This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start WWIII to Speed the "Second Coming" ... and Atheist Neocons are Using Religion
MILLIONS OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WANT TO START WORLD WAR III ... TO SPEED UP THE SECOND COMING
The Founding Fathers weren't particularly anti-Islam.
But millions of Americans believe that Christ will not come again until Israel wipes out its competitors and there is widespread war in the Middle East. Some of these folks want to start a huge fire of war and death and destruction, so that Jesus comes quickly.
According to French President Chirac, Bush told him that the Iraq war was needed to bring on the apocalypse:
In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:
“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”
Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:
“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”…
There can be little doubt now that President Bush’s reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam’s Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.
And British Prime Minister Tony Blair long-time mentor, advisor and confidante said:
“Tony’s Christian faith is part of him, down to his cotton socks. He believed strongly at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil, making lives better.”
Mr Burton, who was often described as Mr Blair’s mentor, says that his religion gave him a “total belief in what’s right and what’s wrong”, leading him to see the so-called War on Terror as “a moral cause”…
Anti-war campaigners criticised remarks Mr Blair made in 2006, suggesting that the decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.
Bill Moyers reports that the organization Christians United for Israel - led by highly-influential Pastor John C. Hagee - is a universal call to all Christians to help factions in Israel fund the Jewish settlements, throw out all the Palestinians and lobby for a pre-emptive invasion of Iran. All to bring Russia into a war against us causing World War III followed by Armageddon, the Second Coming and The Rapture. See this and this.
This all revolves around what is called Dispensationalism. So popular is Dispensationalism that Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series has sold 65 million copies. Dispensationalists include the following mega-pastors and their churches:
They are supported by politicians such as:
- Texas Senator John Cronyn
- Former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt
- Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
- And others
Dr. Timothy Webber - an evangelical Christian who has served as a teacher of church history and the history of American religion at Denver Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Vice-President at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL, and President of Memphis Theological Seminary in Tennessee - notes:
In a recent Time/CNN poll, more than one-third of Americans said that since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they have been thinking more about how current events might be leading to the end of the world.
While only 36 percent of all Americans believe that the Bible is God's Word and should be taken literally, 59 percent say they believe that events predicted in the Book of Revelation will come to pass. Almost one out of four Americans believes that 9/11 was predicted in the Bible, and nearly one in five believes that he or she will live long enough to see the end of the world. Even more significant for this study, over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return.
Millions of Americans believe that the Bible predicts the future and that we are living in the last days. Their beliefs are rooted in dispensationalism, a particular way of understanding the Bible's prophetic passages, especially those in Daniel and Ezekiel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. They make up about one-third of America's 40 or 50 million evangelical Christians and believe that the nation of Israel will play a central role in the unfolding of end-times events. In the last part of the 20th century, dispensationalist evangelicals become Israel's best friends-an alliance that has made a serious geopolitical difference.
***
Starting in the 1970s, dispensationalists broke into the popular culture with runaway best-sellers, and a well-networked political campaign to promote and protect the interests of Israel. Since the mid-1990s, tens of millions of people who have never seen a prophetic chart or listened to a sermon on the second coming have read one or more novels in the Left Behind series, which has become the most effective disseminator of dispensationalist ideas ever.
***
During the early 1980s the Israeli Ministry of Tourism recruited evangelical religious leaders for free "familiarization" tours. In time, hundreds of evangelical pastors got free trips to the Holy Land. The purpose of such promotional tours was to enable people of even limited influence to experience Israel for themselves and be shown how they might bring their own tour group to Israel. The Ministry of Tourism was interested in more than tourist dollars: here was a way of building a solid corps of non-Jewish supporters for Israel in the United States by bringing large numbers of evangelicals to hear and see Israel's story for themselves. The strategy caught on.
***
Shortly after the Six-Day War, elements within the Israeli government saw the potential power of the evangelical subculture and began to mobilize it as a base of support that could influence American foreign policy. The Israeli government sent Yona Malachy of its Department of Religious Affairs to the United States to study American fundamentalism and its potential as an ally of Israel. Malachy was warmly received by fundamentalists and was able to influence some of them to issue strong pro-Israeli manifestos. By the mid-1980s, there was a discernible shift in the Israeli political strategy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Jewish state's major lobbying group in Washington, D.C., started re-aligning itself with the American political right-wing, including Christian conservatives. Israel's timing was perfect. It began working seriously with American dispensationalists at the precise moment that American fundamentalists and evangelicals were discovering their political voice.
***
Probably the largest pro-Israel organization of its kind is the National Unity Coalition for Israel, which was founded by a Jewish woman who learned how to get dispensationalist support. NUCI opposes "the establishment of a Palestinian state within the borders of Israel."
***
In their commitment to keep Israel strong and moving in directions prophesied by the Bible, dispensationalists are supporting some of the most dangerous elements in Israeli society. They do so because such political and religious elements seem to conform to dispensationalist beliefs about what is coming next for Israel. By lending their support-both financial and spiritual-to such groups, dispensationalists are helping the future they envision come to pass.
***
Dispensationalists believe that the Temple is coming too; and their convictions have led them to support the aims and actions of what most Israelis believe are the most dangerous right-wing elements in their society, people whose views make any compromise necessary for lasting peace impossible. Such sentiments do not matter to the believers in Bible prophecy, for whom the outcome of the quarrelsome issue of the Temple Mount has already been determined by God.
Since the end of the Six-Day War, then, dispensationalists have increasingly moved from observers to participant-observers. They have acted consistently with their convictions about the coming Last Days in ways that make their prophecies appear to be self-fulfilling.
***
As Paul Boyer has pointed out, dispensationalism has effectively conditioned millions of Americans to be somewhat passive about the future and provided them with lenses through which to understand world events. Thanks to the sometimes changing perspectives of their Bible teachers, dispensationalists are certain that trouble in the Middle East is inevitable, that nations will war against nations, and that the time is coming when millions of people will die as a result of nuclear war, the persecution of Antichrist, or as a result of divine judgment. Striving for peace in the Middle East is a hopeless pursuit with no chance of success.
***
For the dispensational community, the future is determined. The Bible's prophecies are being fulfilled with amazing accuracy and rapidity. They do not believe that the Road Map will-or should-succeed. According to the prophetic texts, partitioning is not in Israel's future, even if the creation of a Palestinian state is the best chance for peace in the region. Peace is nowhere prophesied for the Middle East, until Jesus comes and brings it himself. The worse thing that the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations can do is force Israel to give up land for a peace that will never materialize this side of the second coming. Anyone who pushes for peace in such a manner is ignoring or defying God's plan for the end of the age.
***
It seems clear that dispensationalism is on a roll, that its followers feel they are riding the wave of history into the shore of God's final plan. Why should they climb back into the stands when being on the field of play is so much more fun and apparently so beneficial to the game's outcome? As [one dispensationalist group's] advertisement read, "Don't just read about prophecy when you can be part of it."
ATHEIST WAR HAWKS MANIPULATE BELIEVERS TO BEAT THE DRUMS OF WAR
Leo Strauss is the father of the Neo-Conservative movement, including many leaders of the current administration.
Indeed, many of the main neocon players - including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Cambone, Elliot Abrams, and Adam Shulsky - were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years.
The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq. See this and this. (They planned both wars at least 20 years ago.) For example, Shulsky was the director of the Office of Special Plans - the Pentagon unit responsible for selling false intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass. He is now a member of the equivalent organization targeting Iran: the Iranian Directorate.
Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi philosophers and of Machiavelli. Strauss believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured. Specifically, Strauss thought that:
A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured
(the quote is by one of Strauss' main biographers).
Indeed, Stauss used the analogy of Gulliver's Travels to show what a Neocon-run society would look like:
"When Lilliput [the town] was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect." (this quote also from the same biographer)
Moreover, Strauss said:
Only a great fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns.
So Strauss seems to have advocated governments letting terrorizing catastrophes happen on one's own soil to one's own people -- of "pissing" on one's own people, to use his Gulliver's travel analogy. And he advocates that government's should pretend that they did not know about such acts of mayhem: to intentionally "not know" that Rome is burning. He advocates messing with one's own people in order to save them from some "catastophe" (perhaps to justify military efforts to monopolize middle eastern oil to keep it away from our real threat -- an increasingly-powerful China?).
What does this have to do with religion?
Strauss taught that religion should be used as a way to manipulate people to achieve the aims of the leaders. But that the leaders themselves need not believe in religion.
As Wikipedia notes:
In the late 1990s Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views, in support of intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular backgrounds, a few commentators have speculated that this – along with support for religion generally – may have been a case of a "noble lie", intended to protect public morality, or even tactical politics, to attract religious supporters.
So is it any surprise that the folks who planned war against Iraq and Iran at least 20 years ago are pushing religious disinformation to stir up the evangelical community?
Conservative Christians were the biggest backers of the Iraq war. And the Neocons are catering to them to try to back them into war with Iran, as well.
I've recently seen a swarm of spam claiming that all Muslims are evil, that they want to take over the world and establish a Muslim caliphate, and that they want to nuke Iran. They misquote Muslims and use false statements to try to stir up religious hatred.
They are simply promoting the Straussian playbook: stir up religious sentiment - even if you are personally an atheist - to create and demonize an "enemy", so as to promote war ...
NOT A PROBLEM WITH A PARTICULAR RELIGION ... BUT OF IMMATURITY
Most Americans confuse Zionism and Judaism. But many devout Jews are against Zionism, and Zionists can be Christian.
And as I've repeatedly noted, fundamentalist Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus are all very much alike, and often willing to use violence to spread their ideology ... while more spiritually mature Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus are all much more tolerant and peaceful than their evangelical brothers:
As Christian writer and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck explained, there are different stages of spiritual maturity. Fundamentalism – whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu fundamentalism – is an immature stage of development. There are peaceful, contemplative Muslim sects – think the poet Rumi the poet and Sufis – and violent sects, just as there are contemplative Christian orders and violent Christian groups (and peaceful and violent atheists).
While there are certainly some Arab terrorists, Islam cannot be blamed for their barbaric murderous actions, just as Christianity cannot be blamed for the Norwegian Christian terrorist - Anders Behring Breivik's actions. University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – points out:
Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn’t to blame — the root of the problem is foreign military occupations.
The 9/11 hijackers used cocaine and drank alcohol, slept with prostitutes and attended strip clubs … but they did not worship at any mosque. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. So they were not really Muslims.
And even atheists like Stalin can be terrorists, or at least genocidal maniacs.
Indeed, all religions teach compassion, love and the Golden Rule. Likewise, atheism teaches respect for the individual, the most good for the most people, and helping everyone reach their human potential.
Some within each philosophy follow these teachings, and others want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. The issue is not really the label of this religion or that, but of maturity and true spirituality and compassion.
Postscript 1: Neoliberals and Neoconservatives are very similar in many ways. And because Neocons are not conservative, nothing in this post is meant to criticize conservatism.
Postscript 2: Most evangelicals are not dispensationalists, and so do not want to bring on armageddon.
»
- advertisements -
lol, you stole that from my mind...
Nice connection.
This article is full of misdirection and misinformation. I followed the link where it said Bush thought such and such actions were needed to bring on the apocolypse, but found no such doctrine. IF this group of christians feel pity for the Jews because they read in the bible that there is a time coming which will be worse than any other, it DOES NOT mean they want that evil to happen to the Jews! Silly George W. There is so much falsehood here, and in the supporting links, it would take hours to unravel. Please, don't quote from HuffPost about religion - they always get it wrong. And this Christians United for Israel church - is it really millions? Does it really represent "Millions of evangelical christians" as the title of your article states?
It is just so wrong to say that these people, who are taking what the bible says about end times seriously, are trying to accelerate armegeddon. And the misinformation is so gross: to say that Bush throught that we were at the end of a 1000 year millenial reign of Christ (that's when armegeddon happens), where all the nations were gathered together... Come on! You just are not making sense. This sort of article only speaks to people who do not know their bible, and people who do not consider the sources listed.
I used to like some of your articles. But now I know what sort you are, George W.
"it DOES NOT mean they want that evil to happen to the Jews!"
No, not as long as they "convert," otherwise... Fuckers! They murdered Christ! Yeah, no evil intended...
Perhaps the greatest thing about the founding of the US was that it was supposed to be free of religious prosecution. I think it failed to EXCLUDE all these old religions from dragging their baggage here... And the biggest contributors to the US Constitution were the non-monotheistic Iroquois (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2004/September/20040924120101...), well, evil was not wanted to happen to them either...
Bet your asses, our annihilation will come through a religious vehicle (usurped perhaps, but its flag WILL fly).
Agreed, profoundly silly article. Writer betrays himself as not very theologically literate, which I would think is more or less a requirement to start seriously writing about theological issues. But I guess religion is one of those things that you can write about, mock, etc. and talk a good game for your irreligious friends, but to anyone who's done any real research into the subject, you look foolish.
Notice that Islam isn't mocked and insulted. Just sayin'.....
surely that's why this article is open for comments - for YOU to mock and insult Islam - isn't that what your HeavenlyFatherGod demands of you???
WTF are you on about? Where did I mock Islam? I simply pointed out that the people who mock Christianity NEVER mock Islam, and in many cases defend it. Get a clue.
my comment simply stated that the thread is where YOU could mock Islam, should you feel it wasn't getting enough mocking in the OP.
you mock your husband, and the "libtards" - so yeah, go for it, play the opposition card.
This may come as a shock to you but I don't feel the need to mock anybody's religion.
As far as mocking libtards, well, you gotta speak to them in their own language. Seems I've gotten through to you and found a tender spot. Left/Right, DvsR is all they understand. How many times have I tried to point out that BOTH parties are screwing us and never once has the liberal even considered the possibility. They can't comprehend the concept.
you've no more "gotten through to" me, or my "tender spots" than you have penetrated your own rhetoric in search of any truths.
who is this "they" when it is you who is doing the finger-pointing? "libtards"? well, luckily you're bi-lingual, amirite?
Not husband. "Significant other." I think that'd be the rationalization for why he needn't be honored or respected.
Hey, Flying Spaghetti Monster! Get those noodly appendages to work, let's get some hellfire and damnation all 'round! And a poster of Mohamed I can throw darts at!
Yee haw.
Come on, quit being disingenuous. You were indirectly insinuating that those who were critical of bad Christian practices are supporters of Islam. You're either with us or against us: one was critical of Bush so that means that one HAS to love Obama.
I call B.S. on this kind of cheap shit trying to be passed as discourse.
Since I'm sure you're no mind reader, I'm going take a WAG and go with you're just describing yourself. You trash Christians and support muslims, but don't like be called out on it. And WTF has Bush got to do with this?
BTW EVERY muslim and Christian I've known just want to be left the hell alone. Sheesh.
Fund-a-mental politician. Support your local religious, warmongering fanatic. Become a matyr today.
Of course, they are blessed by god on either side, doing god's work. They are so full of their own beliefs that they must impose them on everyone. Believe or we will kill you. Your life's not worth living if you're not one of us. So sayeth the lord.
Fucking zombies incapable of meta-reflection. Must .... do....god's.....will. Must.... do...god's...willl. These pages will prove to be full of true believers and sabre rattlers for god.
George, poor guy....Jesus Himself says, and that's all that matters, not me, that were He not to come when He does, not a single life will be saved, but for the sake of the elect (now those would be Jewish followers of Christ in Israel at that time) those days would be shortened. He comes, whenever that is, to SAVE life, not to end it. (Matt 24, I forget which verse). Now it's true that He says that when He comes, He's taking charge and will run things from Jerusalem, if we understand that right, but there are a LOT of folks who survive what are misdescribed as the Last Days. It's the Last Days of Lucifer's heydays, that's to be sure.
Further, the day of His return is already fixed--Zechariah tells us that, and that not even Jesus knows the day, as He says Himself--only the one whom we call Our Father in Heaven knows. Anyone who claims we can advance or retard that day are foolish--Christian or Muslim. Foolish and dangerous.
When He comes, it's back from where He is to where He last stepped off (no disrespect to my Mormon friends, but America was not His last step-off) on the Mount of Olives, 40 days after He rose from the dead. Don't know of anyone else to claim that He would die and rise again to fulfill Hebrew scriptures besides Him and the prophet Isaiah foretelling the event. (Isaiah 53 for reference).
Now all this could be a crock and all that's left of us when we die is sand, but a lot of people around that time claimed to have seen it and were willing to be killed (note the PASSIVE voice) if it should come to that. You need to get back and look at Matthew's gospel for yourself, or either of the other three; you might feel embarrassed like I did when I asked for a copy, but that was 40 years ago now, and it was the best bit of intellectual honesty I undertook. If I concluded it were untrue, I'd have been a happy atheist. For you see, as someone wrote, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then I am among those who are to be most pitied. I'm convinced that the evidence supports the notion that He did rise again, though.
Believers in God are told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, not its annihilation. Believers in God are told that those who bless the seed of Abraham receive a blessing. Followers of Christ are told to return a blessing for an insult and to pray for their enemies. Turn the other cheek, so we're told. He says we're blessed when we're insulted on account of Him, and He says anyone will be forgiven insulting Him, for they don't know what they do. I don't need to fight to defend Him. Frankly I'd like to have this attitude at all times. Jesus makes more sense in the four pages of the Sermon on the Mount than anything else--READ it for yourself, without the cynical eye.
You see, George, spiritual battles are God's battles, so He says, and NOT ours. I can't speak for those whom you cite, but I can speak for me and a lot of normal folks who keep their faith simple and practical. I wish you well.
Regards...
America, Number 1! (there, that should ensure that I get some green arrows)
A long dissertation on why you love Jesus. Good for YOU!
GW, however, was pointing out the FACT that there are plenty of people using this "love of Jesus" as their rallying cry to get us engaged in one big fucking war. I don't know about YOU, but, as Smedley Butler put it: "To hell with war."
You can hide behind Jesus if you like, but those claiming him and his "father" are wanting to drive your and everyone else's asses into war.
So, to sum up: Jesus, Good! Evangelicals and any other "subverted" variant of the myriads of religions out there that wish to manipulate us into one big fucking war, BAD!
So, green arrow for Jesus? America?
Personally, I don't think there's any real (non-hearsay) evidence for a historical Jesus as depicted in the Gospels, but how about reading those passages with a critical, anti-authoritarian eye? If a man tries to force me to go a mile, I'm not going to go two. I'm going to tell him to get fucked. Conscription is slavery. And "loving my enemies" and turning the other cheek may be helpful when it's time to establish peace, but it certainly makes things awfully convenient for them while they still intend to subjugate me and intend me harm. Isn't that like Stockholm Syndrome?
The Bible is big on submission to authority. One could argue that it's the central, controlling message. First and foremost: submission to God/Jesus (above all else, including your own family), followed by submission to the secular authorities and your slave master (as long as it doesn't conflict with your religion).
That's my take on it.
It's why I spend so much time emphasizing that we should seek to operate with NO centralized/concentrated power.
US Constitution was believed to have been heavily constituted by Native Americans (Iroquois). Unfortunately, their (Iroquois) notion of equal treatment of women wasn't something adopted by the founders of the US Constitution. Hard to have power over others when they're equal...
truly remarking on the essence of imported belief systems, and the destructive nature of Patriarchal beliefs.
thought-full, squared.
your noting that "the Bible is big on submission to authority" is an important point - the authority of the Patriarch, the SkyDaddy & his Son, your "brother" - these "men" define the believer's reality, and they continue to recreate it, over and over, with disastrous consequences throughout recorded history.
some use the AngryFather to abuse those they desire to, some use the JudgementalFather to justify rules and laws that police behaviours of people they deem lesser than themselves - it's all about feeling IN CONTROL of others, so as to feel more important than their puny existence is in truth.
and we've not even begun to address how those sociopaths who whisper in their ears all that they must do to bring about apocalypse, their own deaths and the deaths of others, a fast track to their Heavens.
who on Earth could believe such non-sense?
There are reports from the time, Jewish historians, that puts Jesus as a magician, something we would call black magic these days, not an illusionist or any other pretender. So, he did thinks worth seeing, which is what the world miraculum means (though they didn't speak Latin).
And the most important: the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church for Catholics. There are thousands of other christian sects but their bible versions have a little bit of pick and choosing...
If you are not one, it is not for you. It is about the faith in one person, Jesus, and if you don't believe in him then you won't accept his message. That is it, one-to-one, very simple!
Now get in or get out. And stop this psycho-political nonsense.
Right. You are referring to some rather unflattering passages from the Talmud that have been (wisely) removed, written between 200 - 500 AD, about Balaam (a pseudonym), a bastard magician, blind in one eye and lame, whose father was a soldier named Pantera. Eventually he was put to death by stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation. There is some rabbinic debate about whether the passages have Jesus/Balaam boiling for eternity in a cauldron of excrement, or a cauldron of semen, but it's definitely one or the other.
You and I are operating under much different definitions of the word "historian."
Did I hit the foul mouth button in you?
Good, another one outed :)
I agree that references to boiling Jesus in excrement and semen are foul, but you should take that up with the authors of the Talmud.
Why did you bring up the Talmud again?
+100
I am a friend to all true Christians, as well as true Jews, true Hindus, true Buddhists, true atheists, and yes, even true Muslims.
None of them are violent murderers ...
George Washington:
My comments:
Back in high school and junior high school I was taught that all religions are about the same.
I´m not so sure that all religions are about the same. My impression is that among those religions you mention Buddhism has been the least violent religion historically. The New Testament is also rather peaceful too. The followers of Marcion (they only approved of parts of Luke and thought that the Old Testament was not a part of the Christian Religion) also seem to have been rather peaceful (they also seem to have been good at chastity since they were not entitled to have sex). I think that there are big differences between different versions of Christianity and big differences between the big religions you mention.
"My impression is that among those religions you mention Buddhism has been the least violent religion historically."
Which could very well be true, but that begins with the premise that all violence is always bad.
If I wind up killing someone who has broken into my home to kill or do harm to me or my family it cannot be a sin as they were wrong and about to commit a great evil, which was stopped.
Pacifism does not equate with righteousness or piety as far as I'm concerned. It only guarantees you will be at the mercy of someone else...whether they are good or evil.
Go to the northern parts of Sri Lanka and ask about the violence of fundamentalistic Buddhism. Or look at the systemic repression of the peasant caste in Tibet. Or ... violence is a human universal. It's not about one (NOMINAL) religion or another in a given culture. It's about the incomparable depth of wickedness in the human heart.
Ah yes, the Tamil Tigers, there's a few in every crowd.
I'm enjoying your interaction with the atheists & those who can't seem to separate the state from the church immensely. At one point in time (in our former republic) we had this simple concept, only to be supplanted by the suppresion of the church by the state.
Now it seems (in retrospect) in the interests of what the state deems "fairness", those who do not believe in certain "lifestyle rituals" would have been forced to pay for others expenses who engage in these "lifestyle rituals".
Fortunately, the state (having set up this particular strawman) intervened just in the nick of time to save the day!!!...lol...by forcing an innocent third party, completely unconnected to the two opposing views, to foot the bill.
Completely Orwellian, succinctly fascist, yet always entertaining at the elemental level.
I actually spent some time in Sri Lanka in a seminar on "ethnic conflict in International relations." Idea was to use Sri Lanka as a microcosm of issues elsewhere. Was a great educational technique. Fascinating place, has Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism all well represented, has just about every kind of terrain from beaches to jungles to snow capped mountains ... beautiful place and utterly fucked politically. We also went inside the "Free Trade Zone" to see some neoliberal economics at work. Couldn't get too far north as there were too many bombs going off at the time and sme parts were still actively held down by the LTTE. Fascinating, enlightening, disturbing stuff. This was during the Wickremesinghe administration before the end of the war with the LTTE. Was an amazing and eye-opening experience.
And yeah, "church and state" separation is a fine thing, but people can't seem to grasp that the simple concept, and then start to go off about any and all religion ... Christianity, meaning the teachings of Jesus, Paul too actually, really the entire N.T., is entirely aligned with religion and politics being separate. Those who try to impose their religion on other people by law are doing it wrong, if Mohammad had one thing right--and he abandoned this later on--it was "there should be no compulsion in religion" (I believe that is in the first Sura, which is magnificent poetically regardless of your take on Islam). But that doesn't mean that one's religion doesn't, and oughtn't, impact every part of one's life ... but those claiming religion so loudly are usually hypocrites, Pharisees ... Jesus had a lot to say about them, including keeping prayer in one's closet. When the Pharisees went to trap him with a question about religion & politics he succintly put it to bed by stating that what is Caesar's is Caesar's, and God's, God's.
Now the state is in a full-on assault against the Church, it can be seen everywhere. The birth control flap lately is a part of it, a government bureaucracy trying to impose it's ideas of right and wrong on other's consciences. Of course there are some who are fighting against it. But don't think that langauge like "Breivik the Christian terrorist" is not a set-up for future persecution of Christians of a non-conforming sort by the government. In fact, count on it.
"Now the state is in a full-on assault against the Church, it can be seen everywhere. The birth control flap lately is a part of it, a government bureaucracy trying to impose it's ideas of right and wrong on other's consciences."
Yes indeed.
That and, what I find surprising is that libertarians are falling for the bait set out for them. It has nothing to do with abortion or contraception. It has everything to do with the state coming in and telling ANY group you will buy this product or service whether you want to or not.
Next, they will no doubt say, look we have this huge inventory of solar panels we need to unload...lol.
The precedent being set here is a remarkable thing to watch. So let's say the "regime" undergo's a change to another world view.
I can almost hear the "righteous" screams of indignity when people are forced to buy a firearm or an SUV (or pick one of many) because it's in the states interest for them to do so ;-)
you sure do stick to your online persona, heh,
so these "lifestyle rituals" - this would be the need to fuck without a condom, in true "spread the seed" style? and you're against having to pay for the impregnator's spawn? yes, understandable. . . oh, but wait,
ahhh, then this isn't about any kind of "morality" but simply a function of commerce - the State mustn't make you pay for the "service" sometimes sought by those who don't want to bear the "lifestyle rituals" enacted.
I'm glad to realise it's about the financial bottom line, in the end. (intentional obfuscation is intentional)
mmmmHmm.
I thought the "lifestyle ritual" comment might be of interest to you Cat...lol.
No, the lifestyle ritual I'm speaking of, is getting knocked up and expecting someone else to bear the consequence of that action, besides the parties directly involved.
It takes two to tango (voluntary) but forcing a third party to pay for the band music is a little extreme don't you think?
Before you answer, I'm not much on the "virtues" of state sponsored eugenics.
I'm more of a life has consequences and responsibilities kinda guy...that point being, two people decided to fuck...I was not part of the pros & cons of that decision.
To say that it's strictly a commerce or financial decision on my part (the third party) still implies I take all that risk (involuntarily) and still don't even get a kiss or a note with a phone number on the nightstand ;-)
oooh nmewn, I knew exactly what your "lifestyle rituals" were referencing, and you know exactly why I reversed the role-blaming ^^ - right?
too much hate gets directed at the females who, having been impregnated & given birth, absent an income turn to the FatherState for "support" - and not enough energy is expended on the sperm donor - who can freely spread his seed daily, with very little censure, here at least.
and yes, I know the mother is "free" to sue for support, but again, nice story vs. reality - most deadbeat dudes acting out their "man's gotta do" roles aren't worth much more financially than they are morally. . . I don't agree with paying women to have children, but this is how it is, and that's all I'm commenting on, for now, well, apart from agreeing with the "consequences & responsibilities" as long as it pertains to all parties involved - sadly, it will be children who suffer, but this is human, it's always been this way in the world.
and lol to no kiss or forwarding details - it's the govt. dude, we ALL know no consent is involved! *grins*
<<<grinning>>>
You know my propensities (double entendres, metaphors & snark) well enough to know that, that's not all I meant by life style rituals...with your "sky god" chatter it had a religious connotation as well, just turned around ;-)
But yes, the male is very much a part of this equation.
You can call me a male chauvinist (or whatever you want) but...because I care more about the female (and the baby) more than the male, does not mean I think she is necessarily "the weaker sex"...it just means I think she (and the baby) is in a worse position than the father.
I have zero respect for a man who walks away from his responsibilities. By the same token they have to be in a position to take responibility, whatever his financial situation. It has become far too easy for the state to step in to the father's role.
So, in that sense we agree.
We are all a product of our social enviroment. And if that enviroment is such that the roles & responsibilities (the consequence of an action, in this case sex) can be so easilly changed, so that the primary parties are left without obligations to fulfill, we have to step back and say we need to try something else.
You know, observation of life is funny sometimes.
As you know, I live in the sticks now. There is a common stereotype of "people out here" as hayseed hicks & raaaycist rubes. You would be surprised how many adopted "black", mullatto and latin kids there are out here.
Just a simple observation.
Take care Cat, seeya round the hedge my friend.
ha - your propensities list mirrors my own, and we are perhaps drawn to discuss because of this, yes?
females may be the weaker gender, but are not the weaker sex - unless physical brawn is the sole measurement I suppose, then I'll grant the bulk of the brawn goes to the males, mostly.
but I'm absolutely in agreement that personal responsibility is sorely, painfully lacking in today's amrkn "styled-lifes" - by design in my opinion, and to the detriment of those who refuse to grow up. . . I like the breakdown of the word "response-ability" - the ability to respond, taken personally, and independent, un-dependent on others whenever possible. amrka seems to be at least a couple of generations short of this goal, so sadly the lesson will be learned the hard way, by "force" - history shows this cycle of repetition.
although I bounce around between living spaces, I'm mostly in the sticks as well now, and I'm pretty familiar with the generousity of people who have less to share, yet do, vs. the wise & wealthy hoarding class - after living most of my life in mega-cities, I have much respect for the practicality and straightforward manner of most of the "hayseed hicks" - for the most part they keep their heads down & get on with the chores, y'know? of course, sophisticated thinking about the intricacies of "worldly affairs" isn't a strong point for them, and this may be an achilles heel in the future - but this is what is, eh. I'm sure those in rural Iran, tending to their business, their families, have about as much control over what's about to happen as any of us "here" - but I empathise with them too. . .
you take care as well friend, always fun to banter!
"your propensities list mirrors my own, and we are perhaps drawn to discuss because of this, yes?"
I think so too. We may not agree on everything but I believe we both try to keep an open mind about it.
And we both have an annoying habit of challenging ourselves as well as others from what I can tell...lol.
That's wonderful that you've gotten (mostly) away from the "rat in a cage" syndrome of the cities. I grew to hate it...it was suffocating.
While the people here may not be aware of the minutiae of events, they have a pretty clear idea they (along with us) are getting the short end of the stick. I wouldn't say they are unaware. They see socialization of losses and privatization of profits just like anyone else.
They (we) live in the real world, not the one presented.
Besides, when or if the SHTF I would rather be with people who can tell the difference between moonseed and wild grape...and shoot straight.
In both senses ;-)
No such thing. Which of the tens of thousands of denominations gets to set the standard? Like the Constitution, the Bible is used... very selectively. Would those "true Christians" also by chance hold beliefs that you would consider agreeable? All of the end-timer nonsense aside, one could argue that some of the Christians you don't consider to be "true" Christians hold beliefs that are actually more in accordance with the "true" meaning of the Bible than the watered-down, mainstream (liberal) versions of Christianity. Of course, using the Bible as a basis, you could argue just about anything.
Head chopping is not violent. It is simply a quick and humane way to exterminate Jewish journalists.
Ask those Muslim friends of yours if they consider Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini to have been a TRUE Muslim?
A few of his quotes:
“An Islamic regime must be serious in every field,There are no jokes in Islam.
There is no humour in Islam.
There is no fun in Islam.” A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine. “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.” “The author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I ask all Moslems to execute them wherever they find them.”
Two things have always bothered me about these "Armageddon Accelerator" people, aside from the fact that they want to destroy humanity.
First, their arrogance is boundless. They actually think they can force God's hand and make Christ return according to their schedule, as if their monkey minds could do anything to compel action on the part of the supreme creator. My mind boggles at the hubris.
Second, although they claim to be Christians, they ignore Christ's very words and place more importance on the hallucinogenic diary of John of Patmos, who was probably tripping balls on Claviceps purpurea. Both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew report Christ saying about his return, "however, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."
What kind of Christian ignores Christ? I guess I'm a little weird because I'm what some would call a red letter Christian, in that I think only the books of the Gospel really matter, but I mean, come on. That should be the most important aspect of Christianity. Seriously, WTF?
Yeah, the idiots of all religions forget one fact. If god is all powerful, why does she need weak little monkeys to do her bidding? If she wanted to create or destroy something, a mere thought would do it.
So - an all-knowing, all-powerful God can't do what s/he wants to, even if it is illogical to you?? The only God that can exist is one who does exactly what you think they should do??
So - you create God rather than God creates you??
Just like Jesus said, ONLY GOD knows the timing, and nothing man can do can bring it on, UNLESS it's HIS will.
We can see the signs, if we have the Spirit, if you do not, you cannot.
The True Believers will not be fooled.Although Christ said if it were possible EVEN the ELECT could be fooled .(but you have to have the Antichrist make his appearance first.)
True Christians believe in a Omnipotent GOD, and believe the scriptures are the inerrant words of GOD ( The I AM ),YHWH
That ALL scripture is GOD breathed. Stick with Jesus, and you cannot go wrong.
You cannot separate the OLD from the NEW,because the Old reveals the NEW.
Christ's Return,(for the Millennial Reign) and Armageddon are two separate and distinct times.Just as the Catching Away is.(otherwise called the Rapture,actual meaning "Snatching Up"), since the word Rapture never occurs in scripture.
WE should not concern ourselves with HIS timing, WE should just make sure WE are ready.
Signs,signs, everywhere signs.........................be alert that that day not catch you unawares.
If your part of the Elect how in the hell would you be fooled if you were raptured away?
Bottom line is the False christ comes first and the Elect WILL be there to witness against him.
that passage right there proves rapture prior to Christs return is total bullshit.
That's Satans favorite lie for the sunday goers, and the filth that teach it.
On another topic for non-believers... just take a look at your hand.. you really think that beautiful design just happened by chance?? Really?
LOL
Well said. Couldn't agree more!!! I've heard more sense out of a crackhead, and at leaset he has as excuse to rant and rave. These clowns have none, and their selective reading of the Bible is massively annoying.
Both Kingdom Now (a species of dominionism) and the politically active strain of premillenial dispensationalism think that they can, by their mortal actions, hasten the coming of the Lord's Day. This borders on blasphemous. There is more than a little of "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High" in there. In fact, it's just a continuation of the first lie ever told, "ye shall be as gods ..." History will continue for a set time, that set time is not for us to know, and certainly not for us to intervene with when it comes to the things which must be before the end. And with regard to the Day of the LORD, there's a lot more in the Bible about fearing it than accelerating it. For serious, guys.
I'd like to be a spectator in Hell and watch these jackboot-licking fundies' smug faces turn to horror when they realize that they spent their whole stupid, venal lives working for Satan and now they are truly fucked. "But... but... but... But at least I never took it up the ass!" Then Satan whips out his enormous red-hot barbed schlong and says "Welcome to the first day of eternity".