Obama's Wise, But Unfortunate, Decision

johnnormansp,
i think there are two things going on here. one is christian fundamentalism - which by my, and the ususal, definition involves a literal reading of scripture - and the other is islamic fundamentalism.

a literal reading of the bible results in head-in-the-sand, longing-for-simpler-times, sceintific ignoramuses who visit museums depicting adam and eve riding around on dinosaurs. i find these people generally amusing, and file them alongside cryptozoologists and alien abductees. i can tolerate them (as long as they can keep the bible out of science class) because they don’t bomb other people. sure, historically christians have done a lot of awful things to non-christians (or even the wrong kind of christians), but they were not doing these awful things with scriptural justification.

the REAL problem, as i see it, is when you combine fundamentalism (read: literalism) with the koran. nikosd99 is correct when he says the new testament doesn't exhort believers to attack unbelievers. the moral advance of the new testament is that jesus told believers to let HIM take care of infidels on judgement day. according to the NT, infidels will suffer a horrible death and be thrown into hell forever. well, you gotta admit that's better than the islamic exhortation to muslims to take care of infidels themselves, right here on earth in this life.

Yes Nico, that is right. The scourge of this world today is the religious fundamentalists, of every stripe, and you are one of them.

nikosd99, you said,
"you can't debate ignorance."
_____________________________

agreed...

TO WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH

Sorry, I mistakingly picked it up as a sign-off signature when you made a side note comment to norriehoyt.

My quoting scripture was to prove to you how Roman Catholicism does not line up with New Testament teaching. If you refuse to accept the facts, it only proves what I said when I asked. "how can one reasonably debate the man?"

Forgive me for saying it, but one thing I have learned in my 74 years ~ you can't debate ignorance."

------------------------------------------
TO JOHNNORMANSP

Let me get this straight. Now I'm responsible for the Twin Towers attack because I'm a fundamentalist Christian?

Let me repost a comment that I made to FARNAZ earlier in the thread. "Read the New Testament. What does it say? Where does it say that Christians should go out and kill the heathen, the unbelievers and the Jews? It was the Christians who were martyred. Many were stoned, burned at the stake, slain by the sword, crucified like Christ. And who did the killing? In the early Church it was the religious Jews. Later it was by the Roman Catholic church and others."

Now, you come along and say that because I'm a fundamentalist it puts me in the same category as a jihad terrorist. You're right, JOHNNORMAN, I shouldn't have laughed, I should have cried that there are people who reason like you do. God help us!

nikosd99,
why do you keep lumpin gme and "norriehoyt" together? as if he/she and and are are one-in-the same?

the "passover massacre" is my characterisation.

no, quoting scripture is not going to give you more credibility.

Niko,
Most of the fighting around the world today is religiously fueled. And yes, I can surely imagine you "laughing" when you read what I write. The sinister laugh of the sociopathic ideologue. It was your cohorts, perhaps in another relgion, but your cohorts in fundamentalism nevertheless, who flew those planes into the Twin Towers. Grow up and get a life.

Nico,

One last time. Your book has made a bloodbath of history, destroyed the very planet on which we live.

I don't call you a Fundamentalist. I call you a circular reasoner.

Give the world a chance, and close your book.

Maybe if I quote you this bit of scripture, you all might be able to begin to understand.

Paul said in Galatians 1:8-10 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

CONTINUING to norriehoyt:

When Paul and Barnabas were in Lystra, Paul healed a man who was impotent in his feet. Immediately the people supposed them to be gods and brought oxen and garlands unto the gates and wanted to do sacrifice to them. Paul and Barnabas rent their clothes and cried out to them saying, "Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:" (Acts 14). Now, contrast that with the Roman Catholic church with all their pomp and ceremony. The pope and bishops are robed in gold gilded finery. People bow down and kiss the pope's ring and pay homage unto him.

Need I go on? This has gotten too long and I haven't even touched on their refusal to let their priests marry, their confessionals, their teaching of purgatory and holding Mass for the dead, their doctrines of works versus grace, etc., etc., all of which are contradictory to New Testament teachings.

Norryhoyt, if you still feel that all I have presented is just minute differences, then I don't know what more to say. Personally, I feel that you are out of your element here. I think you would have better results with a grade school debate team.

TO FARNAZ1MANSOURI1: Let me try and say it one more time. If all the sects that you mentioned were not following the teachings of the New Testament, then their "religion" is suspect.

NORRIEHOYT(WalterinFallsChurch)said, "only your "closeness" to the minutia of all the little doctrinal arguments could possibly make you not see catholics as christian."

Webster's definition of the word minutiae is 'small or relatively unimportant details'. If norriehoyt thinks that Roman Catholicism's departure from the teachings of scripture, by waging the Inquisitions, holy wars, their involvement in WW2 atrocities, etc., resulting in hundreds of thousands deaths, are unimportant details, than how can one reasonably debate the man? Apparently all that I have previously written has gone way over his head.

Let me point out some of those other doctrinal arguments that he calls minute. God said we were not to make unto ourselves graven images or to bow down to them. Did you ever see a procession of catholics carrying a statue of the Virgin Mary down the street, weeping and wailing and throwing flowers on the image? The Word says that there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. It also tells us to come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy (Hebrews 4:16). Jesus said to come unto Him and He would give us rest. Roman Catholicism has you praying to a myriad of their canonized saints asking them to intercede for us. If they had a personal relationship with the Lord they would see the error of their ways.

Catholicism has raised Mary to the deity of Christ by saying that she was born without original sin (Immaculate Conception). If that was the case, Mary could have gone to the cross as a propitiation for our sins. No need for Jesus to have come. Mary, herself, said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:46,47). Now, someone who is sinless doesn't need a saviour. They also teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Mary had other children and the Word says that Joseph "... knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." If I told you that I never drove a car TILL I was 16, wouldn't you naturally assume that is when I began to drive? If the Bible says that Joseph knew her not TILL she brought forth her firstborn son, then....well, I'll let you figure it out.

TO BE CONTINUED

Nico,

A couple of other woteworthy acts of the Christians (Protestants).

The slaughtering of 100,000 Irish Catholic men, women, and children during the reign, of Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen.

The anti-Catholic laws throughout the Protestant British Empire throughout the nineteenth century.

Nico,

YOU may not consider the Catholics to be Christians, but the Catholics do, and they would find your posting very offensive.

That said, would you consider the Lutherans Christian? Would you consider the Christian Orthodox Christian?

Would you consider the Puritans Christian? They who gave American INdians blankets infected with small pox? They who in the name of Jesus Christ, set fire to the Pequot Indians, and in said JC's name, joyfully watched them burn to death?

What makes you think that the Catholics alone are responsible for the Holocaust? It was an equally Lutheran event.

Who was it, if not the AngloChristian Brits, who brought us the first concentration camp, during the Boer War? Who cut off the thumbs of Hindus and Muslims so that they could not compete in clothing manufacture?

Who cut off their hands and tied them around their necks?

Please. Believe what you wish. At least subscribe to the most basic Judaic notion. Do no harm. That would include ceasing conversionistic activities.

We have enough carnage, the most recent brought to us by that great born again Christian George Bush.

Farnaz1Mansouri1,
i enjoy your comments. were you referring to me when you said, "You are not writing from a Christian perspective. You are writing as a Christian."?

No Jew, living or dead, at any time in history, would have accepted a murderous deity, who would send his "only begotten son" to earth to be tortured to death, to die for "our sins."

No one, dies for our sins in Judaism. The deity gave humanity justice and the means for pursuing it. In this way, via free will, we are capable of redeeming the earth.

that i consider judaism, christianity and islam to be 3 sects of one religion does not mean i can't see ANY differences between them. these differences are details. for instance i think christianity was a step forward in terms of conciliatory behavior in society. in contrast to authors of jewish and islamic scripture, the authors of the NT were not in a position of authority in their society. they were oppressed people hoping not to be killed by the romans. this is why we get things like "render unto caesar" in christianity and "slay the idolators" in islam and "destroy their temples" in (ancient) judaism. nonetheless, all judeochrislamic sects are united by more beliefs than divide them. the divisions, which seem huge to insiders (see nikossd99), seem pretty trivial to me. i gave you the flavors of ice cream analogy before. you could also think of all the judeochrislamic sects as "different" trees in the same forest.
______________
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go into this in depth. I take back my former point, though, and I mean no offense. Y

You are not writing from a Christian perspective. You are writing as a Christian.

If Jesus existed, and there is no reliable evidence outside the "NT" (sic), he would have been largely unknown among the Jews of his century. The two principal groups, the priestly cast and the Pharisees had both concluded that all the prophets, like Jesus, for whom at the moment we'll allow existence, were to be left unharrassed.

It was decided that the profits springing up everywhere were mentally afflicted, suffering, symptoms of the Roman brutality everywhere abounding.

The Pharisees, the greatest of whom, were the Tannaim (see Wikipedia, for a tolerable explanation) were of great interest to the ordinatry Jewish man and women.

The Tannaim were setting about to codify the Tanakh (what the Christians call the Hebrew Scriptures), advance interpretation, etc. They wished to end the priestly cast forevery. And they did.

Judaism, was, of course, always interpretive, inherently interpretive from the beginning.

Scholars, including the Catholic scholar, Rosemary Reuther have remarked that the Jesus myth was a throwback to an earlier version of Judaism. This early version is nowhere to be found, however.

The notion of Man Gods, such as Osiris, was a common myth, which, if he existed, Jesus bought in to. Human sacrifice, sacrifice to gods did not exist in Judaism.

The Jews did not, then, nor do they now, believe in "renedering unto Caesar," Mussolini, Hitler, etc. that which is not theirs.

See Talmud. Judaism concerns itself with Justice.

The last two thousand years is a comment on the "advance" that Christianity represents.

Farnaz1Mansouri1,
huh? you implied that the term "abrahamic" is meaningless?! that just plainly doesn't make sense. ALL judeochrislamics have stories about "abraham" in their religious books. this ("these" if you prefer) religion(s) are distinguished from all the 1000s of other religions which don't revere abraham. to see an example of your thinking "taken down one level" see my remarks below to nikosd99 regarding catholics.

that i consider judaism, christianity and islam to be 3 sects of one religion does not mean i can't see ANY differences between them. these differences are details. for instance i think christianity was a step forward in terms of conciliatory behavior in society. in contrast to authors of jewish and islamic scripture, the authors of the NT were not in a position of authority in their society. they were oppressed people hoping not to be killed by the romans. this is why we get things like "render unto caesar" in christianity and "slay the idolators" in islam and "destroy their temples" in (ancient) judaism. nonetheless, all judeochrislamic sects are united by more beliefs than divide them. the divisions, which seem huge to insiders (see nikossd99), seem pretty trivial to me. i gave you the flavors of ice cream analogy before. you could also think of all the judeochrislamic sects as "different" trees in the same forest.
____________________________________

nikosd99, you said,
"let's get one thing straight. I do not consider Roman Catholicism as being Christian."

LOL! ha! that's just plainly ridiculous. you can claim catholics aren't christian if you want, but it doesn't make any sense. you can say catholics have it wrong on whatever doctrinal question you disagree with them on, but they are plainly christian. only your "closeness" to the minutia of all the little doctrinal arguments could possibly make you not see catholics as christian.

there are probably members of just about every christian denomination/sect/cult who don't see people of any other denomination/sect/cult as being "real" christians. these people are just illustrating the devisiveness of religion. the only reason there are 1000s(?) of "kinds" of christians is because each "kind" thinks all the other kinds have got it wrong.

FARNAZ1MANSOURI1: Regarding your post on the Holocaust and Christians being involved in the carnage, let's get one thing straight. I do not consider Roman Catholicism as being Christian. Nor do I accept as fact anyone who says that they are Christian, as being one, if they do not follow the teachings of the New Testament. Christians are being blamed for all sorts of atrocities, IE, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Witch Hunts, etc. Christianity wasn't responsible, "Religion" was. There is a difference, you know. Who do you suppose was guilty of the crucifixion of Christ? It was the "religious" leaders of the day. It just amazes me that supposedly thinking people can't get that through their noggins. Do you try to think for yourself, FARNAZ1MANSOURI1, or do you just follow the herd?

Read the New Testament. What does it say? Where does it say that Christians should go out and kill the heathen, the unbelievers and the Jews? It was the Christians who were martyred. Many were stoned, burned at the stake, slain by the sword, crucified like Christ. And who did the killing? In the early Church it was the religious Jews. Later it was by the Roman Catholic church and others.

Here is what the New Testament says on how a Christian should live. "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:17-19) In Matthew 5, the Lord taught His followers to turn the other cheek if smote: if sued and their coat was taken, to give them their cloak also; to love their enemies; to bless them that cursed them; to do good to them that hated them; and to pray for those who persecuted them.

Incidentally, when Stephen was stoned (Acts 7) it was Saul who stood there approving of his death. Well, later Saul was converted on the road to Damascus and became the apostle Paul who wrote most of the New Testament. He later was also martyred for his faith in Jesus Christ.

As far as hating the Jews, that would be the last thing that a Christian would ever think of doing. Read Romans 11 and see what Paul had to say on how we should not be high-minded against the Jews. They are still the apple of God's eyes.

In closing, may I humbly suggest that you engage your mind before you put your mouth in gear?

Nico,

You might want to look up Salonica, Babi yar, if interested in your everyday Christian bloodfests.

Wikipedia covers the latter, scantily. Yevtushenko wrote a poem about the Ukrainian Christian murderers, whom Wikipedia labels "local collaborators." There are photographs of the local Christian killers, not only there, but in Latvia, Lithuania, etc. Also, in Greece and elsewhere.

Walter in Falls Church,

You see that is the problem. Neither Islam nor Judaism is "Western." This Abrahamic business of the former Pope, IMHO is feel good nonsense that I doubt he gave much thought to. This Pope remarked that anyone who did not claim Jesus Christ for his/her savior was in grave danger.

"Abrahamic"? Meaningless.

The three religions are radically different.

I, myself, ask only to be left to my nonreligious, secular self, to have my citizenship untrammeled by religionists.

Niko,

Your knowledge of the Holocaust is limited. Yes, the nazis began the largest christian assault in history against the Jews but the torturing, mutilation, slaughter of Jews had been ongoing in christendom from the conversion of constantine until then.

It was not merely the German Lutherans and German Catholics who slaughtered, and those that were slaughtered were not only German Jews.

The Polish Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Russian Orthodox (enemies of the German Christians), the Catholics of the Baltic states, the French Catholics, etc., ordinary people, shopowners, workers, etc., churchgoers, took on the job of Jew killing, often incited by priests and Lutheran ministers to kill Jews.

It is not the case that those who protested were killed. In the occupied areas the German Christian nazis had to stop the bloodletting because it was ineffecient by German nazi Christian standards.

Christians somehow have worked it out in their minds that those who were killed were Jews, but those who did the killing were not Christians.

However, baptismal records were used in Germany to determine who was and wasn't Jewish.

Some of those determined to be "Jewish" had been Christians since birth and knew nothing of Judaism.

Those Croatian murdering priests were not Hindus. Neither were any of the other nazi murderers. They were not Muslims. Not Bahai. Not Animists. NOt Buddhists.

THEY WERE CHRISTIANS. Own it. Live with it. Deal with it.

Tell me why I still read antisemitic filth on this blog, why antisemitic garbage written by Christians is all over the web.

Do you think, that maybe, just maybe, there may be a problem with your religious beliefs?

Farnaz1Mansouri1,
i think (maybe) you misunderstood when i said "i suppose it looks that way from the inside - to someone who's jewish, christian or muslim - but from out here they look pretty similar. in fact i call them "judeochrislam"."

what i mean is that yes, absolutely, there are SO MANY other ways of conceiving of god than the westerm abrahamic conception.

To Farnaz1Mansouri

You stated, "Then we have that image of the "tortured Jew," of whom Norrie Hoyt has written, and that image was made flesh again and again and again, millions of times, even unto this very day."

If you are talking about when Roman Catholics take communion and believe that they are bringing forth the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, you will get no arguement from me.

I have much to criticize about Roman Catholicism. Again, it's just another "religion". I don't ask anyone to accept what I say without they, themselves first picking up the Bible and reading what God has to say about Christianity and Truth. If a person is sincere and truly repents and asks The Lord to come into his/her life, they will receive the Holy Spirit and will be able to discern truth in His Word, The Holy Bible.

Along with his usual tirade against God, johnnormansp wrote, ".... -- go around the world today, to any country and you find plenty of good people everywhere. There is no reason to imaging it was no different back then...."

But, God said through Jeremiah, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) The apostle Paul said in Romans 3:5,6, "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?" He goes on to say, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (verses 9,10)

In answer to your case for innocent people falling under the judgment of God, I offer this response to show how it is, even today, under man's ruler ship.

According to Wikipedia, "The atomic bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings." That's 5,000 short of being a quarter of a million people. Unfortunately, that's the results of the leaders of a nation making decisions that ultimately brings destruction down on what we would call innocent people. Japan should have counted the cost of going to war against the United States. Maybe if the common people had risen up and tried to dissuade their leaders from going to war, things could have turned out differently. Germany was also defeated in WW2 and East Germany came under communist dictatorship. Many of it's citizens died as the result of bombings during the war and many suffered under the communists. Those that did try to dissuade, or opposed the Nazi regime, suffered the same fate as the Jews and others. Most civilians, however, looked the other way as the atrocities were committed against Jews and others. Needless to say, they suffered right along with their leaders.

Johnnormansp, I had to laugh when you said, "No matter how you parse it, the Passover Massacre offends modern sensibilities, when you think about it -- the world's conscience is evolving over the millenniums, yes, dragging the world's religions along -- kicking and screaming -- toward enlightenment."

Some enlightenment as we murder a million plus innocent, unborn children each year in the United States. And now, we have a president who is using our tax dollars to fund birth control and abortions around the world. One need only to pick up the daily newspaper and read of the many other atrocities taking place around the globe. In fact, your disillusionment is so great, I have to end my discussion here. I can only pray that some day you will realize that all men have a sinful nature and are in need of a Saviour.

nikosd99 -- Your rational for Jehovah's terrorism does not hold water. What about the parents of the kids killed? Didn't they suffer just as much as any parent would suffer, upon losing a kid to a cold-blooded killer? You say that not one of those "heathens" would grow up to be a Christian, or a Jew or a Bible believer. So, does that strike you as "intelligent design" or at all fair? If Jehovah was so just in exterminating them, why not just exterminate all the people in the world living outside of America's Bible Belt? The real explanation: the Bible was not written by an omniscient God, but by men who evinced the thinking of their times -- they thought it would be hunky-dory for Israel to have a God who could kill all the Egyptian firstborn, make them all wail in pain and suffering and that is just how they depicted him in their fictions. When you sit their in your armchair and hypothesize that every last Egyptian at that time was evil and deserving this tragedy is nonsense -- go around the world today, to any country and you find plenty of good people everywhere. There is no reason to imaging it was no different back then (and, in you scenario, who was it who created these babies and children without a viable future, anyway?), and the Bible doesn't say these things anyway, it just says that Jehovah wanted to coerce a decision from the pharaoh, and resorted to terrorism to do that, plain and simple. No matter how you parse it, the Passover Massacre offends modern sensibilities, when you think about it -- the world's conscience is evolving over the millenniums, yes, dragging the world's religions along -- kicking and screaming -- toward enlightenment.

Then we have that image of the "tortured Jew," of whom Norrie Hoyt has written, and that image was made flesh again and again and again, millions of times, even unto this very day.

As well, we have the assurance by those who worship that image that any who do not do likewise, regardless of the good they may do, will surely go to hell. Those who do worship that image, even if he is "damned" shall go to heaven.

So, torture away, any who do not believe as you do, be they American Indians, Hindus, Muslims, and, of course, Jews. Jes' worship that ole image. Remember "grace"; you can depend on it.

nikosd99 -- Your mention of the Passover Massacre is an interesting one. In the post-9/11 era it takes on a special meaning, doesn't it? To coerce a reaction from a political leader, tens or hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens -- including children and the mentally handicapped, without distinction ("not one house was spared") -- were summarily killed. What's more, it was unnecessary, since it is written:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt... and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land." Exodus 11:9,10
Question: If we put money in a Christian-church collection plate, wouldn't that fall into the category of "funding a known terrorist" -- since, after all, there are no longer "good" ones and "bad" ones, right? Aren't they all lumped together in the same legal classification now? Of course, as a defense you could always argue that Jehovah doesn't really exist...

TO NORRIEHOYT - CONTINUING -

Apparently you feel that God is a cold hearted tyrant. But, we read in Romans 9:21-22 "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

Also, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9)

God gave Pharaoh many opportunities to repent. He, in effect, pleaded with him to reconsider his mistreatment of the Israelites. God will often allow setbacks to come into our lives so that we will turn from our hellbent ways and make Him the Lord of our lives. When he takes away our most cherished thing and we still won't come to Him for comfort and forgiveness, I believe that is the ultimate sin, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. All that time, His Spirit was standing at the door of your heart, knocking, asking for admittance. It's your choice. He gives you free will.

I have often wondered about the small children who were slain during those times in the Old Testament when God judged a people. I know that my God is a compassionate God and it seemed inconsistent with His nature. As I wrestled with this, I began to think about what would have happened to those children if they had been allowed to grow into adulthood. Undoubtedly they would have reached the age of accountability and would have continued the heathen ways of their parents. Perhaps God did them a favor by taking them out prior to that happening. It is MY belief that when Jesus comes back and sets up His one thousand year reign, with Satan bound so he may no longer deceive the nations, Christ will also bring with Him all the children who died before attaining accountability. After Satan is loosed again at the end of the thousand years, those children will have grown into adulthood and will make their own decision as to follow Christ or go with the evil one. As I say, that is a personal belief, not necessarily scriptural.

norriehoyt (walter-in-fallschurch) wrote, concerning God's judgment on Egypt, "ah...yes...the "passover massacre". that was really great, huh? all those dead unbelievers! they deserved it - especially the kids."

I'm glad that you brought that up for discussion. It illustrates how the actions of the leaders of a country can bring devastating consequences upon their nation. How many times did the Lord try to bring the fact home to Pharaoh that He alone was the True God? Nine plagues and Pharaoh still wouldn't let the people of Israel go. You would think after two or three, he would have gotten the message. Finally, the tenth plague and God slew the firstborn of the land and Pharaoh practically threw them out of his land. But then, after the Israelites departed, Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart and went after them. We all know the end of the saga, at the Red Sea.

The story illustrates several things. First of all, God is God and He alone is sovereign. It also illustrates the intervention of God for his people. And, as stated earlier, it shows God's judgments on those who turn their backs on Him.

TO BE CONTINUED.....

"Not to mention that prayer, if not religion, is vital to the long-term health of any community."

Oh, really? And how would you have prayer without religion in the first place? So, people couldn't form a viable community without pretending that they are talking with an imaginary being? If you don't carry out this pretense, the whole fabric inevitably just falls apart? Plenty of nonhuman species also form communities, so I guess it follows from your logic that they also pray? The thoughts expressed in this article are dogmatic and muddled from the get-go.

Walter in Falls Church:

"i suppose it looks that way from the inside - to someone who's jewish, christian or muslim - but from out here they look pretty similar. in fact i call them 'judeochrislam'".
________________________________________

If one posts (as you did) from the perspective of one religion, then he/she is posting from the "inside," regardless of whether he/she is, personally, observant or not, regardless, as well, of whether he/she is an atheist or agnostic.

The point is that when one makes a general argument about religion in terms of a particular relgious framework, one's argument loses credibility.

As for the "Abrahamic" business, it was the former Pope, who dubbed Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "Abrahamic," a discussion I won't get into now. I will say, that there are also Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Animism, etc.

"Perhaps we struggle over both a National Day of Prayer and the possibility of a White House event honoring it because we do not yet know how to have those events without trampling on the rights of those who pray differently or do not pray at all."

It's not a struggle, Rabbi, it's an *argument.*

" But the fact that we are not able to accomplish these things does not make them bad ideas. It means that we have more work to do as a nation -- work on the definitions of prayer and thanksgiving, and work on our ability to respect each other's forms of ethical or spiritual reflection."

Frankly, the problem with (most especially a specifically-Evangelical) 'Day of Prayer' which religious powers-that-would-be try to make mandatory...

Isn't about separation of church and state: those boundaries are clear.

Best avoided.

Until, perhaps, you Abrahamics can learn to *pray* without denigrating others.

Which is probably the biggest problem putting your prayers in front of the President and a microphone to endorse exclusively.

People who want 'God not to be removed from government' could be literally flagellating themselves and confessing to all manner of iniquities and *still* be claiming "My religion makes me better able to tell you what you are relative to me before 'God' and society."

Then they'll be all, 'We're all degenrate 'sinners,' obey. Accept my definitions of and authorities over you. Call it 'Patriotic.'

And it's like, a) No I'm not. A 'sinner' in those fashions. Got personal flaws aplenty, but they *sure as holy Hel* don't involve being insufficiently afraid to kiss someone.

And b) Our government is predicated on the notion that if we have anything good to bring *from* religion, we can surely bring it *to* government without the crutch of trying to make it *about* religion.

Don't see how anyone could say that at least moderating these most ignorant trends could be 'unwise, but unfortunate.'

Wisdom.... Accounts for all manner of outcomes of Fortune.

Can turn ill luck to the good.

There's not much good luck that'll cure the effects of foolishness. :)

Rabbi: You wrote" No society has cultivated long-term success without nurturing in its members the ability to reflect and meditate on the most important issues of the day." I'd be fine with any
president convening a day of "reflection on the most important issues of the day." But when the National Day of Prayer rolls around, all too often it looks and sounds and smells more like an old-time Billy Graham Rally with all the bells and whistles to summon down the bountiful blessings of a Fundamentalist God and Jee-sus upon the blessed holy land of the United States. We don't need that anymore. Thank you.

I think the law regarding the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional and, agreeing with Obama to keep it private, think it should be kept out of government. If we need an occasion for reflection why would a National Day of Reason not be more appropriate? Why does prayer, implying supplication to a deity, fit concept of a nation born of the enlightenment?

There are those who think this position too severe, who feel that a ceremonial or symbolic reference to deity is acceptable. Were this the only extent, it might be tenable. But the post of NIKOSD99 reflects the danger and fallacy of this thinking.

Religion is taught as truth, and all too often confused with fact. NIKOSD99 cannot distinguish fact from fable, but takes as fact propositions unsupportable by reason. Were he an exception we could dismiss him; but he represents a large community whose intellects have been broken by indoctrination producing an affect resembling mental illness in its inability to distinguish reality from imagination. That community attempts to degrade our schools with creationism and influence laws based on, supposedly, scripturally supported bigotry. It wants theocracy, against which we, as Jefferson said, must remain eternally vigilant.

That's why we must keep the government purely secular. The slightest nod to faith becomes a weapon against reason.

Farnaz1Mansouri1,
you know, it's funny you should say judaism, christianity and islam are different religions with "radically different notions".

i suppose it looks that way from the inside - to someone who's jewish, christian or muslim - but from out here they look pretty similar. in fact i call them "judeochrislam".

they all base their beliefs on the same general abrahamic story. they all believe god created the universe with us in mind. they all believe god is all-good, all-powerful, is interested in us and our salvation, and interacts with us daily (though he apparently USED to perform MUCH more spectacular miracles). they all believe god has laws and a plan that he had people write down in a book. they all believe in "prophets". they all believe god judges us (with our eternal fate in the balance) for compliance with his laws. they all believe this god REALLY HATES IT when you pray to other gods (which he maintains don't really exist).

of course there are differences, but it's like the differences between chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream.

Walter in Falls Church:

"I presume you realize this is how every jew and every muslim (and every [insert religion]) feels about THEIR savior. everyone thinks everyone else has it wrong! and they're just as sure of it as you are. that's the problem - that's why we have religious wars. that's why osama did 9/11 - he thought he was doing a good thing by his god...."
_________________________________
Although I agree with the gist of your comment, sadly, it relfects a Christocentric perspective. Jews do not have a "savior." Jews do not have a personal relation with Hashem, nor do Muslims with Allah.

The three are radically different religions with radically different notions.
If your postings on matters of religious hegemony, tolerance for religious deiversity, atheism and agnosticism are to have credibility, then it would be best if you cast them in terms that acknowledge difference.

Just a suggestion....
_____________________________________
Btw., I agree with Norrie Hoyt's postings on the previous question. Worshiping the "image of a tortured Jew" does not seem to have done the Christian soul much good, nor the bodies of the Jews that followed, nor those or anyone else, or, to be more accurate, may have done some good, but the evil (carnage, torture, exploitation of every kind) would seem to have outweighed its beneficial contributions to human kind.

nokosd99, you said,

"The other incident was when Israel was called to put the blood of an unblemished lamb on the lintel and the two side posts of the doorway to their homes. When the Lord passed over the land, the firstborn in all of Egypt was slain. The only thing that saved the children of Israel was the blood."

ah...yes...the "passover massacre". that was really great, huh? all those dead unbelievers! they deserved it - especially the kids.

nikosd99, you said,

"What you call my profound lack of respect for any spirituality other than my own, comes from the fact that I have an ongoing relationship with my Saviour."

i presume you realize this is how every jew and every muslim (and every [insert religion]) feels about THEIR savior. everyone thinks everyone else has it wrong! and they're just as sure of it as you are. that's the problem - that's why we have religious wars. that's why osama did 9/11 - he thought he was doing a good thing by his god....

norriehoyt,

i'll be there at the FSM presidential pasta party.

MR. HIRSCHFIELD: Thank you for your reply. It's nice to know that some of the panelists take the time to read the thoughts of their readers. I feel honored to be the first to elicit a response from you.

You talk about "religion" in the public square, but I talk about a relationship with Almighty God. As created beings, it is our duty, honor and privilege to praise, exalt and glorify our Creator.

What you call my profound lack of respect for any spirituality other than my own, comes from the fact that I have an ongoing relationship with my Saviour. He said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no man comes unto the Father except through Him.

One of your own onetime Pharisee had this to say about religion. "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Paul in Romans 10:1-3)

I could go on but I'll leave you with two thoughts in hope that it will cause you to ponder just how the Old Testament ties in with the New. Remember that Abraham was called by God to sacrifice his only son, Isaac on the altar. God was testing him to see if he would do it. Of course, Abraham was counting on the promise of God that through Isaac a mighty nation would come forth. I'm sure he was confused, but he was willing to go through with it. Well, God stopped him in time and said that He would provide the sacrifice, which He did in the form of a ram. God, however, looking into the future, provided another sacrifice for all mankind. This time it was HIS own son, Jesus Christ on the cross.

The other incident was when Israel was called to put the blood of an unblemished lamb on the lintel and the two side posts of the doorway to their homes. When the Lord passed over the land, the firstborn in all of Egypt was slain. The only thing that saved the children of Israel was the blood. If you can visualize the lintel and the doorposts, it is the upper beam and the two side posts. The blood placed there constitutes the three points of a cross. When God looks down on us Christians, He doesn't see someone worthy of punishment, but He sees the blood of His own unblemished Son, Jesus Christ.

My prayer is that you will listen to the voice of God and accept Christ as you Messiah.

"On the other hand, it's a shame that we are so polarized on this issue that the President cannot host an event which is entirely consistent with ... his personal practice..."

When I've been elected Preesident I'll host a prayer event in the White House for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a favorite personal diety of mine.

Will you be with me on that?

I have never before responded to a commenter, but NIKOSD99, your passionate response demands that I do so.

Thanks for demonstrating my point that we are not yet ready for as much religion as both of us might like to see in the American public square. Your profound lack of respect for any spirituality other than your own is exactly what people point to as the reason we ought not have any public religion at all, ever.

I doubt neither the sincerity nor the genuineness of your faith. But your absolutist, triumphalist stance renders it, and all like it, regardless of the tradition invoked, more of a public threat than a public resource.

Mr. Hirschfield said , "In Hebrew, the word for praying is a reflexive verb. It defines an internal conversation that one has with one's self. To be sure, God has been a part of that conversation for most of those who pray. But the word itself proves that need not always be so.

Perhaps the wisdom of this ancient tradition could serve as a model for our nation as well. It would assure the freedom of conscience to which we are all entitled while cultivating the kind of heightened awareness from which we all could benefit."

Given the consequences, IE, the judgments and eventual dissolution of Israel for hundreds of years and then the Holocaust, I would think that The Rabbi Hirschfield would be the first to advocate that a nation should recognize, honor and pray to the One True God rather than having a private time talking to oneself. The wisdom of that ancient tradition didn't do a thing for Israel. The only thing that saved Israel from being totally obliterated from the face of the earth is the integrity of God. He promised that He would reserve a remnant and that one day they would return to the "promised land". That happened in 1948. It happened, not because Israel had suddenly become a Godly nation, but because God always shows that He can be trusted to do what He says He will do. He alone will be glorified and given praise and honor and all the nations will know that He is Lord.

Israel will soon realize (after the time of the Gentiles) that Jesus Christ was, and is, their Messiah. As soon as Mr. Hirschfield realizes that, I'm sure he will become an advocate that a nation, from it's leaders on down, should be vocal in their fervor for the Lord God. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and who is none other than their Messiah, Jesus Christ.