Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism. He has worked for NBC, CNBC, PBS television, and the Fox News Channel where he currently appears on the weekly media critique show, “Fox News Watch.” Thomas has authored ten books, including Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, A Freedom Dream, Public Persons and Private Lives, Book Burning, Liberals for Lunch, Occupied Territory, The Death of Ethics in America, Uncommon Sense and Things That Matter Most. His latest was The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas. In 1995, Thomas was honored with a Cable Ace Award nomination for Best Interview Program. Other awards include a George Foster Peabody team reporting award, and awards from both the Associated Press and United Press International. Common Ground, which Thomas writes for USA Today, offers insightful discussion of contentious social issues with his friend and political counterpart, Bob Beckel. The two are working together on a book to be published in 2007.
Close.
Cal Thomas
Syndicated political columnist
Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism.
more »
The United States dodged another bullet - several in fact - when authorities foiled an alleged terrorist attack on the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey by six men described by authorities as "radical Islamists." Three of the men are illegal immigrants.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said there is "no direct evidence" that the suspects have ties to international terrorism. Perhaps not in the traditional way that "ties" has been defined, but there are other ties that bind people to international terrorism without commissions or charters from a terrorist organization. That is what makes this freelance form of terrorism especially difficult to thwart.
Had it not been for the carelessness of one of the suspects who asked a local video store to copy a training video depicting men with weapons shouting "God is great" and proclaiming jihad, the alleged plot might have succeeded. The owner of the store tipped off authorities, which then began a 15-month investigation resulting in the arrests of the men.
Some advocacy groups want the right to sue people who report suspicious activity, as in the case of passengers aboard a U.S. Airways flight who reported several imams they believed were behaving suspiciously. Now the imams, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim lobby group, have filed suit in hopes of obtaining the names of the passengers so they can be sued.
The usual groups issue the predictable statements condemning the alleged terrorist plot at Fort Dix, repeating that Islam is a "peaceful religion."
Recall that the late Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, repeatedly condemned terrorist attacks he either helped instigate or inspired.
It is more prudent to pay attention to what terrorists say and do rather than to what the sophisticated, media-savvy conveyers of disinformation tell us.
Authorities said one of the suspects is believed to have been a sniper in Kosovo and he and the other men had been training at a firing range in Pennsylvania.
Eljvir Duka, 23, is quoted in the complaint as saying, "When it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying to attack your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad." This is the triumph of the brainwashers throughout the Islamic world. They teach the youngest of children that jihad and dying for Allah is their sole guarantee of heaven. That's a tough doctrine to overcome, especially when Western diplomats are seen as infidel "cross-worshippers" and "Jewish pigs" deserving of death.
Christopher J. Christie, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, told a news conference, "This is a new brand of terrorism where a small cell of people can bring enormous devastation."
Is anyone in doubt as to the terrorist game plan? It is to intimidate, subjugate and eradicate U.S. citizens and bring the United States to its knees. This is not a secret. It is preached throughout the world in mosques and in Arab and Muslim media. As more aliens enter this country - legally and illegally - those who are Muslims are building mosques faster than coffee shop chains.
The Saudis, who teach the most virulent and violent strain of Islam, underwrite most of them. That is not to say all Muslims are terrorists, or that all mosques are centers for terrorist training, but surely some are and how do we identify them before we experience another Sept. 11 . times 10?
According to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, the number of mosques in America grew 60 percent between 1995 and 2000, second only to the Christian mega-churches and well ahead of the Mormons and Assemblies of God. One finds no reciprocity in Muslim countries, where churches, and especially synagogues, are either tightly controlled or banned outright. In the Washington, D.C., area, alone, there are an estimated 45 mosques. It only takes one to serve as a theological instruction center for young jihadists who believe that killing Americans is his or her highest "calling."
It is long past time to stop worrying about political correctness and "sensitivities" and do what is necessary to improve our security before someone with official ties to al-Qaida, or simply religious freelancers, shoot up a shopping mall or a school.
Congress can start by putting real teeth into the immigration bill that will be up for debate soon. And then we have to get serious about dealing with the threat living in our midst.
Thanks for the post Cal. Yes Garak, it is conceivable that had Hitler repented on his deathbed he could have been forgiven and been admitted to Heaven.
I agree that it is difficult to always be civil. I'm human, there are times I lose it and say things I shouldn't. And what is civil to you may not be civil to me, you know?
When you think about it, we're talking about things in here that people have died over yesterday, will die over today and unless some people stand up and something to stop all the hatred will die tomorrow.
I do what little I can to keep the marketplace of ideas open. That is the #1 reason I visit forum boards like this. I am far more concerned with the bullies trying to keep people out of the marketplace, than the free speech that is going on inside.
People can disagree, people can even argue, without being disrespectful to a person's character, and while still maintaining their civility toward others. There simply is no reason to go at this like a war, when what it should be is a coming together of minds, ideas, conversations and information.
I do respect your attempt to be as civil as possible in a discussion which, let's face it, involves life and death and hell and eternal torture, and the self-definition in the minds (what else have we got?) of so many people.. I must admit that I have some difficulty to talk about the nightmares implied in all religions with a tone I would use in a nice talk over a cup of tea.
For myself, I have long ago given up ANY belief of a religious "revelation", be it Moses, Christ, Mohammed, Luther or Smith, and I can't tell you all how free, unburdened, accountable, loving, admiring, awe-inspired, moral, "connected" I feel after this step in my life. I think I am close to Gaby's "IT", whatever "it" may be, which borders on (or represents) the unexplainable of our lives without any historically conditioned, exchangeable human projection of human desires and questions on any given guru, and, worse, his followers.
I do believe in life, not in afterlife. Life is what I (we!) have, afterlife is the very human but unproven idea and desire to perpetuate my little self, which I think is much less important than the sum, the process of life. I don't have any difficulty imagining my life as a drop of "IT" which was isolated to become a conscious entity for a life span, through my conception and birth and will be re-integrated again after my death. I don't need any supernatural. Nature is already super, and the immodest request of some supernatural would have to be followed by a super-super....n -supernatural, which, of course, is nonsense.
So, from a distance, I must shake my head when I observe people getting at eachothers' throat on an illusionary ground that motivates both sides. Therefore, sometimes, ghostbuster, I think we have to argue strongly and cannot always have a civility contest over the most fundamental questions of humanity.
John Lennon's "Imagine" comes to mind. We probably all wish it were so. Then again, there is always George Orwell's utopian nightmare lurking in that big But. Still, I wish it were so. So it goes.
"You guys would be skeptical of someone who could guarantee a peaceful world, end of poverty and disease, yet you espouse the teachings of the Bible?"
I never said I espouse those teachings. I believe in evaluating the moral teachings of any religion's scripture on their own merits, apart from claims about the supernatural.
You guys would be skeptical of someone who could guarantee a peaceful world, end of poverty and disease, yet you espouse the teachings of the Bible? I find that curious.
But, honestly, after seeing the images of war ravaged counties, of starving children, of people in excrutiating pain, I sometimes feel so hopeless. Like, it shouldn't be like this, there has to be a better way.
So I sit by my pond and dream what a world would be like without all this ugliness. What I see in my mind makes me happy for a while. And I fervently wish I could make it come true.
You say nothing is free. I believe that some things are free, like unconditional love, or the smile on the face of someone you've been kind to, or that wonderful feeling you get on a beautiful spring day when you just want to reach out and hug the world.
Actually, I would be leery also, if someone claimed he/she could accomplish all that and expects nothing in return. We natually have suspicious minds.
So just strike this one as the ramblings of an old woman who can not abide pain and suffering by anyone, but can't do anything about it.
"I would be one of the skeptical ones. I'd want to know what the catch was. You know, 'ok, world peace, no hunger, poverty or disease, BUT..........'. I would tend to think there would be a really big BUT there somewhere. Nothing is free, you know. I am a major skeptic at heart."
I feel the same way. When I read Gaby's scenario, I pictured the outcome as being some nightmarish dystopia, like the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man" or the 1980s TV series "V".
Hmmm, I don't know. I would be one of the skeptical ones. I'd want to know what the catch was. You know, "ok, world peace, no hunger, poverty or disease, BUT..........". I would tend to think there would be a really big BUT there somewhere. Nothing is free, you know. I am a major skeptic at heart.
I would nominate myself for that position, but I am far too busy. Gotta wash my hair, and tie my shoes. Then, maybe a nap. No High Authority can afford to miss nap time. Makes me grumpy. Don't want me grumpy.
You are absolutely right. I have thought about leaving this forum many times, changed my name many times thinking that might make a difference, finally simply becoming an anonymous "Someone" with no definition other than my religion. Do you know what I found? The nicer I became, the more I was called "stupid" and "ignorant" about what was truth. As if not arguing and attacking was a sign that I was uneducated. They would be surprised...
I have made a point on numerous occasions to remind posters here that this forum's purpose is for "intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation", to "engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat". I have never received a response from a poster in this forum when I have reiterated these guidelines.
We are supposed to be here to have conversations, not arguments. We are supposed to be respectful while we are here; there is so much disrespect shown in this forum it's a wonder it still exists. We in this forum are supposed to be able "to carry on a fruitful, intriguing, and above all constructive conversation", and instead, sometimes this place looks like a battlefield.
I am "Someone" who stands with you, Ghostbuster. I will always peacefully stand for people's rights to believe and discuss without fear of attack or disrespect. How else can we guarantee a true exchange of diverse ideas and beliefs?
I'm with you. Albeit every now and then someone ( not "Someone") gets under my skin and I just get that terrible itch.
But at least I try to civil, which is more than I can say for many here.
Someone,
I thought that ECLATi would get your attention. Honestly though, Jacob is OK. It just takes a little time to understand him. I have pretty much figured him out.
All he wants is world peace, which he believes can be possbile with OUR (One Universal Religions) NEW SONG that will be subscribed to by all countries via the United Nations. He pretty much believes that established organized religions are the cause of much human misery and wars.
Other than that he believes pretty much what I believe. That there is a higher power (IT) which permeates the whole universe and we are part of IT. When we die our energy rejoins with the rest of the cosmic power and we become one with IT.
Anyhow, back to my questions then. Do you think that people would give up their religious beliefs if world peace and eradication of hunger, poverty, and disease could be estblished via a human being?
Someone wrote:
---A revolutionary is a supporter of bringing about radical social or political change. Jesus most certainly fits into this category. Not only did he support radical change, he preached it, he practiced it, and he started the Christian movement, which was most definitely a radical social change.---
Jesus brought no political change. His social change was squashed by Rome as were some of his apostles. The idea lived though and was considered a small cult until Constantine 300 years later. You may think its a powerful religion that took the world by storm, but what took the world by storm was Rome lead by a Christian who used law and war to elevate the fledgling church to a state religion. That is revolution. Statues of Roman gods were destroyed under Constantine. People were killed for not converting to christianity. Lands that held onto the old gods were invaded and forced to convert at the tip of a sword. That is how your religion of love was spread throughout Europe and the Middle East and not by its naturally good nature. You can call Christ the seed of the revolution, like Karl Marks was the seed of the bolshevik revolution. But Marks was not the revolutionary, it was Lenin and Mao.
WICCAN: Dog religion? What those people said about your beliefs is unfortunate and ignorant. I’ve seen worse though, as I’m sure you have too. Mostly from “Christians” I bet, right?
All: My point was more about people who are actually "paid" as part of their job to visit boards like this one, but what you guys are talking about is more interesting.
Christians are the majority religion in this country, so I agree they would probably take the bulk of the comments. But, are Christians unfairly singled out for “criticism”? I think the answer is YES and NO. They are singled out by an incredible majority of the visitors on these boards but the word "unfairly" is subjective whereas much of the criticism is justifiable. Some people cry “foul” simply because they have thin skin.
I'd say the Muslims get slammed on here. The Mormons get it usually from ex-mormons, orthodox christians and others who think Mormons and Christians are the same, and just slam them as a 2-for-1 special.
Anyways, all of these quotes listed below are also listed above and were made in reference to Christianity, Christians, Jesus, Cal Thomas or all of the above. I just pulled a couple of the highlights from the first 15 in this one single thread. If there is a * that means I found the comment positive off-topic, funny (Mr. Mark) or neutral towards Christianity...
1) No, it does not appear that it confers any consistent doctrine
2) You have become the Pharisees
3) *
4) Can't these people ever wake up from their dreams
5) Jesus was a big commie (don't know if this one was meant to be negative)
6) *
7) You know that you and smug, comfortable old men like you are a part of the problem
8) How do you sleep at night?
9) Cal Thomas is a whitened sepulcher
10) We need Jesus to come down here and eradicate false prophets like Cal
11) *Who let this one in?
12) *
13) Cal Thomas is a tool of the powerful and derives his wealth from them
14) But "converion" means brainlessly swallowing all the dogma the Church has fabricated over the years. When Christians blather on about "the Bible says...." what they really mean is "my preacher says......"
15) *
This is just a sampling from one thread. There are hundreds of threads just like this one. You know what... I think I was becoming desensitized. Some of this (not all) is chilling speech! Label them – call them names – demean their beliefs – and you render anything they say as irrelevant and “win”. It is no wonder so many decent people visit a board like this comment once or twice then leave, quickly never to return.
Today I re-cast my lot with anyone who stands up against attack speech like this, no matter what you believe or disbelieve in. I’ve spent considerable time on other boards defending pagans from “Christians”. On this board, I will stand with those who are grossly maligned, in this case mainly my Christian brothers & sisters, while treating those who constantly accuse and demean with the respect that they do NOT show us, as described in Romans 12.
Hopefully, some people will join me and we can help make these boards a better place where all can share their opinions without getting jumped.
"I guess that would probably be true no matter what religion I had become..."
Honey, that's true. I've seen people in this forum tear each other up over WHAT type of Christian they were. You just can't please everyone, so please yourself!
Oh No! Not ECLATi! I think I would go insane if I had to listen to sermons that sounded like Jozevz's posts! Sometimes I think he needs to ask his doctor for new meds. ;)
Was that mean? I just feel so sorry for the poor guy. I think he's been thru hell and back.
Well, it doesn't comfort me to know that, it just makes me sad. A dog religion? What does that even mean? We know that so many of these people speak out of ignorance, and yet sometimes it still hurts. I am not a life-long Christian, but I never saw such harshness aimed at Christianity until I became one. I guess that would probably be true no matter what religion I had become...
Thanks, Gaby. The one thing I like best about Wicca is that it makes no claims about being the "Only True Path" to the Divine. As long as you "harm none", no skin off my nose what religion you do or don't practice. :-)
I didn't say Buddhism taught prayer to God. I said it believed in the existance of gods. Big difference. Do you believe there are gods in the universe? Most devout Buddhists do. I'm talking about gods in the sense of devas, supernatural cosmic beings; Buddhists believe in both gods and devas.
If it comforts you, posters on this forum have called Wicca a "made-up" religion, a "dog" religion, and Satanism. I agree with Gaby; Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S., and therefore is targeted more often.
What Buddhism have you been studying? The type that I have been around prays to no God. It enforces chanting and bringing out inner power. I have been around this type of Buddhism for 20 some odd years. I was raised with it. God was never mentioned.
It taught inner strength and prosperity. No Diety involved whatsoever.
First, let me say that I am not saying that anything is wrong with other religions. I am using them as comparisons to Christianity to see why non-religious posters feel that it is ok, indeed necessary, to bash Christianity, and not other organised religions.
Wicca is an organised religion that prays to a god and a goddess, and practices magic spells. They have sets of rules to follow, times of day, month and year you must pray and celebrate. Many believe that their god and goddess can manifest themselves into human forms.
Buddhism is an organised dharmic religion that says you must follow it's written law or "path" to obtain "salvation" from your suffering. Buddhists believe in the existance of gods and the possibility of attainment of eternal life.
These are the same types of things that come under attack in Christianity.
What would happen if someone came along who could guarantee world peace, abolish hunger and poverty, wipe out disease and suffering as long as the worlds population could agree on ONE religious belief???
Now, I am not talking about some prophet or anything like that. Just an ordinary human being with the power to accomplish those things.
As a non-believer I would have a problem. How about you?
PS: I don't really bash either. And I fervently wish that one day we will get to that utopia I just described.
Gaby has a good point. I don't see myself as bashing Christians, and I apologize if my posts seem that way.
My goal is to refute two notions found in many religions: first, the idea that any religion has exclusive claim to the truth; and second, the idea of supernatural explanations for natural events. Both of those amount to defining humanity in negative ways.
That goal has little to do with Christianity as opposed to other religions. It's simply easier to address Christian doctrine because I don't know as much about the other religions. I have strong feelings about the doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation, and i would have those same feelings if similar doctrines were found in other religions.
Is it possible for someone to believe in a God that does not interact with the natural world in any way? Is it possible for someone to believe in God and also believe that the universe has a natural origin and not a supernatural origin?
Thanks for your response. I agree with you, many Muslims have taken quite a beating here as well (I wonder how much of that is because of current world conditions). As for equal-opportunity bashing, at least that makes more sense to me for someone who says they are against organised religion. Personally, I'm not a basher; it just isn't my style. I used to be; but over time I have learned that there are better ways (at least for me) than negativity to deal with anything and everything. And then I don't feel on the inside the way Cal looks up there on the outside when I'm done making my point. ;)
What is wrong with being a Wiccan? Or being a Buddhist? As far as I can see, those two religions are closer to a true and helpful religon than any others. I am not slandering the other religions, but it seems to me that those two in particular seem to be more in tune with what the world is actually about.
I have to agree with you to some extent. But I think that many Christian bashers do so because they are more familiar with Christianity than with any of the other religions.
However, I have to say that Jihadist and several other Muslim posters have taken their beating over time. Some more, some less.
I, for one, bash them all alike. ;)
I give everyone the right to believe as they do, but I also like to argue my point. I never try to make it personal and if I do I am contrite.
Good Morning. To answer your post about character assassinations.... I'm sure someone will jump all over this, but I just can't help myself....
I seem to find in this forum a number of non-religious posters who seem very quick to jump on Christian posters, refuting references to God and the Bible, and yet these same posters seem almost reluctant to launch similar attacks against people of other faiths (except the Mormons, who took a pounding over the last week).
I find this reluctance by non-religious posters to demean, and even a tendancy to defend, especially when it comes to religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, and various Paganism. This is in spite of the fact that these are all organised religions that worship multiple gods and idols, some practice or believe in magic and miracles, life after death or multiple lives, written books of "truths", etc. Now, why is that?
A revolutionary is a supporter of bringing about radical social or political change. Jesus most certainly fits into this category. Not only did he support radical change, he preached it, he practiced it, and he started the Christian movement, which was most definitely a radical social change.
Ghostbuster - regarding your concerns about people who come here with an “agenda.”
Advertising a product is certainly out of bounds - I haven't seen it here, except for the occasional people who are pushing their own websites.
Of course character assassination is wrong, no matter what the context. It's can also be hard to judge: what someone might consider character assassination, another might consider valid criticism.
Promoting or tearing down a position sounds like natural discussion to me. I enjoy hearing and discussing different points of view.
As much as Cal makes my stomach turn on a regular basis I have to agree with him here on one point, Christ was no revolutionary. He lead 12 apostles who, like many prophets of his time, went around and preached, living off the goodness of those who liked his message. That is not a revolutionary. Castro, Lenin, Jefferson, Washington, Mao ... those were revolutionaries. They brought in a new idea, spread it, organized it and in some cases imposed it, transforming their societies. Christ only brought in the new idea. Revolutionary ideas do not make a revolution.
The real revolutionary in Christianity was Constantine who adopted the small christian religion and, being Caesar, spread christianity throughout the Roman empire and beyond through war and rule of law. By doing this the church grew very wealthy and after Constantine it continued to spread the religion through new governments, church law that had earthly penalties, and missionary work it supported. If Constantine had not become a christian, it might have died out like so many other religions.
A wise person once told me on my first day at a job "don't believe anything that you hear and only half of what you see".
I've heard some news recently about people who actually "go to work" on blogs such as this one. They come with an agenda which is to usually to either promote or tear down a position, advertise a product, or to act in character assassination.
Has anybody else heard of these types of shenanigans? Do tell...
For those interested in the social revolution and the money trail that followed, see below for references and commentary:
K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
JD Crossan's books, In Search of Paul and also The Historic Jesus
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll (Paperback - April 1, 2001)
You have to read in between the lines when searching out the influence of money in early Christianity since there were no economists in those days.
The wealth of the contemporary religions and associated aristocrats like the Queen of England is easily found via a Google search.
And money comes in various forms. For peasants like Jesus it came, in many cases, in the form of free room and board. One also assumes that Peter's travels especially to Rome were financed somehow. Ditto for Paul's many travels. Paul also collected significant funds from the Gentiles for Jewish famine relief. Did this also buy the Gentile entry into the movement? Probably. Paul also had a number of rich followers/disciples and his "prophecy" of the imminent second coming must have been a real money maker. (Still is!!!)
Jesus' ability to instantaneously change water into wine and replicate bread and fish sure kept expenses down. One must wonder if he had a winery and bakery as a side business? :))
As per Crossan, the movement started as egalitarian . As we know, it did not proceed down that path for very long.
And we also have this conclusion:
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
"Whole kit and caboodle"? That's a new one. I like it better than "moronic" for believing in the existence of God:)
Good question you've asked:
"I still don't know why people need organized religion. Christian or otherwise."
People will always organize themselves for what they believe in - be it secular or religious. Organized groups not only have objectiives or missions, but set rules and regulations for members, membership fees and fund-raising activities. Even my golf/country club, not to mention the myriad NGOs I am member of or funded. And my golf/country club even expel members for non-compliance or shirking of rules and regulations. And non-payment of fees. That is always what happens when we organized ourselves into groups. We need office bearers and such and budgets to continue activities.
If one believe in a God, one certainly relate to God at a personal level in times of joy and sorrow, and for strenght in times of tribulations. One see all manifestation of God in all creation on earth, nature and the universe itself. One seek to discover the logic and wonders of earth and the universe through science to understand and wonder at life and creation.
Organized religion grew out of communities of believers for mutual support and community building. It was affirming, it was comforting for believers to be in a group of shared beliefs, mutual assistance and reliance . However, beliefs became institutionalized and hierachical over the centuries, and organized religion became one that seek believers to support and fund its institutions rather that the religious institutions supporting the community.
And, yes, while I think we should not be too picky about believers organizing themselves for group prayers and action for community well-being which is wonderful, we should take on religious entities that seek too much funds from believers for institutional support for its overheads and sometimes dubious activities.
Whatever your beliefs are, however you see creation, God, heaven and hell, that is your right Gaby. You are a wonderful and warm person. Don't let anyone get to you on what you believe in, which is truly human and humane.
Well, Concerned, that is your view and Crossan's view, but it appears from all the God fearing people posting here that many believe the whole kit and caboodle.
What Bible? The OT has basically been thrown on the myth pile and only 30% of the NT is from the historical Jesus, the other 70% added to embellish the story line.
"I still don't know why people need organized religion. Christian or otherwise."
I used to think EXACTLY the same thing. Really. But I've come to find that it doesn't have to be organised religion, per se, but rather a church community that it is good to be a part of.
While it is absolutely true that you can (and should) worship God anywhere and anytime you please, there are many great things about being a part of a community of like-minded people. Just as musicians like to be a part of groups of other musicians, artists part of artistic groups, and so on. You can be part of a great exchange of ideas, find mentors or become one yourself, worship with like-minded people. And I'm not saying it should be the only community to be a group of either. We are all multi-faceted, and can (and should) be members of many different communities to fulfill all of our needs.
All Comments (129)
csjiet knjaxgpzc qdnmfb crqlobnj ezwom hpknbcwsr aioyxdws
July 5, 2007 11:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 11:57
csjiet knjaxgpzc qdnmfb crqlobnj ezwom hpknbcwsr aioyxdws
July 5, 2007 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 11:55
Concerning Cal's article on Fort Dix:
1. Apparently, fighting them there so we don't fight them here isn't working out.
2. Leave it to 3 brainiacs to plot to attack an ARMY BASE!
of course, that might have actually worked if,
3. All of the troops assigned to Fort Dix are currently in Iraq.
May 15, 2007 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 15:11
Hmmm. Anyone have anything to say about the above article?
May 15, 2007 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 11:56
5/14/2007 10:35:00 AM
U.S. dodges bullets at Fort Dix
Cal Thomas
The United States dodged another bullet - several in fact - when authorities foiled an alleged terrorist attack on the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey by six men described by authorities as "radical Islamists." Three of the men are illegal immigrants.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said there is "no direct evidence" that the suspects have ties to international terrorism. Perhaps not in the traditional way that "ties" has been defined, but there are other ties that bind people to international terrorism without commissions or charters from a terrorist organization. That is what makes this freelance form of terrorism especially difficult to thwart.
Had it not been for the carelessness of one of the suspects who asked a local video store to copy a training video depicting men with weapons shouting "God is great" and proclaiming jihad, the alleged plot might have succeeded. The owner of the store tipped off authorities, which then began a 15-month investigation resulting in the arrests of the men.
Some advocacy groups want the right to sue people who report suspicious activity, as in the case of passengers aboard a U.S. Airways flight who reported several imams they believed were behaving suspiciously. Now the imams, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim lobby group, have filed suit in hopes of obtaining the names of the passengers so they can be sued.
The usual groups issue the predictable statements condemning the alleged terrorist plot at Fort Dix, repeating that Islam is a "peaceful religion."
Recall that the late Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, repeatedly condemned terrorist attacks he either helped instigate or inspired.
It is more prudent to pay attention to what terrorists say and do rather than to what the sophisticated, media-savvy conveyers of disinformation tell us.
Authorities said one of the suspects is believed to have been a sniper in Kosovo and he and the other men had been training at a firing range in Pennsylvania.
Eljvir Duka, 23, is quoted in the complaint as saying, "When it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying to attack your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad." This is the triumph of the brainwashers throughout the Islamic world. They teach the youngest of children that jihad and dying for Allah is their sole guarantee of heaven. That's a tough doctrine to overcome, especially when Western diplomats are seen as infidel "cross-worshippers" and "Jewish pigs" deserving of death.
Christopher J. Christie, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, told a news conference, "This is a new brand of terrorism where a small cell of people can bring enormous devastation."
Is anyone in doubt as to the terrorist game plan? It is to intimidate, subjugate and eradicate U.S. citizens and bring the United States to its knees. This is not a secret. It is preached throughout the world in mosques and in Arab and Muslim media. As more aliens enter this country - legally and illegally - those who are Muslims are building mosques faster than coffee shop chains.
The Saudis, who teach the most virulent and violent strain of Islam, underwrite most of them. That is not to say all Muslims are terrorists, or that all mosques are centers for terrorist training, but surely some are and how do we identify them before we experience another Sept. 11 . times 10?
According to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, the number of mosques in America grew 60 percent between 1995 and 2000, second only to the Christian mega-churches and well ahead of the Mormons and Assemblies of God. One finds no reciprocity in Muslim countries, where churches, and especially synagogues, are either tightly controlled or banned outright. In the Washington, D.C., area, alone, there are an estimated 45 mosques. It only takes one to serve as a theological instruction center for young jihadists who believe that killing Americans is his or her highest "calling."
It is long past time to stop worrying about political correctness and "sensitivities" and do what is necessary to improve our security before someone with official ties to al-Qaida, or simply religious freelancers, shoot up a shopping mall or a school.
Congress can start by putting real teeth into the immigration bill that will be up for debate soon. And then we have to get serious about dealing with the threat living in our midst.
May 15, 2007 9:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 09:55
Thanks for the post Cal. Yes Garak, it is conceivable that had Hitler repented on his deathbed he could have been forgiven and been admitted to Heaven.
Now, Bill Clinton?
May 14, 2007 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 17:55
So if Hitler had found Jesus on his deathbed, confessed his sins and repented, he'd be in heaven now? Gimmee a break!
May 14, 2007 5:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 17:22
and i will learn to spell for my next post :)
May 13, 2007 12:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 00:07
Ghostbuster.
Thanks, now I will have that silly song in my had all night.
But I've got your back!
May 13, 2007 12:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 00:06
Rob, good enough.
Don't you like the catchy theme song too?
May 12, 2007 10:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 22:37
I will stand with you ghostbuster... but only because I liked the movie
May 12, 2007 7:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 19:49
Gerry,
I agree that it is difficult to always be civil. I'm human, there are times I lose it and say things I shouldn't. And what is civil to you may not be civil to me, you know?
When you think about it, we're talking about things in here that people have died over yesterday, will die over today and unless some people stand up and something to stop all the hatred will die tomorrow.
I do what little I can to keep the marketplace of ideas open. That is the #1 reason I visit forum boards like this. I am far more concerned with the bullies trying to keep people out of the marketplace, than the free speech that is going on inside.
Know what I mean?
May 11, 2007 10:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 22:03
Someone,
I don't insult anybody personally when I strongly (and civilly!) reject an idea in an anonymous thread!
May 11, 2007 5:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 17:51
Gerry:
People can disagree, people can even argue, without being disrespectful to a person's character, and while still maintaining their civility toward others. There simply is no reason to go at this like a war, when what it should be is a coming together of minds, ideas, conversations and information.
May 11, 2007 5:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 17:40
Ghostbuster,
I do respect your attempt to be as civil as possible in a discussion which, let's face it, involves life and death and hell and eternal torture, and the self-definition in the minds (what else have we got?) of so many people.. I must admit that I have some difficulty to talk about the nightmares implied in all religions with a tone I would use in a nice talk over a cup of tea.
For myself, I have long ago given up ANY belief of a religious "revelation", be it Moses, Christ, Mohammed, Luther or Smith, and I can't tell you all how free, unburdened, accountable, loving, admiring, awe-inspired, moral, "connected" I feel after this step in my life. I think I am close to Gaby's "IT", whatever "it" may be, which borders on (or represents) the unexplainable of our lives without any historically conditioned, exchangeable human projection of human desires and questions on any given guru, and, worse, his followers.
I do believe in life, not in afterlife. Life is what I (we!) have, afterlife is the very human but unproven idea and desire to perpetuate my little self, which I think is much less important than the sum, the process of life. I don't have any difficulty imagining my life as a drop of "IT" which was isolated to become a conscious entity for a life span, through my conception and birth and will be re-integrated again after my death. I don't need any supernatural. Nature is already super, and the immodest request of some supernatural would have to be followed by a super-super....n -supernatural, which, of course, is nonsense.
So, from a distance, I must shake my head when I observe people getting at eachothers' throat on an illusionary ground that motivates both sides. Therefore, sometimes, ghostbuster, I think we have to argue strongly and cannot always have a civility contest over the most fundamental questions of humanity.
May 11, 2007 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 17:12
He said "big But".......
May 11, 2007 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 17:05
Gaby,
John Lennon's "Imagine" comes to mind. We probably all wish it were so. Then again, there is always George Orwell's utopian nightmare lurking in that big But. Still, I wish it were so. So it goes.
May 11, 2007 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:50
That true, Tonio, I forgot!
May 11, 2007 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:26
"You guys would be skeptical of someone who could guarantee a peaceful world, end of poverty and disease, yet you espouse the teachings of the Bible?"
I never said I espouse those teachings. I believe in evaluating the moral teachings of any religion's scripture on their own merits, apart from claims about the supernatural.
May 11, 2007 4:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:10
Hmmmmm, interesting responses.
You guys would be skeptical of someone who could guarantee a peaceful world, end of poverty and disease, yet you espouse the teachings of the Bible? I find that curious.
But, honestly, after seeing the images of war ravaged counties, of starving children, of people in excrutiating pain, I sometimes feel so hopeless. Like, it shouldn't be like this, there has to be a better way.
So I sit by my pond and dream what a world would be like without all this ugliness. What I see in my mind makes me happy for a while. And I fervently wish I could make it come true.
You say nothing is free. I believe that some things are free, like unconditional love, or the smile on the face of someone you've been kind to, or that wonderful feeling you get on a beautiful spring day when you just want to reach out and hug the world.
Actually, I would be leery also, if someone claimed he/she could accomplish all that and expects nothing in return. We natually have suspicious minds.
So just strike this one as the ramblings of an old woman who can not abide pain and suffering by anyone, but can't do anything about it.
May 11, 2007 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 15:57
"I would be one of the skeptical ones. I'd want to know what the catch was. You know, 'ok, world peace, no hunger, poverty or disease, BUT..........'. I would tend to think there would be a really big BUT there somewhere. Nothing is free, you know. I am a major skeptic at heart."
I feel the same way. When I read Gaby's scenario, I pictured the outcome as being some nightmarish dystopia, like the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man" or the 1980s TV series "V".
May 11, 2007 2:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 14:53
Oh, see, I knew it was coming.......
May 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 14:31
Someone likes big butts and I cannot lie......
May 11, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 14:09
Gaby:
Hmmm, I don't know. I would be one of the skeptical ones. I'd want to know what the catch was. You know, "ok, world peace, no hunger, poverty or disease, BUT..........". I would tend to think there would be a really big BUT there somewhere. Nothing is free, you know. I am a major skeptic at heart.
Did I just say really big but?
May 11, 2007 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 14:02
Gaby:
I would nominate myself for that position, but I am far too busy. Gotta wash my hair, and tie my shoes. Then, maybe a nap. No High Authority can afford to miss nap time. Makes me grumpy. Don't want me grumpy.
May 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:56
Ghostbuster:
You are absolutely right. I have thought about leaving this forum many times, changed my name many times thinking that might make a difference, finally simply becoming an anonymous "Someone" with no definition other than my religion. Do you know what I found? The nicer I became, the more I was called "stupid" and "ignorant" about what was truth. As if not arguing and attacking was a sign that I was uneducated. They would be surprised...
I have made a point on numerous occasions to remind posters here that this forum's purpose is for "intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation", to "engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat". I have never received a response from a poster in this forum when I have reiterated these guidelines.
We are supposed to be here to have conversations, not arguments. We are supposed to be respectful while we are here; there is so much disrespect shown in this forum it's a wonder it still exists. We in this forum are supposed to be able "to carry on a fruitful, intriguing, and above all constructive conversation", and instead, sometimes this place looks like a battlefield.
I am "Someone" who stands with you, Ghostbuster. I will always peacefully stand for people's rights to believe and discuss without fear of attack or disrespect. How else can we guarantee a true exchange of diverse ideas and beliefs?
May 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:56
Ghostbuster,
I'm with you. Albeit every now and then someone ( not "Someone") gets under my skin and I just get that terrible itch.
But at least I try to civil, which is more than I can say for many here.
Someone,
I thought that ECLATi would get your attention. Honestly though, Jacob is OK. It just takes a little time to understand him. I have pretty much figured him out.
All he wants is world peace, which he believes can be possbile with OUR (One Universal Religions) NEW SONG that will be subscribed to by all countries via the United Nations. He pretty much believes that established organized religions are the cause of much human misery and wars.
Other than that he believes pretty much what I believe. That there is a higher power (IT) which permeates the whole universe and we are part of IT. When we die our energy rejoins with the rest of the cosmic power and we become one with IT.
Anyhow, back to my questions then. Do you think that people would give up their religious beliefs if world peace and eradication of hunger, poverty, and disease could be estblished via a human being?
May 11, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:51
Someone wrote:
---A revolutionary is a supporter of bringing about radical social or political change. Jesus most certainly fits into this category. Not only did he support radical change, he preached it, he practiced it, and he started the Christian movement, which was most definitely a radical social change.---
Jesus brought no political change. His social change was squashed by Rome as were some of his apostles. The idea lived though and was considered a small cult until Constantine 300 years later. You may think its a powerful religion that took the world by storm, but what took the world by storm was Rome lead by a Christian who used law and war to elevate the fledgling church to a state religion. That is revolution. Statues of Roman gods were destroyed under Constantine. People were killed for not converting to christianity. Lands that held onto the old gods were invaded and forced to convert at the tip of a sword. That is how your religion of love was spread throughout Europe and the Middle East and not by its naturally good nature. You can call Christ the seed of the revolution, like Karl Marks was the seed of the bolshevik revolution. But Marks was not the revolutionary, it was Lenin and Mao.
May 11, 2007 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:43
WICCAN: Dog religion? What those people said about your beliefs is unfortunate and ignorant. I’ve seen worse though, as I’m sure you have too. Mostly from “Christians” I bet, right?
All: My point was more about people who are actually "paid" as part of their job to visit boards like this one, but what you guys are talking about is more interesting.
Christians are the majority religion in this country, so I agree they would probably take the bulk of the comments. But, are Christians unfairly singled out for “criticism”? I think the answer is YES and NO. They are singled out by an incredible majority of the visitors on these boards but the word "unfairly" is subjective whereas much of the criticism is justifiable. Some people cry “foul” simply because they have thin skin.
I'd say the Muslims get slammed on here. The Mormons get it usually from ex-mormons, orthodox christians and others who think Mormons and Christians are the same, and just slam them as a 2-for-1 special.
Anyways, all of these quotes listed below are also listed above and were made in reference to Christianity, Christians, Jesus, Cal Thomas or all of the above. I just pulled a couple of the highlights from the first 15 in this one single thread. If there is a * that means I found the comment positive off-topic, funny (Mr. Mark) or neutral towards Christianity...
1) No, it does not appear that it confers any consistent doctrine
2) You have become the Pharisees
3) *
4) Can't these people ever wake up from their dreams
5) Jesus was a big commie (don't know if this one was meant to be negative)
6) *
7) You know that you and smug, comfortable old men like you are a part of the problem
8) How do you sleep at night?
9) Cal Thomas is a whitened sepulcher
10) We need Jesus to come down here and eradicate false prophets like Cal
11) *Who let this one in?
12) *
13) Cal Thomas is a tool of the powerful and derives his wealth from them
14) But "converion" means brainlessly swallowing all the dogma the Church has fabricated over the years. When Christians blather on about "the Bible says...." what they really mean is "my preacher says......"
15) *
This is just a sampling from one thread. There are hundreds of threads just like this one. You know what... I think I was becoming desensitized. Some of this (not all) is chilling speech! Label them – call them names – demean their beliefs – and you render anything they say as irrelevant and “win”. It is no wonder so many decent people visit a board like this comment once or twice then leave, quickly never to return.
Today I re-cast my lot with anyone who stands up against attack speech like this, no matter what you believe or disbelieve in. I’ve spent considerable time on other boards defending pagans from “Christians”. On this board, I will stand with those who are grossly maligned, in this case mainly my Christian brothers & sisters, while treating those who constantly accuse and demean with the respect that they do NOT show us, as described in Romans 12.
Hopefully, some people will join me and we can help make these boards a better place where all can share their opinions without getting jumped.
If this be err, then upon me proved.
May 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:04
Someone-
"I guess that would probably be true no matter what religion I had become..."
Honey, that's true. I've seen people in this forum tear each other up over WHAT type of Christian they were. You just can't please everyone, so please yourself!
May 11, 2007 12:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:38
Gaby:
Oh No! Not ECLATi! I think I would go insane if I had to listen to sermons that sounded like Jozevz's posts! Sometimes I think he needs to ask his doctor for new meds. ;)
Was that mean? I just feel so sorry for the poor guy. I think he's been thru hell and back.
May 11, 2007 12:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:30
Wiccan:
Well, it doesn't comfort me to know that, it just makes me sad. A dog religion? What does that even mean? We know that so many of these people speak out of ignorance, and yet sometimes it still hurts. I am not a life-long Christian, but I never saw such harshness aimed at Christianity until I became one. I guess that would probably be true no matter what religion I had become...
May 11, 2007 12:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:26
Thanks, Gaby. The one thing I like best about Wicca is that it makes no claims about being the "Only True Path" to the Divine. As long as you "harm none", no skin off my nose what religion you do or don't practice. :-)
May 11, 2007 12:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:18
Wiccan,
I don't know much about your religions, but from the little I have gleaned, it seems quite alright.
May 11, 2007 12:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:05
Russell:
I didn't say Buddhism taught prayer to God. I said it believed in the existance of gods. Big difference. Do you believe there are gods in the universe? Most devout Buddhists do. I'm talking about gods in the sense of devas, supernatural cosmic beings; Buddhists believe in both gods and devas.
May 11, 2007 12:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:03
Russel D.
Hahahha! Good one!
Someone,
No, better than a cosmic Snoopy! Jozevz ECLATi.
May 11, 2007 12:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:02
Somebody-
If it comforts you, posters on this forum have called Wicca a "made-up" religion, a "dog" religion, and Satanism. I agree with Gaby; Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S., and therefore is targeted more often.
May 11, 2007 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:56
Gaby:
What would be the religious belief? I mean, it wouldn't be, like, praying to a cosmic Snoopy or something, would it?
May 11, 2007 11:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:51
Someone:
What Buddhism have you been studying? The type that I have been around prays to no God. It enforces chanting and bringing out inner power. I have been around this type of Buddhism for 20 some odd years. I was raised with it. God was never mentioned.
It taught inner strength and prosperity. No Diety involved whatsoever.
May 11, 2007 11:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:50
Russell:
First, let me say that I am not saying that anything is wrong with other religions. I am using them as comparisons to Christianity to see why non-religious posters feel that it is ok, indeed necessary, to bash Christianity, and not other organised religions.
Wicca is an organised religion that prays to a god and a goddess, and practices magic spells. They have sets of rules to follow, times of day, month and year you must pray and celebrate. Many believe that their god and goddess can manifest themselves into human forms.
Buddhism is an organised dharmic religion that says you must follow it's written law or "path" to obtain "salvation" from your suffering. Buddhists believe in the existance of gods and the possibility of attainment of eternal life.
These are the same types of things that come under attack in Christianity.
May 11, 2007 11:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:41
Gaby:
The man you are looking for is Gene Rodenberry, creator of Star Trek. Live long and prosper.
May 11, 2007 11:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:29
Sorry, that should have said:
As a non-believer I would NOT have a problem.
May 11, 2007 11:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:13
Someone,
I wonder???
What would happen if someone came along who could guarantee world peace, abolish hunger and poverty, wipe out disease and suffering as long as the worlds population could agree on ONE religious belief???
Now, I am not talking about some prophet or anything like that. Just an ordinary human being with the power to accomplish those things.
As a non-believer I would have a problem. How about you?
PS: I don't really bash either. And I fervently wish that one day we will get to that utopia I just described.
May 11, 2007 11:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:11
Someone,
Gaby has a good point. I don't see myself as bashing Christians, and I apologize if my posts seem that way.
My goal is to refute two notions found in many religions: first, the idea that any religion has exclusive claim to the truth; and second, the idea of supernatural explanations for natural events. Both of those amount to defining humanity in negative ways.
That goal has little to do with Christianity as opposed to other religions. It's simply easier to address Christian doctrine because I don't know as much about the other religions. I have strong feelings about the doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation, and i would have those same feelings if similar doctrines were found in other religions.
Is it possible for someone to believe in a God that does not interact with the natural world in any way? Is it possible for someone to believe in God and also believe that the universe has a natural origin and not a supernatural origin?
May 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 11:03
Gaby:
Thanks for your response. I agree with you, many Muslims have taken quite a beating here as well (I wonder how much of that is because of current world conditions). As for equal-opportunity bashing, at least that makes more sense to me for someone who says they are against organised religion. Personally, I'm not a basher; it just isn't my style. I used to be; but over time I have learned that there are better ways (at least for me) than negativity to deal with anything and everything. And then I don't feel on the inside the way Cal looks up there on the outside when I'm done making my point. ;)
May 11, 2007 10:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 10:42
Jihadist,
Thank you for reminding me that people need each other. I had forgotten.
May 11, 2007 10:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 10:37
Someone:
What is wrong with being a Wiccan? Or being a Buddhist? As far as I can see, those two religions are closer to a true and helpful religon than any others. I am not slandering the other religions, but it seems to me that those two in particular seem to be more in tune with what the world is actually about.
May 11, 2007 10:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 10:28
Someone,
I have to agree with you to some extent. But I think that many Christian bashers do so because they are more familiar with Christianity than with any of the other religions.
However, I have to say that Jihadist and several other Muslim posters have taken their beating over time. Some more, some less.
I, for one, bash them all alike. ;)
I give everyone the right to believe as they do, but I also like to argue my point. I never try to make it personal and if I do I am contrite.
IT is what IT is and we are part of IT.
May 11, 2007 10:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 10:27
Ghostbuster:
Good Morning. To answer your post about character assassinations.... I'm sure someone will jump all over this, but I just can't help myself....
I seem to find in this forum a number of non-religious posters who seem very quick to jump on Christian posters, refuting references to God and the Bible, and yet these same posters seem almost reluctant to launch similar attacks against people of other faiths (except the Mormons, who took a pounding over the last week).
I find this reluctance by non-religious posters to demean, and even a tendancy to defend, especially when it comes to religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, and various Paganism. This is in spite of the fact that these are all organised religions that worship multiple gods and idols, some practice or believe in magic and miracles, life after death or multiple lives, written books of "truths", etc. Now, why is that?
Ok, I'm ready; shoot at will...
May 11, 2007 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 10:12
Fate:
A revolutionary is a supporter of bringing about radical social or political change. Jesus most certainly fits into this category. Not only did he support radical change, he preached it, he practiced it, and he started the Christian movement, which was most definitely a radical social change.
May 11, 2007 9:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 09:31
Ghostbuster - regarding your concerns about people who come here with an “agenda.”
Advertising a product is certainly out of bounds - I haven't seen it here, except for the occasional people who are pushing their own websites.
Of course character assassination is wrong, no matter what the context. It's can also be hard to judge: what someone might consider character assassination, another might consider valid criticism.
Promoting or tearing down a position sounds like natural discussion to me. I enjoy hearing and discussing different points of view.
May 11, 2007 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 08:41
As much as Cal makes my stomach turn on a regular basis I have to agree with him here on one point, Christ was no revolutionary. He lead 12 apostles who, like many prophets of his time, went around and preached, living off the goodness of those who liked his message. That is not a revolutionary. Castro, Lenin, Jefferson, Washington, Mao ... those were revolutionaries. They brought in a new idea, spread it, organized it and in some cases imposed it, transforming their societies. Christ only brought in the new idea. Revolutionary ideas do not make a revolution.
The real revolutionary in Christianity was Constantine who adopted the small christian religion and, being Caesar, spread christianity throughout the Roman empire and beyond through war and rule of law. By doing this the church grew very wealthy and after Constantine it continued to spread the religion through new governments, church law that had earthly penalties, and missionary work it supported. If Constantine had not become a christian, it might have died out like so many other religions.
May 11, 2007 8:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 08:08
And now to hijack this played out thread...
A wise person once told me on my first day at a job "don't believe anything that you hear and only half of what you see".
I've heard some news recently about people who actually "go to work" on blogs such as this one. They come with an agenda which is to usually to either promote or tear down a position, advertise a product, or to act in character assassination.
Has anybody else heard of these types of shenanigans? Do tell...
May 10, 2007 10:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 22:41
gaby - people don't need organized religion, they just need to be organized.
May 10, 2007 10:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 22:19
For those interested in the social revolution and the money trail that followed, see below for references and commentary:
K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
JD Crossan's books, In Search of Paul and also The Historic Jesus
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll (Paperback - April 1, 2001)
You have to read in between the lines when searching out the influence of money in early Christianity since there were no economists in those days.
The wealth of the contemporary religions and associated aristocrats like the Queen of England is easily found via a Google search.
And money comes in various forms. For peasants like Jesus it came, in many cases, in the form of free room and board. One also assumes that Peter's travels especially to Rome were financed somehow. Ditto for Paul's many travels. Paul also collected significant funds from the Gentiles for Jewish famine relief. Did this also buy the Gentile entry into the movement? Probably. Paul also had a number of rich followers/disciples and his "prophecy" of the imminent second coming must have been a real money maker. (Still is!!!)
Jesus' ability to instantaneously change water into wine and replicate bread and fish sure kept expenses down. One must wonder if he had a winery and bakery as a side business? :))
As per Crossan, the movement started as egalitarian . As we know, it did not proceed down that path for very long.
And we also have this conclusion:
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
May 10, 2007 7:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 19:58
Gaby
"Whole kit and caboodle"? That's a new one. I like it better than "moronic" for believing in the existence of God:)
Good question you've asked:
"I still don't know why people need organized religion. Christian or otherwise."
People will always organize themselves for what they believe in - be it secular or religious. Organized groups not only have objectiives or missions, but set rules and regulations for members, membership fees and fund-raising activities. Even my golf/country club, not to mention the myriad NGOs I am member of or funded. And my golf/country club even expel members for non-compliance or shirking of rules and regulations. And non-payment of fees. That is always what happens when we organized ourselves into groups. We need office bearers and such and budgets to continue activities.
If one believe in a God, one certainly relate to God at a personal level in times of joy and sorrow, and for strenght in times of tribulations. One see all manifestation of God in all creation on earth, nature and the universe itself. One seek to discover the logic and wonders of earth and the universe through science to understand and wonder at life and creation.
Organized religion grew out of communities of believers for mutual support and community building. It was affirming, it was comforting for believers to be in a group of shared beliefs, mutual assistance and reliance . However, beliefs became institutionalized and hierachical over the centuries, and organized religion became one that seek believers to support and fund its institutions rather that the religious institutions supporting the community.
And, yes, while I think we should not be too picky about believers organizing themselves for group prayers and action for community well-being which is wonderful, we should take on religious entities that seek too much funds from believers for institutional support for its overheads and sometimes dubious activities.
Whatever your beliefs are, however you see creation, God, heaven and hell, that is your right Gaby. You are a wonderful and warm person. Don't let anyone get to you on what you believe in, which is truly human and humane.
Best regards as ever.
May 10, 2007 6:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 18:15
Well, Concerned, that is your view and Crossan's view, but it appears from all the God fearing people posting here that many believe the whole kit and caboodle.
May 10, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 16:55
Gaby,
What Bible? The OT has basically been thrown on the myth pile and only 30% of the NT is from the historical Jesus, the other 70% added to embellish the story line.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
May 10, 2007 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 16:40
Concerned,
Don't be so preoccupied with the Koran. The Bible isn't exactly the book of unequivocal love.
May 10, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 14:16
Someone,
Sounds like a pack instinct. I've never been a pack person. Maybe that's why I don't grasp it.
May 10, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 14:12
Unfortunately Jihadist speaks for only a few Islamics. The other 95% are followers of the Book of Death aka The Koran.
May 10, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2007 14:09
Gaby wrote:
"I still don't know why people need organized religion. Christian or otherwise."
I used to think EXACTLY the same thing. Really. But I've come to find that it doesn't have to be organised religion, per se, but rather a church community that it is good to be a part of.
While it is absolutely true that you can (and should) worship God anywhere and anytime you please, there are many great things about being a part of a community of like-minded people. Just as musicians like to be a part of groups of other musicians, artists part of artistic groups, and so on. You can be part of a great exchange of ideas, find mentors or become one yourself, worship with like-minded people. And I'm not saying it should be the only community to be a group of either. We are all multi-faceted, and can (and should) be members of many different communities to fulfill all of our needs.
May 10, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments