God

[Kengou]

Jack, I'm terribly sorry but you seem to be mistaken, allow me to supply you with some details that may help jog your memory.

Most American wars have obvious starting points or precipitating causes: the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the capture of Fort Sumter in 1861, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, for example. But there was no fixed beginning for the U.S. war in Vietnam. The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.

President John F. Kennedy rounded another turning point in early 1961, when he secretly sent 400 Special Operations Forces-trained (Green Beret) soldiers to teach the South Vietnamese how to fight what was called counterinsurgency war against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, there were more than 16,000 U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam, and more than 100 Americans had been killed. Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, committed the United States most fully to the war. In August 1964, he secured from Congress a functional (not actual) declaration of war: the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Then, in February and March 1965, Johnson authorized the sustained bombing, by U.S. aircraft, of targets north of the 17th parallel, and on 8 March dispatched 3,500 Marines to South Vietnam. Legal declaration or no, the United States was now at war.




taken from <http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm>

please go there for more details.

 

[HomestarR]

Nice citation at the end







But how is that a religous war then?

 

[Kengou]

it isn't.

 

[Thothie]

it's a cult where the one man, arbitrarily elected by his peers, tells the majority of the world what to believe, how to go about believing it, and most importantly of all, who to hate.

We have another word for that: Government.

Buddhism is the world's perfect religion, not because of what it says god is, nor how it practices it's belief, but because it is accepting

Buddhists too, have killed each other over differences in interpretations in the past (and present) as well. There are about a thousand different Buddhist denominations, and they aren't all that much more accepting of one another than the various Christian ones. In the case of Vietnam, a war motivated by poverty and fear there of, the religion certainly didn't seem to provide enough counter-motivation to *stop* the war. Don't get me wrong, I love the Buddah every bit as much as the Jebus, but for all the talk of enlightenment, the followers are still human beings.

The vast majority of wars are, in reality, fought over resources, with religion only fanning the fire. Religious rhetoric will often mask ulterior motivations for wars, as is often seen by the historical accounts of WWII and The Crusades, where the material motivations underlying are often ignored. It's easier to scream, "For God/Allah!" in battle than it is to scream, "For oil/farmland!" - but the battle cry doesn't change the situation. Similarly, the motivations for oppression and power can be non-religious yet just as destructive, if you examine, for instance, what Stalin and Mao Tse Tsung did to their peoples under supposedly non-religious governments.

Collectivism is a survival instinct that forms the communities without which human civilization would not exist. Religion and nationalism are only two of its forms. There's a basic psychological need to be able to point to one's own people and say, "We are better than them." - and you can see this phenomenon manifest itself consistently from the small cliques that form in every elementary school straight up to religions, political parties, and nations. The church is but one example of this mechanism in action, in the end no better or worse than any other. If it did not exist, a similar organization with a similar ethos would appear in its place.

The only collectives with power to change this basic element of human existence depend on it for their power, and thus have no motivation to do so and every motivation to perpetuate it. Combine the instinct of collectivism with material motivation: the fact that space and resources are limited, and become more so everyday, and as time goes on we can deny and ignore immoral acts done in the name of god and country with ever-greater effectiveness, for they are also done as a matter of survival.

Unless some force external to the system comes to unite us all under a common cause - such as aliens or the second coming, this factionism will remain a defining part of human existence.

You, as an individual, however, can choose to be genuine to yourself and your own beliefs, so long as you are also critical of those beliefs, and are aware of the influences that your culture and those around you have upon them, and you remain critical of those influences in turn. It is not an easy task though, and it involves many inevitable pitfalls of self-deception. In the end, there is a high price to pay for the sovereignty of your mind and soul.
__________
"If you see in any given situation
only what everyone else can see,
you can be said to be so much
a representative of your culture
that you are a victim of it."
Saint Thoth

 

[jack hawkins]

Jack, you're all wrong, man. Kuroneko's right.
Politics all the way.
You lose.

In what way do i lose you bell end. unless you want to get a good response off of me stop typeing things like that, it is very childish

 

[Kengou]

Thothie: I agree with everything you said there. Well spoken as usual.

 

[jack hawkins]

I see the poll its getting bigger

 

[HomestarR]

Tothie either majors in Social Studies, is a genius, or both.

I wish I had the ability to articulate my thoughts like that, usually I think of something and lack the ability to explain it.

 

[dookehster]

God exists. However, you don't need to be a Christian or Catholic to believe this.

What makes me disapointed is a group of Christians or so-called Christians lead by one who deems himself "A Witness of God" saying "We are a Holy Kingdom united in Gods word and he truly is the King of this clan."

It is hardly believable that any Holy Kingdom can exist anywhere but in Heaven and Heaven alone let alone headed by one who says "We protect the oppressed if they are innocent and protect all that is good and holy and pure. We kill evil and have battles with Evil Clans."

Yes, you "kill" evil and have battles with evil clans. Do I even need to debate the absurdity of that statement?

This is a game, and while it is fine to roleplay, only one entity can make or give the priviledge to say the things that you have.

"We survive by Gods favor and blessing upon our clan."

Do you have the authority to say something like that? Do you think the God of Heaven and Earth, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, would bless a gaming clan just because someone asked Him to?

While I'm happy that there is a possibility for you to have a personal relationship with God, this relationship should not be expressed in such a non-chalant manner. Simply stated, God is not a toy.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7

viewtopic.php?t=174 if you need reminding.

 

[HomestarR]

-.-



um... it is just a clan following a theme. It offends you?

 

[J-M v2.5.5]

Edit: NEVERMIND! Disregard this post

 

[dookehster]

Themes about darkness, light, is fine. Themes about God should be taken more seriously.

Even in the Bible, few people have the right to say things like that.

 

[jack hawkins]

But that is all to do with freedom of speech

 

[Ewok]

I say yes, there is a God. One true, living God.

Saying something like Religion is evil would be a rather bold and incorrect statement. Anyone can grab The Bible, kill people and say it is in the name of God. In fact, someone can do that with anything. Doesn't mean God condoned it, or that it has anything to do with what The Bible or God teaches. The problem here is people, the human race, they are the ones guilty of evil. Which is the reason why Jesus Christ came down for our sins and offered us salvation.

Secondly, the Pope doesn't represent Christians, he represents Catholics. Never at any point in The Bible does it ask you to hate people, in fact, it says Love is that greatest spiritual gift that one believer could possess. Read Corinthians 13. The Bible does talk about sin (an act that is that is against God's will). Which is wrong, but sinners (everyone) is to be treated with love. It's a case of hate the sin, not the sinner. Yes, people have got it wrong and have created a hatred toward people, but such is always the problem with humans, that's never going to change. Get used to it. It is a human flaw not characteristic of any belief.

Also, there was a comment about what religion is doing to Africa. I live in Africa, let me tell you what Christianity is doing, wonders.

Buddhism is the world's perfect religion, not because of what it says god is, nor how it practices it's belief, but because it is accepting

If you want accepting, get a pet, such as a dog. God is however is not a pet, but divine and Holy. There is a right and wrong and it is clearly defined in writing. The main reason modern society chooses Buddhism is out of the fear of actually have to make a real decision. But people instead, sit on the fence, don't really have a specific viewpoint or standing and avoids the important issue and takes what appears to be a safe option. In this Buddhism isn't unique, look at Sai Baba, he says, all religions lead to one. A unity of all religions. Yet Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

As with pretty much all the new testament, it deals with the internal. The condition of the heart, not what appears outwardly good. Many people can act good, but God sees beyond that. He isn't a big angry man in the sky, wanting to send a lighting bolt every second you do something wrong. His original purpose was fellowship and relationship with man. Man is a product of His love.

As I see a computer and not knowing or seen who built it, I know there is a designer. Someone who made it, I look outside and see the same proof. Proof of a designer.

Also I agree with you dookehster.

Some interesting material,
The existence of God - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/cosmos.htm
I haven't read all his material, so don't ask me anything expecting that I have.

- Ewok

 

[darkdain]

i like what kengue said here. The definition of a cult is a 'religion' that is lead by a man, aka the pope. Yes he could change the face of religion by saying God gave him a message.

Religion itself is not evil though, not anymore evil then a tool. People say it all the time, you shoot someone with a gun, it was the guy not the gun. Religion can be used for that, the largest cause is greed, i believe greed to be the greatest problem in the world atm. (notice how wealthy most large religions are, business practically)

And about people being blessed before wars and such, saying God is on there side, you realize they could be wrong? They dont, usually.

And lastly, about God being alive as far as we believe in him, i dont think the universe was created by a God created in the minds of humans before they even existed

 

[greatguy]

thats all shit to get money

 

[deadvoices]

I am very accepting to new and different understandings of our universe, but when I see something contradictive I immediatly doubt it...

I am not sure which part of christianity of whatever, but somewhere in the bible it is stated that man's ears cannot comprehend the power and wisdom of God's voice, so he has a messenger, or "God's Voice".

So the contradictive part? Hearing people who were on the brink of death, severely injured/handicapped, claiming that God talked to them, told them everything would be alright or whatever.

And no I have not read the bible, the last thing I need to read is a book of miracles that may or may not have happened, along with the words of people (just like us) who may have lied or decieved the very easily swayed thoughts of people in need of comfort and certification of their very existance.

Personally, I believe science can tell us any/everything.

 

[Thothie]

the Pope doesn't represent Christians, he represents Catholics.

So... 90% of the Christians then? I get that one a lot, and I'm sorry for making generalizations, but when 90% of Christians on the planet are indeed Catholic, it's hard not to. Sorry, but I'm afraid they undeniably set the standard baseline comparison for the remaining fringe to anyone not part thereof.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 - they do like to pull that one a lot - I've got a few dozen counters for you, but I'll use the shorter one:

"There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all." - Col 3:11

Frankly, I've never been a fan of the old Catholic idea that if you haven't heard of Jesus, you're going to hell (at the very least, Limbo). It's nice how they, and most of their splinter religions, can so easily ignore Corinthians and Colossians , and the dozens of other places in the bible with statements like this and focus on the more divisive verses simply to maintain their monopoly. I've read the bible enough times, and enough extra-biblical Christian texts, to rest at ease with the concept that Jesus is a being that transcends Christianity itself, and He, like His Father, sort-to-speak, wears many masks for many people.

Never at any point in Bible does it ask you to hate people

I wish that were true... Now, if you belong to one of the more liberal protestant religions, many of the teachings of the Old Testament are washed away by the teachings of Jesus in the new (true, even amongst the Catholics). However, if you belong to some of the more conservative protestant religions, or take the Old Testament exclusively or fundamentally, then yes, the Bible does ask you to hate people, if you chose to read it that way. Sadly, tis a matter of interpretation, and for many people - probably for a small majority of self-proclaimed Christians in my own country (judging by various ballot results), ever so sadly, the Bible teaches hate.

Personally, I take a more Lutheran bent on Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and the like. Sometimes I'm tempted to take a positively Cathar bent - as I think their explanation: that Satan created the Earth and is the voice posing as God in the Old Testament, and that Jesus of the new represents the True God - actually makes quite a bit of sense. Sadly, a former Pope killed most all of the million of them there were, so they never did get the chance to work the chinks out of that.

Also, there was a comment about what religion is doing to Africa. I live in Africa, let me tell you what Christianity is doing, wonders.

Is this the same Africa where American "Christian" ethos prevents hospitals and AIDS centers from dispensing condoms, if they want to maintain their American funding?

Christian altruism, certainly, has benefited Africa. However, I suspect an altruism with less strings attached would benefit it much more. Sadly, those who have the money must be the ones to give it, and will do so as they feel fit.

[in retort to Buddhism] If you want accepting, get a pet, such as a dog. God is however is not a pet, but divine and Holy. There is a right and wrong and it is clearly defined in writing.

If one were to take any time to study Buddhist religious practices one would realize that, in many ways, Buddhism is less accepting than Christianity, when it comes to what is right, and what is wrong - particularly if you actually wish to join an order (it's amazing how 'cut off' can be translated from the Sutta-Nipata). The state of Nirvana is, by all accounts, a great deal more exclusive than Heaven. I mean, hell, yer not even expected to achieve this state in just one lifetime - Christians get off so easily by comparison.

Personally, I believe science can tell us any/everything.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Science doesn't answer the same question that religion does. Science only asks "How?" - it never asks "Why?". This is why, in the end, the idea that you have a choice, to choose religion over science, or visa versa - is akin to choosing Astronomy over Astrology, or paint over the paint brush - they simply do not serve the same function.

Granted, depending on the religion, it may not ask the question, so much as dictate the answer - but they invariably ask for you to at least seek and find.

Similarly, science does not deal with ethical questions - it has no moral nor ethical concerns, again only with "how" and not "why". You can attempt, from the social sciences, to derive at a code of ethics that is most effective, most beneficial, to either the individual or society at large, but one will find, almost invariably, the sort of society this brand of science calls for is not one you would want to live in. (And, more oft than not, not one you would even survive in.)

The closest you can come are the pseudo-sciences of Philosophy and Psychology. Psychology is completely dependant on the standards of the society it takes place within, and can only determine if a manner of behavior makes one better adjusted to that society or not, but has no power to question the values of the society itself within its own bounds. Philosophy, transcends even religion by questioning the very nature of consciousness, divinity, and existence itself, but it is invariably contaminated by the beliefs of those who preach it, and therefore molded by religion, or fear there of. Whenever philosophy departs from questioning and moves to dictating, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes religion. I'm not saying, mind you, you cannot question your ethical code with logic, or fail to have one built upon it, but there is no escaping the influence of religion there upon.

In short, you can have "faith in Science" to find the mechanisms of the universe - but you cannot ask science to bring meaning to them. This you must do yourself, and this is how religion has domain where science never will.

Popular among some of the more liberal Christian sects these days is the concept that, as one famous priest recently said, "God loves the world so much, that he let it be free." The tenant being that: yes, you can explain the universe and everything in it by pure science - and you will find no evidence of a designer or creator, lest you place it there with your own faith, be it in evolution, or in the big bang, or whatever else - for when God created the universe, he created it with absolute independence, absolute freedom, from Himself. Some have even go so far as to say that the only way to grant this absolute freedom from an omniscient being would be to allow the universe self-creation.

That being just one of many religious concepts that allows Science absolute reign over the physics of the material world, without giving the illusion that intrudes into the spiritual. (Pantheism being yet another method, particularly popular amongst our founding fathers.)

In the end, most often, when one argues against the existence of God by sighting discoveries of science, or against science, by sighting tenants of God, it is indicative that one has lost sight of the purpose of both religion and science. ...and that is to be indeed, lost.
__________
"I like your Christ! I do not like your Christians, your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Mahatma Gandhi
Thothie

 

[deadvoices]

From what I see about science and the diggings into our past is being misunderstood much like people misunderstanding the various religions. Yes science is tapping the boundries of the creation of existance, but science is not a matter of proving there is no God, that we all came from a big explosion instead of being created by one entity. But possibly what is wrote in the various religious histories might have just been another one of man's misinterpretations.

I don't think there is going to be one almighty entity waiting for me at the end of the road. For all we know we die and thats the end of it. But that doesn't mean I believe in either possibility. In my opinion, holding too strongly onto something you believe in can cloud your mind and weaken it. I feel that we should always be willing to admit that you may be wrong. Most of human kind's problems stem from that.

Where we are in science is no where near where we will reach in the future, there is no way you can judge if science cannot tell us everything if anything.

Science is my belief, my morals and my actions are not guided by how science defines our existance, but by how I feel I should act. I watch humankind from almost a standstill, only able to see the present and past and decide how I can shape my future.

 

[Thothie]

... my morals and my actions are not guided by how science defines our existance, but by how I feel I should act.

Ah now, I wonder where those “feelings” are derived from, however. I suspect that if you dig into the source of your ethical foundation, you will invariably find religious influences. I also suspect if there's any meaning in your life, you did not find it through science, but more likely through religion of your own invention. Since it's nearly impossible to build anything, constantly exchanging hammers for nails, or visa versa - most people who deny the value of one or the other, have developed science or religion of their own.
_________________
"Do not ask ’Why?‘ Be cautious with ‘How?’ ‘Why?’ leads inexorably to paradox. ‘How?’ traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite." – The Apocrypha of Arrakis, Dune
Saint Thoth

 

[JabbahRulz]

Just for a future note, try capitalizing your 'g' because if I was thee almighty I'd strike you down the moment you lower caps my G.

And I have no comment for Christianity as I am only Catholic. :roll:

Isn't Catholicism a branch of Christianity?

 

[Thothie]

He forgot his [/sarcasm] tag.

It would be more accurate to say, with the possible exceptions of Eastern Orthodoxy, Christian Gnostism, Jews for Jesus, and one or two others - that every other Christian faith is a branch off from Catholicism. (Just note that, many of said branches would love to burn down the tree from whence they came.)
__________
"The Belief that there are such Beings as Witches is so Essential a Part of the Catholic Faith that Obstinacy to maintain the Opposite Opinion manifestly savours of Heresy." - The Malleus Malefocarum
Thothie

 

[HomestarR]

My values stem from the ten commandments, it has a good idea on what's right and wrong.

 

[deadvoices]

I did not deny that religion had an effect on me, infact, it has quite an impact on me. When I was little, I used to goto "kid" church so-to-speak. I would play and learn about the bible and God. But as I grew and began thinking for myself, I threw away my beliefs as a child, and began living my life the way I wanted to, and not how some book dictates how I should. Although I may share the same beliefs, it doesn't mean I necessarily learned and implemented it from religion.

In a way, I have no religion. I find religions to be over the edge in some prospects. I have studied lightly in a number of religions and have decided that for the most part of religions they are almost trying to control, and yet they say freedom at the same time?

In the end, I feel science can be the only sure way to judge what defines our history, I do not deny that we may have been created by one entity, science may never be able to tell us that. If the answer is unsolveable by science or any human/alien effort then we may never know until death if that will be the answer to everything.

P.S. - I saw something about a blanket or robe of some sort that belonged to Jesus in some museum. Anyone know anything about that?

 

[DocMombo]

bored, BORED!