Thought Provoking Question

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by LadyExecutive, Sep 25, 2004.

  1. LadyExecutive

    LadyExecutive Member

    What are you views. I believe a larger part of education is knowing the varied views of others. Thus, I'd like to know how any of you would respond to this question.

    It is Yom Kippur & once again a group of Islamic countries has attacked Israel on the holiest of Jewish holidays. As President of the U.S. how would you handle this issue? What other parties would you ask for help? What economic consequences do you face? Is this the end of the expanding world economy or the beginning of some new world order? Are there any useful treaties or agreements that might help?
  2. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Do you have a paper due again?
  3. LadyExecutive

    LadyExecutive Member

    No Paper Just Opinions

    No UncleJanko I dont have a paper due. I am interested in Public Policy and have seen this question asked in a yahoo discussion group to which I responded. Most didnt agree with me so I wanted the views of others to see how far based I was.
  4. Here's some views...

    1. As President, I would take the opportunity to point out the folly and danger that faith-based religions in general exert upon our modern world, and how incompatible these ancient beliefs are for the survival of mankind.

    2. I would, of course, support Israel in whatever responses would be required against the Islamic countries, but only under the condition that my program of reducing religious control of foreign policy was accepted.

    3. I would ask the whole world to consider these questions, and point out how our "holy books" actually tell us to kill those who disagree with us, whether those books are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. We can't all be right, and we can't all be wrong - but if you really believe the literal words of these texts, it is clear that opposing ideas are so dangerous that they require killing their proponents. This must stop, and as President of the US I would stop it in our own country by de-emphasizing the control that religion has over our culture and our politics, and then work on the rest of the world.

    What other policies could possibly make sense? If we can't get control of these antiquated ideas in an age where it is now possible for a single person with fanatical adherence to the "literal words of (g)(G)od" to kill millions of people or render areas of the earth uninhabitable for generations to come, what future do any of us truly have? The luxury that mankind used to have of using religion and faith as a tool for domination are over - now those ideas are as useless to us as alchemy is to chemistry, and as dangerous to us as the extermination of the entire human race at the hands of religiously motivated politicians.

    Islam seems particularly geared towards this complete intolerance of other beliefs or cultures. Is Osama bin Laden a horrid terrorist, or a man of intense religious faith? The answer you will get depends on whether you are Muslim or not.

    Religious moderation actually perpetuates the problem, since it sort of says "it is OK that there are extremists among us, because they keep the faith pure - but I'm not going to personally kill anyone". So then extremism is "tolerated", and moderation is actually cowardice - cowardice to either state that one truly believes in the religion in question, or cowardice to come out strongly against faith based religion in general, but cowardice nonetheless.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2004
  5. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    This is weird. Look at what punctuation does. Compare

    thought provoking question


    thought-provoking question


    Notice how they reverse one another? In the first, a thought results in a question. In the second, a question results in a thought.
  6. Rich Hartel

    Rich Hartel New Member

    In a situation of this kind, as President of the U.S. for a day, I would give all the military support needed, when asked for by Israel, to help defend her from her enemies! "Genesis 12:2-3"

    Because at that point, I don't think going to the UN for a peace treaty is going to work! :confused:

    Rich Hartel
  7. LadyExecutive

    LadyExecutive Member

    Good Point Rich

    My thoughts were similar to yours. I really think at this point going to the UN would be useless, when the matter has been esculated to boiling point.
  8. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Re: Re: Thought Provoking Question


    Two questions and one comment:

    1). If faith-based religions are a danger, what exactly is a NON-faith-based religion?

    2). If by non-faith-based religion, you mean belief systems that exalt human might and philosophies in the absence of religion, then there are two shining examples of such and their consequent effects upon the modern world from the last century: one assumed power in 1917, the other in 1933--I'll leave to you to figure out what they are.

    3). Where did Jesus implore followers to "kill those who disagree with us"?
  9. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    To get back on point and respect the intent of LE's original post, I would support Israel to the last measure, and I would not wait for the support of those who would just as soon that she was washed into the Mediterranean--which judging by the growing antipathy towards Israel and the more strident antisemitism seen in Western Europe and the U.S., is a great number of nations in the civilized world.
  10. Re: Re: Re: Thought Provoking Question

    Well, if one can extrapolate that (according to the Trinity theory) that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same God, then the God or Yaweh of the Old Testament must be the same God too, right?

    OK. So, if you accept that, and that there is continuity, then the commands of the God of the Old Testament must be rigidly followed along with all of Christ's teachings - to do otherwise would be to introduce a conflict into the continuity aspect of the Christian religion.

    How about this command, from Deuteronomy 13:7-11?

    "If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must KILL him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yaweh your God..."

    Sounds fairly specific, and a recipe for genocide to me in an age of nuclear weaponry to be used against "those who would seduce us".
  11. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought Provoking Question

    So, you're telling me you couldn't find a word in the New Testament to support your argument. Carl, had you some historical context for your opinion, you would know that ancient Canaan was filled with people who were worse than modern-day Nazis--they sacrificed and tortured their babies and children by burining them alive as an offer to their"gods"--when an Israelite, who was by no means to take part in such activities, which also included religious prositituion and orgies, started seducing others within Israel to attend the child-burning, burn their own, take part in the wild sexual rituals, et. al, they had very much become such a menace that they deserved no mercy. Just as in modern context I suppose--or hope--you'd feel the same towards Nazis who literally marched Jewish children into burining ovens alive--a story recounted by eyewitnesses such as Elie Wiesel and others.

    Remember, Carl, don't decontextualize--it will mislead you. I completely support the Deuteronical Law in context, I would hope that you would as well.
  12. Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought Provoking Question

    So, are you telling me that we need to decide now which words of the Bible we still need to pay attention to, and which ones we don't?

    Sounds like selective thinking to me. I would think that a truly religious person would feel bound to obey ALL the laws, commands, and words of God, not just those that are determined to be OK in today's "context".

    Also, your assumptions about the Canaanites do not sound like they are supported by solid historical research. I mean, really. Don't all cultures have things about them that other cultures find perverse, but that are deemed essential to survival by the culture that is doing these "crimes"?

    Osama bin Laden obeys all the laws of the Koran. That's why he is OK with killing 3,000 infidels who got caught in the WTC attack. Doesn't our religious right also support all the words and laws of the Bible? Hence, it must be OK for us to kill all who follow "other gods", right?

    Wrong. This is madness, and must stop.
  13. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought Provoking Question

    So, are you telling me that we need to decide now which words of the Bible we still need to pay attention to, and which ones we don't?

    YES, Carl, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Jesus changed the Deuteronical Law, it no longer applies as it did to the Jews of ancient Canaan. If God says in the Bible: "the rule commanding that you do X no longer applies", then I don't want to do X--and that's exactly what the Bible says about killing those who disagree with you religiously. In the same manner, I and Christians no longer follow the Levitical dietary laws--they no longer apply.

    Who ever told you that the Christian right believe that every word of the Bible--even those words specifically overruled or changed by God--must be applied today? As for your assertions that my pronouncements regarding the Canaanites aren't supported by history, I'm intrigued, I didn't know you were an expert on ancient Canaan, there aren't many around--tell me what your research shows.

    Please, stop setting up your straw man of religion and knocking it down Carl--why don't you read the Bible yourself and confront the real thing? Why don't you speak to someone who actually is a Christian rather than making suppositions about them?
  14. Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought Provoking Question

    So.... God "specifically overruled or changed" some of the laws. Hmmm.... When did this take place? What text can you use to justify the revocation of previous commands of God?

    Sounds to me like Christians get to decide which of the Old Testament laws to follow, and which to ignore - and, yes I know this is based on the so-called doctrine of "Christ came to fulfill the law" or something like that.

    Well, how about now? What is stopping Christians from changing the rules again, and interpreting that God now says it is OK for homosexuals to marry in the Church?

    Which laws in the Old Testament are no longer valid? Are the 10 commandments still "in", but the dietary and social rules "out"? Is stoning still permitted, or has that been also specifically ruled out? And if Christians had been ordered by Christ to not kill others who disagreed with them, well then how do you explain the inquisition and the Salem Witch trials?????

    Just trying to figure out the consistency of your logic here, mrw..... No offense intended.

    By the way, and I admit it has been a long time, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover at least three times...
  15. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought Provoking Question


    It's late, I'll just deal with a few of your points now: the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, et. al. are examples of Christians--or more likely "Christians" making dread mistakes--don't blame Jesus for what every madman claims in his name. I'm sure there were Nazis who claimed to be acting in the name of Jesus.

    Again, it's after 11pm here, and I must get up to teach a class that starts at 7:25am, but why should I look this stuff up for you, I can't imagine you can't recall Peter's vision overturning the dietary code, Jesus saying: You've heard it said an eye for an eye, but now I tell you...

    You also need to read the Pauline letters, that will clear this up. There's much much much more than just the general concept of fulfilling the law, and it's quite specific. I'll bet you're an expert Googler, check it out and report back, I'll be glad to discuss.

    And of course, there are all sorts of Christians who do try to change it to suit their fancy, particularly in the area of sexuality--although again, I think "Christians" is probably more apropos, but there are specific guidelines regarding sexual behavior in the NT.

    One more thing--remember the stoning episode in the Gospels? I guess stoning would still be allowed, according to Jesus, so long as the stoner was "without sin"--guess that disqualifies about 6 billion of us!

    I love you, Carl! :D
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2004
  16. Deuteronical Law... not revoked by Jesus

    I'm so sorry to have to point this out to you, mrw142, but Jesus did not change Deuteronical Law. According to Matthew 5:17-18 He says most clearly: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."

    I assume that this means that Jesus is saying that all the commands of God previously given are to be obeyed - to the letter of the law. That means, then, that Christians are bound by God to kill those who "worship false gods" and all other sorts of heretics - certainly this was one of the verses that the Spanish Inquisitors used to justify their madness and cruelty to their fellow humans.

    Why is it any different today? Are you sure that you are a "real Christian" if you are so willing to ignore the clear and precise directions from, not just "God the Father" (He of the Old Testament), but his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ?

    Let the killing begin.

    No wait. I forgot this isn't the 14th Century.

    This is the 21st Century.

    Instead how about if we let the madness and reliance upon ancient texts as moral, spiritual and political guides STOP, and start treating our fellow man as something other than an evil animal to be exterminated because he believes something different than we do.
  17. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Re: Deuteronical Law... not revoked by Jesus

    Carl, your exegesis is perhaps the most unique I've ever read--did you know that the only Christians who agree with you even in part are a small fringe sect of Messianics--and by no means more than a tiny fraction of all Messianics.

    Why don't you read the other teachings of Jesus and see what He means by "fulfilling" the law, whether He intended us to continue following it by the letter. Read the epistles of Paul, Peter, etc etc, and after you've gotten a mite more context, then come back to me and see if that's still your position. Jesus did come to fulfill the law--and being fulfilled, it was no longer pressing upon the Jews, such was accomplished with His death on the cross. Again, Carl, don't decontextualize. As for the killing commanded in Deuteronomy, Jesus said "You've heard it said, 'an eye for an eye...but now I tell you..." "Love your enemies" "Turn the other cheek" "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" etc. etc. etc.

    You just can't read those pronouncements, clear as they are, and read into the scriptures what you're reading. The law was fulfilled in Christ. The dietary laws clearly abolished early on, the requirement of circumcision, death by stoning, etc.

    Come on, man. This argument was settled about 1950 years ago. You imply I'm taking us back to the 1400s, well it beats the daylights out of you taking us back to theology that was discredited in the year 40 a.d.!
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 29, 2004
  18. Now let's talk about Catholics, shall we?

    All I'm saying is that there can be MANY interpretations of scripture since there are so many apparent contradictions between what is, and what is not, to be taken literally.

    I'm using extreme examples by way of showing just how twisted our "holy books" can become when in the hands of evil men and women throughout the ages.

    What has changed today? Why should we trust now, in this very modern world with weapons infinitely more powerful than the bow and the sword, that man will never use these texts to justify tortures and exterminations again?

    Here's yet another item that is perhaps "thought provoking". Because Catholics believe that the Pope is "infallible", to this day no Catholic Pope will admit or atone for the enormous cruelties and genocide that was perpetrated under previous Popes, primarily in the Middle Ages against Jews, witches, and other "heretics". I mean even the Russians have repudiated the evilness of Stalin, and that was when Communists still were in charge! But have Catholics ever adequately come to terms with the evil that was the Church during the period from, say 1100 AD - 1600 AD? Nope. Not one word, not one hint of saying that a previous Pope was in the service of Satan, and not God. This is why I have a real big problem with the Catholic religion - it is unrepented evilness, pure and simple. From the sins of the fathers unto the children, and all that....

    Waiting to be proven wrong on that one too....
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 29, 2004
  19. Charles

    Charles New Member

    1. "infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:"


    "Not only did John Paul II renew expressions of regret for the “sorrowful memories” that mark the history of the divisions among Christians, as Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council had done,(18) but he also extended a request for forgiveness to a multitude of historical events in which the Church, or individual groups of Christians, were implicated in different respects.(19) In the Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente,(20) the Pope expresses the hope that the Jubilee of 2000 might be the occasion for a purification of the memory of the Church from all forms of “counter-witness and scandal” which have occurred in the course of the past millennium.(21)"’s%20Requests%20for%20Forgiveness

Share This Page