about 30,000 Protestants. In one single church fifty women were found beheaded, and infants were still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers. During the 30 Years' War, involving Catholics and Protestants at least 40% of population was decimated.

And its still happening: A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994.

can anyone guess the name of this terrorist organization?

--------------

See Frank; anyone can play this stupid cut and paste game of yours. Now please shut up so the grown ups can have a conversation.

Gaby, we have a saying around here; 'American beer is like sex in a canoe...They're both f***ing near water!"

By the way, Lepi, I can't wait until Starhawk comes back form her tour. I miss her insight!

Lepi,

Being used to German beer, I have to admit that the American (Pee beer) is nothing but water and a little alcohol.

When I get your way, I'll bring some REAL beer with me. Schmatz!!!!! ;O)

Gaby:

Budweiser? Ick.

My one rule regarding beer is that light must not be able to pass through it. Come over to the dark side and have a Guiness with me.

AWWW, Lepi, my friend, thank you!

I'll write back to you soon! Need to get my noodle out of the Budweiser before I do! <:o)

Gaby,

Don't mind UWG. Your English is quite good, and I seriously doubt that anyone here has difficulty understanding the meaning of your posts. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the rent that, had you not said anything about it, no one here would have known that English was not your native language.
Your written English is a damned sight better than my written French or Spanish. In fact, it's a damned sight better than some folks for whom English IS their native language.

Bye the way, Uptight:

"What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Your very bright Mr. Meacham and Ms. Quinn couldn't even phrase the THESIS correctly.

I should have said: "What is the place of questioning in RELIGION? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?

Tenets and traditons have nothing to do with faith, they have to do religous dogma!

Uptight White Guy :

"I am here Gaby to see if anyone has anything to contribute to the thesis addressed by the panelists. Unfortunately, few bloggers seem to stick to the confines of the topic, rather they quickly derail into some well-worn rant.

On a personal note I am here to stand up against the likes of you who pollute the string with sentence fragments, end other sentences with prepositions, and utterly ignore the adverb!"

First, Uptight, you chose your name well, if you don't like it here, you are welcome to leave.

Second, the likes of me do not have to answer to the Grammar Police.

English is not my native language. How many languages do you speak, Adverb Man?

Dear Anonymous -

Re: mass murderers.

Come up with a screen name for yourself. I don't generally answer to anonymous posts.

Thanks.

Mr. Mark --We all assume, I hope, that murder, and more specifically, mass murder is absolutely unacceptable. Would you be willing to become a mass murderer, if through your questioning, you ´rationally' came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do, even though it reverses everything you believe in?

Or is that conclusion unreachable by you, a priori?

the saharia,s buster and the moon shutlers.
a beduin in the sahara desert was asked long time ago a question,how do you know that the creator exist?
the beduin said when i see camel manor i know that camel exist ,when i see the sun i know that the maker exist.
people in 2007 who made it to the moon ,so advanced in science and technolgy ,were asked the same question ,their answer was the big bang .
1-who have better sense in the above 2 pictures?
2-who is so delusional?
3-where human kind can buy common sense provided that they will have space shutles to aid?
4-can any human kind in his right mind digest the big case of gas of the big bang?
the big bang and those who revolve around the big bang are bringing to mankind no more no less than a big bang of horse manor.,the camel have better benefits.

Frank: "can anyone guess the name of this terrorist organization?"

Multinational corporate agribusiness?

Faith, n.: belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel. --Ambrose Bierce

Now, who could possibly question such a perfectly preposterous system of thought?

E Favorite,

Both you and Mr. Mark will receive this week's award for best topic line, i.e. your own set of "pretty wingies". I failed to see Mr. Mark's original comments.

And I wonder is it "faith in working" or "working in faith"? I believe I saw that on another thread recently.

Thank you, Concerned, I’m thrilled to accept your award for best line. And like any grateful prize winner, I want to credit those who inspired me. That would be Mr Mark, who said this earlier in the thread:

“Any questioning that does not allow for one's beliefs to be totally reversed is no questioning at all. It is a charade…. In practice, religious questioning is nothing of the sort. It's actually an exercise in self-delusion and delusional reinforcement.”

MO, Your answer will be criticize by many but none will be able to prove your faith wrong. That is the nature of faith. When people begin to warp faith into proof, that is where anger, war and other faith based hatreds start. What few will ask is how your faith is making you and the world a better place. So I will ask: how does belief in the 'Moon Deity of bedouin' make your life better and make you a better person? After all, that is what we should be asking of any religion, not whether it is the one true religion or not because that can never be proved. If it ever were proved it would stop being a faith.

MO,
''Who created life and death,who created heavens and earth''
Very simple.'Moon Deity of bedouin' created all of them.
Yes,there is one Creator who created trillion multiply trillion planets and this universe and who stays at wooden shanty in the middle of desert.

Mickster the answer is of course obvious. They wish to do so further it is there dime and they in this country get to do what they want with it unless of course we elect enough democrats next time around to really mess things up.

Explain to me why there needs to be a discussion of faith in a major news publication. I am able to listen to at least 4 24/7 cable televangelists networks and at least that many radio programs locally here in the pacNw.
Whats newsworthy about peoples attitudes about faith? Why dedicate talent and webspace, to opinions beliefs about faith? I don't get this? Why not just publish an podcast and focus on news that people need to make import decisions about war, taxes, etc.
Is this a demand placed upon you by readership? or what?

Regards,

mickster

daily meditation.
who created life and death,who created heavens and earth,what is the purpose of life and what is the purpose of death?is life a horse stable?what is the difference between the horse who work his ass all day long ,eat and die and the civil man who work his ass all day long,eat use hi tec toilet and die?.
in (jeudo-chris-scentific-humanistic)man made culture the concept of god is so mised up,let the highest priest or the highest scholar in jeudo chris cult define what god is?useing the nt
and ot will never land on defintion ,no wonder people in jeud-chris cult are so obssesed with doubt,too much dout lead to bipolarism,bipolarism,lead to paranoiaism.
again all certanity goes to the creator of this universe.know your creator.there is one creator and there is one faith.

I am here Gaby to see if anyone has anything to contribute to the thesis addressed by the panelists. Unfortunately, few bloggers seem to stick to the confines of the topic, rather they quickly derail into some well-worn rant.

On a personal note I am here to stand up against the likes of you who pollute the string with sentence fragments, end other sentences with prepositions, and utterly ignore the adverb!

Well all the religions are pretty much obsolete now arent they? I mean this is a new age we're in, not that the religions arent true. Yes Jesus was the son of God absolutely true... I totally see myself in the Christian tradition, I'm a believer, (it's not that hard to believe it!) but we're not in the middle ages anymore are we? Maybe he's back and he's trying to get the world prepared for the future
it's like a child growing up and we're just becoming teenagers about now and have to do more for ourselves...Religion goes deep in ones upbringing thats for sure but we might have to break free from all of it to make something new... something fantastic! Imagine as John Lennon once said.
There is work to be done. These are interesting times if you haven't noticed...

E Favorite,

You win "Best Line of the Thread" for this one.

DaveB, you say, "I thought the very definition of "faith" meant that you do not question it."

""From what I've gathered, it means even though you questioned your faith and didn't get a good answer, you've decided to keep your faith anyhow.""

Most Excellent!!!

"Is it possible to reconcile the idea of faith with the principle of empiricism?" you ask.

Seems to me: It would be EASILY reconcilable if faith were true.

At a minimum, one would expect the faithful to statistically have better insight than the nonfaithful on matters -- take politicians for instance.

The opposite was true -- with the example of GW Bush -- a larger % of the faithful more gullible (and in the process harming the world -- eg global warming, Iraq War, tax policies for wealthy) than the nonfaithful. .

There is evidence that with Dubya: The MORE faithful one was the MORE likely they were to succumb to his lies!

We should see -- the opposite -- if faith had any truth behind it

"What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Two quotes from Christian believers:

“When we get our spiritual house in order, we’ll be dead. This goes on. You arrive at enough certainty to be able to make your way, but it is making it in the darkness. Don’t expect faith to clear things up for you. It is trust, not certainty.” -Emily Dickinson

and

“If knowing answers to life’s questions is absolutely necessary to you, then forget the journey. You will never make it, for this is a journey of unknowables—of unanswered questions, enigmas, incomprehensibles, and most of all, things unfair.” -Madame Jeanne Guyon

DaveB, you say, "I thought the very definition of "faith" meant that you do not question it."<