jefferiah

Ah, now I cannot speak for Scott. But when I read this post, I noticed right away his wording was wrong, even though he is usually eloquent, but I understood the point he is making much differently than you did. When he says Muslims are killing because they are Muslims it sounds very bad. But in the context of the previous arguments to me it makes much more sense. When he was linking violence to Islam, people were dismissing it saying well these are isolated incidents and have nothing to do with their beliefs. Just Muslims who happened to commit crimes in passing. And he says well look...these are all in the name of Jihad....these Muslims are killing because they are Muslims (not that all Muslims kill) but that "these" particular Muslims have a faith-based reason. Re-read the prior arguments and I think it becomes quite obvious that this is what he meant.

If you join Weight Watchers and don't follow the procedure you might not lose weight. Therefore Weight Watchers is useless? In a certain respect though, religion being false and useless could actually be interpreted as a Christian point. As far as morality goes, Christianity says that there is no one who is good. This is why forgiveness is necessary, but there is also a clear warning against those who wish to abuse forgiveness as an excuse to do evil. That is not genuine repentance. You seem to have this idea that because some people can interpret something in a bad way that the whole thing is bad. People can just as easily misrepresent you Cybercoma, as they can God. In the New Testament of there is no command to Christians to kill unbelievers or to make war to spread their beliefs. The command is to live in the world peacefully, but not to be of the world. Probably very few Christians live up to that standard. I probably do not. In fact the early Christians spoke their beliefs and were killed for it. When Jesus was arrested his disciples tried to attack the captors but Jesus told them not to. And he later said to Pilate, when asked about his claim of being a King, that he was a King, but that his Kingdom was not like the Kingdoms of this world or else his disciples would have fought. He never forced himself on anyone. He allowed those who would follow to follow and those who would leave to leave. The command is clear Cybercoma. So if someone can misinterpret that as a justification for Inquisitions and the like, Cybercoma, then you might as well ban everything, and say that it is the bane of the world. Because if people can interpret Jesus teachings this way (which are clearly the opposite), then they can also twist anything.

No I rather think you are the one making the convenient interpretation, since I don't know anyone who interprets the charge of stewardship the way you have. But rather you are telling me what everyone else interprets it as, what I interpret it as. You are not privy to the minds of others and reading a book by Dawkins doesn't make you privy, either. No offense to the man himself, but this is true. Now look let's say you are my son. I am going away for a long vacation and I leave my house in your hands to be taken care of. You are in charge. Do you think the message I am sending you is that you can smash my windows, eat all my food, throw lavish parties, and puke all over my rug? In the Sodom story there was no priest. Lot (Abraham's nephew) lived in Sodom, and it was two angels who went to give him a warning that it was going to be destroyed. Where does it say that the Lord commanded Lot to give up his daughters? Lot gave up his daughters. Not God. As for horrible things in the Bible there is no end to them. But these are stories about humans. How many Jews or Christians do you think feel that their daughters are disposable to sex offenders? Sorry if you were offended but I did not actually say that you were "out there". I said I think this idea of yours is. This is what i said: "I think your idea that religion creates the idea that we are allowed to or supposed to plunder the Earth is a little bit out there." Ask the Christians on here if they feel that God is telling people that it is ok to wreck the Earth. They know what they think, not Dawkins, Sir. As for wrecking the Earth it is a human thing. We do it in order to create and maintain the conveniences we now have. Without the network of multi-lane tar strips we call highways which run through massive areas of what used to be natural habitat for many critters, medicare would be useless. You would have access to nothing. And in order to travel these lanes we had to suck oil from the Earth and refine it. The paper in your printer comes from trees. The paper in Dawkins book. I am sure he does his part in keeping the oil industry and paper industry and construction industry and transport industry in a state of existence. Yet he is not religious. It would be a great if we could rid ourselves of these things, but you must understand that many many people, religious or secular, would complain if they were not there. Cities, stadiums, casinos, sports teams, cars, trucks, ships, tranes, planes....all these luxuries. Are they religious entities?

Hmmm, well there are very many devotee sects of Buddhism. There are many Buddhist icons and statues. Even many Zen Buddhists bow before Buddha statues, even though they are perhaps the purest example of a non-religious Buddhism (and perhaps this is purely a gesture of respect). Religion is not about worship either. Religion is a system of adherences. Many Buddhists have so many rites and ceremonies that even if they do not worship Buddha or the other enlightened ancestors, they are still a religion in that sense. But in the West we have many armchair Buddhists and there is a bit of convenience in that, I suppose, to soften the religion and change it to what you want it to be. Zen Buddhists might also disagree with the assertion that it is a philosophy. Since philosophy involves discursive thinking it is not a direct experience of reality. When philosophizing one is not paying attention.

I have yet to read anywhere in the Bible where it states that the Earth and its contents are our playthings. I think Dawkins is exaggerating there. And I don't think the religion has caused alot of this damage. IE even communist atheists have abused the Earth. In the book of Genesis Adam the Man is given command over all things and is supposed to tend Eden. A position of such leadership does not imply that creation is his playtoy, but something which is under his care. Sadly we do treat the Earth as a plaything and take it for granted, but this is not a religious phenomenon. Rather, it is a human one. I think your idea that religion creates the idea that we are allowed to or supposed to plunder the Earth is a little bit out there. To a reasonable extent we are allowed to use what we need to survive. Judging by what is written in the early chapters of Genesis it would be reasonable to assume that God originally intended man to be vegetarian. Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And then after the flood God says in his covenant with Noah: Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. I would assume this is because of necessity. Whenever you are in area where vegetation is sparse food must come from something. And I don't think any one takes this as God is saying you are supposed to treat the Earth as your play toy. The attitude the the Earth is our play toy does exist , but it is simply human selfishness. The Earth is the Lord's and everything in it, says the Bible. It does not say that Earth belongs to mankind. We were put in a position of stewardship over it. This means caretaking.

"I know several Muslim who've never killed anyone, making your idea completely false. Those people mustn't be killing because they are Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims who don't kill." Sorry Cybercoma....here is the exact quote I am referring to.

Oh well in a lot of cases definitely for their religion, but you pointed out that this is not a prerequisite necessarily. Wasn't it you who mentioned you had some very nice friends who are Muslim?

I disagree, as you yourself pointed out in defense of Muslims, that being Muslim is not a reason to kill, or that being Muslim does not necessarily mean you have to be a militant. Human nature is the bane of humanity. Religion means a system of laws, rules, beliefs, adherences. You don't have to be religious to have these. For instance an atheist can be anti-abortion. People are entitled to have a conscience and to adhere to it and to have opinions on certain issues. And people will always have differences. And sometimes differences come to a head. And when differences come to a head some people deal with them more violently than others. You cannot change the things which create issues (simply because some people can become aggressive), unless you outlaw opinion itself and establish a "RIGHT" opinion for all. And unless you are divine, this would make you a tyrant.

Reading what Scott said, I did not see the same thing as you did, Cybercoma. He is saying that the amount of Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam is substantially high and in groups. It does not mean that all Muslims do this, but it is certainly a very prevalent problem in the Islamic world. He was trying to give examples of crimes and acts committed by Muslims with a specific Islamic purpose. Other posters said well lots of crimes are committed by lots of people, it does not necessarily have any link to their faith. If a white Christian commits a crime, as you say, it does not necessarily have to do with his Christianity. We all understand that, Cybercoma. We all understand that if Adbul Al Shabarif robs a store it could be because he wanted some cash. The fact is that there is a very real existence to Islamic violence, where crimes are committed en masse in the name of Islam, ie the violent outrage after the Danish cartoons. There is a substantive amount of this in the culture. A former PLO Terrorist Walid Shoebat has said that people are recruited in Mosques and that they do it in American Mosques. It does not mean that every Muslim is privy to what is going on, or that every Muslim is violent, but it is certainly prevalent. The witch trials, the inquisition, etc were all horrible atrocities, Cybercoma. There is no doubt about it. That was then though. This is now. In modern Sudan alone, the genocide outweighs these examples.

Hmmmm, are you sure it reveals that? From what I understand all that is revealed is that Nabil Shaath says George Bush said this.

I focused most of my argument on Mithraism because it is the most commonly cited example of a comparison between Christianity and a mystery cult. I am quite aware that there are others but in most cases what you are being fed as direct parallels do not even really exist in those religions. Someone can write a book and say that it is so and of course people will believe, because very few people have the time on hand to read ancient texts. But these arguments have been known for over a hundred years and they have been refuted before. Most of the examples of parallels are very twisted interpretations of the rites of pagan religions, and they amount to the same thing as the Jesus Seminar's 2000 year later revisionism. I would say Christianity and Judaism had more of a profound effect on them than vice versa. If I am not mistaken a great deal of what is known about these cults in Rome is from sources dating to periods after the establishment of Christianity as a mainstream religious faith. Christianity, as a spawn of Judaism, is very exclusive to outside ideas, whereas Pagan faiths were inclusive. It is blasphemous to blend strange teaching with Judaism or Christianity, but the pagans had no such restrictions. Also another point is that wherever Biblical parallels exist (be they New Testament or Old Testament) the Bible itself actually has the version that reads more like a history, while the other examples have a word of mouth mythology quality to them. The Bible has names of real people, mentions actual historic periods, has geneological lines. This would also lead me to believe that most of the parallels between the Bible and mystery cults (or even Zoroastrianism) are all examples of the effects of Judaism on other faiths. I would say that Zoroastrianism could have likely been influenced by the Jewish during the periods of exile. Given the examples of the writings of both, I think it is a reasonable assumption, since the Jewish were always more detailed. Now if Christianity were nothing more than a pagan initiatory society they would not have spoken in public to the masses. And if it were an example of acceptable Roman beliefs Christians would not have been persecuted and executed. And I think it exceedingly more likely that Roman pagans would have rather turned a Jewish savior into something Roman, and highly unlikely that they would ever take a Roman cult myth of Mithra and revise it to make a Jewish man the hero, all the meanwhile creating for him a Jewish bloodline, arguments with Pharisees, mention of Herod and Pilate, etc. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes and not one of these books you have cited was written in pre-Christian pagan times. There is no actual documentation of Mithras being born of a virgin among the ancient texts. Or of him having 12 disciples. Or of his resurrection. Or of his being born on the 25th of December. Perhaps these authors you are referring to possess some texts they are not sharing with the mainstream of Mithraic scholars. I believe you mention Acharya in your references there. She is the one who claims that lines concerning Mithras being born of the "dawn" somehow tranlates to virgin birth. You are referencing New Age quacks, not genuine scholars. She also mentions Mithraic icons and monuments which simply do not exist. One of them is a temple to a goddess who was claimed to be a virgin. Without source or documentation she simply says this was Mithras' mother. There is no ancient documentation of his death or burial. The mainstream of Mithraic scholars (not Christian scholars) dismiss these claims as highly erroneous.

No, I already explained this to you Kuzadd. The similarities between pagan mystery cults and Christianity are very skewed. Nowhere is Mithra said to have been born of a virgin or born on December 25th. There is no mention of his death. There is no source which says he had 12 disciples. There is no documentation of shepherds attending his birth. Actually there is very very little documentation on the subject of Mithra or Mithras. Alot of this stuff you read on websites claiming the similarities is very very very skewed and ridiculous. Most of these claims are based on stretching what sources you have. As I said Mithraic scholars do not even accept this nonsense. And also even though the pagan religions pre date Christianity, alot of the material they are citing is not pre Christian writing----but actually pagan writings from about 400 AD. They beg borrow and steal from every pagan religion to find a similarity, and where the similarities aren't they invent them through very liberal interpretation. Christianity is based on Judaism. The death of Jesus parallels the death of the Passover Lamb. The entire Last Supper is based on the Passover. This is where the real striking parallels are. And Messianic Jews are the best to explain them. The mention of pagan Baptismal ceremonies also require a great deal of stretching. The comparison is often made between Osiris being drowned in his coffin. Somehow this now becomes the equivalent of Christian baptism. Or the agrarian mention of cycles and rebirth of vegetation becomes Ressurection???? I actually ended up spending no time reading about it last night as it was almost 2 am.

The early founders of Christianity. Hmm I haven't watched the film but I assume you mean the Nicean Council. There are surviving New Testaments texts that are older than that. There is a Book of John in a musem in England dated to the first century. John was an early founder of Christianity. And he wrote that the "Word became flesh". By the striking resemblance between pagan saviour cults, you must be referring to the whole Mithraism thing. But Christianity has more to do with following the pattern from the Old Testament. All Christian themes are based on Jewish observances, like the Passover. Jesus became the Passover Lamb, etc etc. What I would say is likely the case with the allegations that Christianity is stolen from Mithraism, is that skeptics are using Mithraism as an example of a pre-Christian faith while ignoring the fact that what remains of it to be seen today are its post-Christian form. The virgin birth etc etc were predicted in Isaiah so it did not need to be borrowed from Mithraism. What is more likely is that the cult of Mithra (in Rome) evolved into a Christianized form after Christianity began spreading throughout Rome? Mithraism did exist before it became popular in Rome. Mithra is supposedly mentioned in the Vedas and of course in the Zoroastrian Avesta. Most Mithraic scholars disagree with the so-called similarities and parallels between Jesus and Mithra---ie Mithra was never born of a virgin, but of a rock and as a full grown man. Alot of these so-called facts about Mithraism do not come from Mithraic scholars. Alot of these claims are made with no backing at all. None of the texts which mention Mithra ever refer to his death. Most of these supposed similarities come from much later writings and speculations or even a very very very liberal interpretations of the words in ancient texts. These things get printed, we read them, and automatically we believe it is true. It is sort of like the fact that everyone believed the Earth was flat when until Columbus proved em all wrong. It's not a fact. We all have heard how Columbus was dissuaded from going across the Atlantic because he would fall off the edge of the Earth. This story was created a few hundred years later by a man named Washington Irving. The argument against Columbus sailing the Atlantic to get to India was not about the sphericity or flatness of the Earth, but about the distance across the circumference, which the scholars at the Universidad de Salamanca insisted he had greatly underestimated. And they were right. The flat earth story is a myth. People accepted the world was spherical for ages. Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine and other very early Christians accepted that the Earth was a globe. And I believe it was widely accepted before Christ as well. I think it was Aristotle who established this. And it would have been pretty hard to get any kind of education A.D. without coming across this. Aside from Mithraism, there were other mystery cults which people draw parallels to, but the similarities are only striking when you really do a good job of exaggerating them. None of the "savior gods" gave their lives for others or for the remission of sins. The death of the figures in mystery cults always take place in very fairy story-like settings while the story of Jesus takes place in Israel during Roman occupation. King Herod Antipas and Archelaus are mentioned in the New Testament, along with Pontius Pilate. Even the comparisons to resurrections are greatly skewed. Unless you count reincarnations or the conversions of their bodies to other forms as resurrection. This whole idea or pagan influence on Christianity is nothing new, either. But I think if you do enough reading (even if you are not a Christian) you will find it quite easy to debunk the idea that Christianity was related to the pagan mystery cults. Anyways I am going to do some reading on the subject tonight.

I was not aware that the "fear mongers" called this conference.

Does it matter if it collapses later? How long did the Soviet Union last before it collapsed? Ask Anastasia if the fact that it fell made it any less of a threat?

You know BC Chick this whole thing about member status.....well....it kind of reminds me of swimming lessons in elementary school. At that time we were around ages 6-11, and I remember that when the instructor would bring out the spongey flutterboards we would all haggle with each other so we could get the right color. "I want the green flutterboard." "Hey, no fair, I like yellow." etc etc..... You must understand that when you are 20 or older this kind of behaviour, will result in some sort of insulting chiding response. People on either side of the spectrum make insults. How is that bullying? If you still have your computer and the ability to post, then what bullying action is being taken against you? People are going to mock certain things you say. They do this to me, they do this to Joe, they do this to Jill. This is what happens when debate is heated. No one is bullying you.

The Christian Industrial Complex again? This being a collective term for Christians who market little doo-dads and Joel Osteen and such. And there is a large contingent of these businessmen here?

What is Little Green Footballs? Is it mainstream media? Do they wield any political power? Would Little Green Football literature compare to statements made by a political leader or an Anglican bishop?

But the difference is these people (Chapman and others) were very much the lone nut, whereas when the Pope offended muslims there were mass riots. When it was the Danish cartoon it was not some lone Chapman spouting hatred at the west, it was a massive crowd. Watch the documentary Christian Amanpour did about the Muslims in Britain. Ask people who are leaving Germany and other euro nations to come west. You are right that the Danish cartoonist was not afraid. His free speech was not supressed, but look at the ridiculous result of his free speech. Politicians "are" afraid to offend them. The Muslim fanaticism has occured in large groups, this is why I said to Melanie that there seem to be a lot of Chapmans . Google "Walid Shoebat", the ex-PLO terrorist. He has some interesting things to say about the Nazi-esque hatred of Jews he was bred on, and how Radical Islamists use Mosques (even in America) to recruit. Now I will say again Kuzadd, I don't think muslims are all bad or that they are all this way. But right now this problem is undeniably prevalent in Islamic culture.

Melanie, you have actually helped make the point Betsy was trying to make, though that was not your intention. Kuzadd responded to Betsy's examples of the cartoons and Betsy's criticisms by saying in effect "Look, you say whatever you want about Muslims and you are not afraid." And then you explain the difference between Betsy and a cartoon in a Danish paper, or the difference between Betsy and Salman Rushdie. Betsy posts on MLW, the other people get published, seen, heard. I have never heard of Christians or Jews after Dawkins head. No one is saying all Muslims are bad, but its getting harder and harder to say that there is something going on with Islam. When the pope made a mistake look at the riots and the nuns that were shot. There seems to be alot of "lone nut" Islamic Mark David Chapmans, Melanie. Ask someone from Britain. Ask people in Germany. I don't know much about Cair-Can, Scott. But some of the folks at CAIR (U.S.) have made some very disturbing statements that would lead one to believe they are looking out for more than the protection of Muslims from discrimination.

And I am willing to wager that a good percentage of the complaints will be made by the sort that loves to complain. All it takes is one very very pro-French, Franco-purist to be miffed at something. For the most part, French and English people can get along and get by just fine, in spite a few slips in linguistic protocol from either side. But when it comes to people who are "politically" French or English, minor differences and little mistakes can become grounds for the most ridiculous complaints.

If someone had asked me 2 years ago "Would you like to continue funding of the CBC?" I would probably have said "Yes". I would have wondered "Is someone planning to stop the funding? Sure I think it should continue to exist." This was all before I understood the arguments about it. How many people are aware of how much money goes into the CBC or how much profit they actually generate? How many people have actually been exposed to the idea of having it privatized and the arguments in favor of it? I never read about these things in the newspapers. I never hear the idea mentioned on TV (certainly not on CBC). Chances are, if you've been exposed to this idea, it was in a book written by a proponent of the free market or on some conservative blogger's site. Most people are not on political forums. The idea of CBC being left-leaning never even occured to me until a year ago, when someone began to point it out to me. If you want to change those survey numbers you have to make the case to the general public. The reasoning behind it has to reach a wider audience than the Conservative bloggers. It is the same with the CRTC. How many people, aside from people on our side of the spectrum, are even interested in what the CRTC does now? The last time I heard a major complaint about them from the average non-political citizen (guys like me) was when they were making cable companies include certain canadian channels years back. I remember many people complaining about that at the time. But when it passes people accept it, and then they forget. How many people are aware of this Christian Radio case?

Wow, that's unbelievable. Why would they employ this in Ontario which is mainly English? Is this woman from Quebec? There is a big push by Quebec politicians to promote french across the nation, even in the West, yet Quebec makes no effort to anglicize. I remember not so long ago that the Bloc Quebecois was complaining about certain press releases the Conservatives made which were not all available in both languages. The Conservatives said that you should be able to find the ones we failed to put in French, translated on our website. Meanwhile the Bloc does everything in French. And it does not seem to occur to them how hypocritical this all is.

I realize that Mike. Just pointing out that your unserious call for to geurilla warfare over this would not be Christian. Since this is about a Christian Radio Station, I naturally assumed that this was who you were calling. I don't remember anything about the disciples forming a guerilla movement. They simply proclaimed the faith and were even killed for it.