Word Power

[freeandfun1]

Yes, of course it is terrorism - and fundamentalists burning abortion clinics and murdering doctors is also terrorism, clearly.


Regards,


Andy

As has already been pointed out in this thread.

If you don't believe in G-d, why are you so intimidated by Christian beliefs? You try to attack them everywhere you can. What would Buddha think of you? I would guess he would not find you worthy of calling yourself a Buddhist.

 

[sagegirl]

Not all Pro-Life people support the death penalty or war. Therefore, you are (typically) painting with a very broad brush.

Using your logic, Pro-Choice people are not truly Pro-Choice when so many constantly go against teaching abstinence or counseling which offers insight into alternatives to abortion.

I was following up on a previous response....this thread is not about abortion or god.....it is about the power of words.

 

[CivilLiberty]

As has already been pointed out in this thread.

If you don't believe in G-d, why are you so intimidated by Christian beliefs? You try to attack them everywhere you can.

Do I? When have I "attacked" Christians?

What would Buddha think of you? I would guess he would not find you worthy of calling yourself a Buddhist.

What does Buddha have to do with it? He's not like some eastern version of Christ. We don't worship or pray to him, and we expect nothing from him, though we respect his teachings. He has no judgment on us, so no, he would not even consider making a value judgment on me in that way. Nor would I care; I don't seek such validation.


I realize this whole "judgment" thing is deeply steeped in the "God of Abraham" religions - Christianity/Islam/Judaism - but it's not germane to many other world religions.



Regards,


Andy

 

[5stringJeff]

Yes, of course it is terrorism - and fundamentalists burning abortion clinics and murdering doctors is also terrorism, clearly.

Regards,

Andy

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that, if you researched it as much as you researched evolution, you would find that almost no Christian would applaud the killing of doctors or the bombing of abortion clinics. The "Christian" groups that do... well, they are quite clearly not following the teachings of Christ to love your enemies and not murder people.

 

[Bonnie]

Andy, you are 100% correct, bombing abortion clinics and so forth is terrorism, and in no way represents any Christian doctrine or belief, thank goodness it's a very very isolated incident.

Regarding the power of words we can all agree that often the media on both sides of the politcal spectrum will use powerful terminology to illicit either a guteral response, or impart an unwarranted image to a person, group, or action simply to stigmatize them and fulfill an agenda.

But that goes along with free speech.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Yes, of course it is terrorism - and fundamentalists burning abortion clinics and murdering doctors is also terrorism, clearly.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that, if you researched it as much as you researched evolution, you would find that almost no Christian would applaud the killing of doctors or the bombing of abortion clinics. The "Christian" groups that do... well, they are quite clearly not following the teachings of Christ to love your enemies and not murder people.

Interesting that you assume I meant Christian - in statement, I did not use the term Christian at all, but used the term "fundamentalists".





Of course I realize that Christians as a group do not applaud such un-Christian actions. My girlfriend is a Christian (in fact she's a sunday school teacher and choir member) and I'm quite familiar with Christianity. I am a former Christian, and have in fact researched Christianity even more than evolution, particularly now as I'm beginning a comparative analysis of the King James edition versus the New International edition. (I find it interesting the discrepancies - for instance, which do you believe is more correct: "Thou shalt not KILL" or "Thou shalt not MURDER"?).



Getting back to my statement, I used the term "fundamentalist", but the assumption of "Christian" may be because we know that in the case of abortion clinics it is Christian militant fundamentalists (who I personally think follow the antichrist) that are responsible for these acts, and unrepentantly so.



I remember some years ago the interview with a reverend who was awaiting sentencing for the cold bloodied murder of several doctors. He was unrepentant, in fact PROUD of his deeds.



Is it any wonder why the secularists are freaked out by fundamentalists?



I think it's part of our survival instinct that as humans we remember the very worst things about a group - as Mark Anthony said, "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones".



So then, militant fundies give the entire group of the religion they desecrate a bad name. Fundie Islamics give all Islam a bad name, Zionist fundie jews give all jews a bad name and fundie Christians give all Christians a bad name.



The problem with these hate/intolerance based fundamentalism movements is that they grow like cancer, appealing to the prurient interests of the lowest aspects of man. And as cancer grows it threatens the entire organism.





Regards,





Andy

 

[5stringJeff]

Of course I realize that Christians as a group do not applaud such un-Christian actions. My girlfriend is a Christian (in fact she's a sunday school teacher and choir member) and I'm quite familiar with Christianity. I am a former Christian, and have in fact researched Christianity even more than evolution, particularly now as I'm beginning a comparative analysis of the King James edition versus the New International edition. (I find it interesting the discrepancies - for instance, which do you believe is more correct: "Thou shalt not KILL" or "Thou shalt not MURDER"?).

I don't know how far you've gotten, but you are likely to find a group of KJV-Only Christians out there, who believe that using any Bible besides the 1611 KJV condemns a person to hell. Don't ask me how...

As far as translation techniques, there are lots of resources out there that explain the differences. But I do know that the KJV relied heavily upon the Textus Receptus, which was a 4th century Latin translation. At the time, that was about the oldest manuscript available. The NIV and other modern translations use more ancient manuscripts that have been discovered since 1611. It is remarkable to note, however, that not one major theological concept is gained or lost between any of the manuscripts and/or translations.

To answer the kill/murder question, however, my understanding is that the Hebrew word in the commandment is best translated 'murder,' not 'kill.'

I remember some years ago the interview with a reverend who was awaiting sentencing for the cold bloodied murder of several doctors. He was unrepentant, in fact PROUD of his deeds.

Is it any wonder why the secularists are freaked out by fundamentalists?

At the same time, you have someone like Newdow, who could be described as a "militant secularist." Any wonder that Christians are freaked out by him? (BTW - the murder of an abortion doctor is not justifiable by any Bible-believing Christian. We live under grace, not under a punitive law system.)

The problem with these hate/intolerance based fundamentalism movements is that they grow like cancer, appealing to the prurient interests of the lowest aspects of man. And as cancer grows it threatens the entire organism.

It doesn't necessarily have to happen like that. If the mainstream of a belief system is diligent enough to rebut the extremists and refuse to allow them to hijack their system (like Wahabbism is doing to Islam right now) then they can keep extremism to a minimum.

 

[CivilLiberty]

At the same time, you have someone like Newdow, who could be described as a "militant secularist." Any wonder that Christians are freaked out by him?

I dunno - does Dr. Newdow advocate murdering priests and burning down churches or other terrorist acts? Does he march in the streets with hate filled crowds carrying signs bashing Christians?

But from another perspective, let me say that I don't want to see my government, nor it's institutions enforce or support, nor repress or deny, any specific belief system, personal sexual choice, or other lifestyle liberty.

The government should be neutral in these matters. In reality the government should be there only to provide services to it's people to maintain a strong society:

1) provide for the common defense (Military/Law Enforcement)
2) provide emergency services (fire/ambulence)
3) provide for public safety regulation (building codes/public works)
4) provide for educating the population

I'm not convinced the government need be involved in other areas. Certainly not your church. Keep the government out of your church. Of course, to do that, means keeping the church out of government.



Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not convinced the government need be involved in other areas. Certainly not your church. Keep the government out of your church. Of course, to do that, means keeping the church out of government.



Andy

I would agree with you, but partially. Keeping people of religion out of Government or trying to keep them from expressing their religion is not a concept the Constitution tried to address. The constitution tries to keep the Government from making a specific religion the law of the land and thereby creating Religious power in the Government where the Church creates the laws rather than the Legislature.