ST. AUGUSTINE, FL --
Actor Mel Gibson's controversial new film, The Passion of the Christ,
has been coming under intense criticism for months now.
The movie chronicles the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus, and some
fear it could spark anti-semitism.
Local religious leaders are skeptical about the content. While many say
they are encouraging their parishioners to see the movie, others say the
only real script depicting Jesus' life is the bible itself.
Some ministers feel that Hollywood tends to take too many liberties in
re-enacting Jesus' life and believe this movie will be no different. The
movie has already stirred up contraversy amongst religious groups.
Some critics say the movie blames the Jews only for Jesus being
crucified on the cross. A local Presbyterian minister tells First Coast
News, Jesus' blood was on the hands of every person, every Roman who
stood at Jesus' cross in silence.
The movie, "The Passion of the Christ", is being released February 25th.
.
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
17 Feb 2004 04:28:20 PM |
|
|
(sUSAn B Anthony) wrote in message news:<13013-403204DC-29@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net>...
ST. AUGUSTINE, FL --
Actor Mel Gibson's controversial new film, The Passion of the Christ,
has been coming under intense criticism for months now.
The movie chronicles the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus, and some
fear it could spark anti-semitism.
Local religious leaders are skeptical about the content. While many say
they are encouraging their parishioners to see the movie, others say the
only real script depicting Jesus' life is the bible itself.
Some ministers feel that Hollywood tends to take too many liberties in
re-enacting Jesus' life and believe this movie will be no different. The
movie has already stirred up contraversy amongst religious groups.
Some critics say the movie blames the Jews only for Jesus being
crucified on the cross. A local Presbyterian minister tells First Coast
News, Jesus' blood was on the hands of every person, every Roman who
stood at Jesus' cross in silence.
The movie, "The Passion of the Christ", is being released February 25th.
But considering the Romans were pagans, and did not like seditous
radicals at the best of times, the Anglo's of the time were cave
dwelling pagans as well and the Jews were not going to have some
zealot changing the old order either, and as Solon was the one to
bring about ostracism, no it was easier to have Jesus killed, nothing
like an example.
But it was the example that has become the religion.
Funny really Christainity actually got it's impetus as an anti gay
movement!
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hyena" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
18 Feb 2004 09:33:55 AM |
|
|
(Leigh_Bee) wrote in message news:<39cd5fe.0402171428.6fc6e1d5@posting.google.com>...
the Anglo's of the time were cave
dwelling pagans as well
I take that you mean the various tribes inhabiting Britain in 30AD of thereabouts?
Pagans. Yes they were pagans
Cave dwelling? It may be that your knowledge of history is in need of re-assessment.
Hyena
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
17 Feb 2004 03:47:13 PM |
|
|
(sUSAn B Anthony) wrote in message news:<13013-403204DC-29@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net>...
ST. AUGUSTINE, FL --
Actor Mel Gibson's controversial new film, The Passion of the Christ,
has been coming under intense criticism for months now.
The movie chronicles the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus, and some
fear it could spark anti-semitism.
Local religious leaders are skeptical about the content. While many say
they are encouraging their parishioners to see the movie, others say the
only real script depicting Jesus' life is the bible itself.
Some ministers feel that Hollywood tends to take too many liberties in
re-enacting Jesus' life and believe this movie will be no different. The
movie has already stirred up contraversy amongst religious groups.
Some critics say the movie blames the Jews only for Jesus being
crucified on the cross. A local Presbyterian minister tells First Coast
News, Jesus' blood was on the hands of every person, every Roman who
stood at Jesus' cross in silence.
The movie, "The Passion of the Christ", is being released February 25th.
Wouldn't the christians be "***** out of luck" if someone had
intervened and jesus not been crucified? No christian saviour on a
stick. ;)
guess they would all have been born jews or muslims and of course we
would have been spared the inquest and other nasty christian events.
oh well, maybe in a parallel world long ago and far away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
18 Feb 2004 04:50:22 PM |
|
|
(jha_amin) wrote in message news:<33b7880.0402171347.1e618b43@posting.google.com>...
Wouldn't the christians be "***** out of luck" if someone had
intervened and jesus not been crucified? No christian saviour on a
stick. ;)
guess they would all have been born jews or muslims and of course we
would have been spared the inquest and other nasty christian events.
oh well, maybe in a parallel world long ago and far away.
In this world, the Christian religion went through a reformation a
long time ago. When do you think the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
18 Feb 2004 09:16:33 PM |
|
|
(Steven Douglas) wrote in message news:<a2b35e99.0402181450.779a2ae7@posting.google.com>...
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message news:<33b7880.0402171347.1e618b43@posting.google.com>...
Wouldn't the christians be "***** out of luck" if someone had
intervened and jesus not been crucified? No christian saviour on a
stick. ;)
guess they would all have been born jews or muslims and of course we
would have been spared the inquest and other nasty christian events.
oh well, maybe in a parallel world long ago and far away.
In this world, the Christian religion went through a reformation a
long time ago. When do you think the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
Reformation should be a work in progress, a never ending journey
instead of a destination you feel you have reached. To think you have
arrived may be a mistake.
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So go the
three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference in the
them. Christians in general have been made to look better by the
progress of modern civilization.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saint Isidore of Laytonville" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
19 Feb 2004 07:48:53 PM |
|
|
Here you go folks!
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2004/02/who_killed_jesu.html
Hambone Doogie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
18 Feb 2004 11:05:19 PM |
|
|
(jha_amin) wrote:
dsteven@flashmail.com (Steven Douglas) wrote in message
In this world, the Christian religion went through a reformation a
long time ago. When do you think the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
Reformation should be a work in progress, a never ending journey
instead of a destination you feel you have reached.
You start with the idea that reformation should be a work in progress,
and later you mention the progress of modern civilization. The
Christian reformation allowed for the creation of secular governments,
with separation of church and state. Of course it is always a work in
progress, but notice how it allows the freedom to practice any
religion -- or no religion.
To think you have arrived may be a mistake.
To have never begun its own reformation is Islam's mistake.
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So go the
three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference in the
them.
Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of fundamentalists
who terrorize modern civilization, and you see no difference?
Christians in general have been made to look better by the
progress of modern civilization.
Indeed. Which leaves me wondering when the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
19 Feb 2004 03:33:34 PM |
|
|
(Steven Douglas) wrote in message news:<a2b35e99.0402182105.4ecb1e34@posting.google.com>...
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote:
(Steven Douglas) wrote in message
In this world, the Christian religion went through a reformation a
long time ago. When do you think the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
Reformation should be a work in progress, a never ending journey
instead of a destination you feel you have reached.
You start with the idea that reformation should be a work in progress,
and later you mention the progress of modern civilization. The
Christian reformation allowed for the creation of secular governments,
with separation of church and state. Of course it is always a work in
progress, but notice how it allows the freedom to practice any
religion -- or no religion.
The christian leaders fought this rebellious "secular government"
tooth and nail and can take no credit for the advance ofmodern
civilization.......that is until they seen the position of power thay
could take advantage of. a rather machavellian ploy, and how well it
has worked.
To think you have arrived may be a mistake.
To have never begun its own reformation is Islam's mistake.
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So go the
three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference in the
them.
Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of fundamentalists
who terrorize modern civilization, and you see no difference?
Monotheism (not just christianity) has been the cause of the greatest
bloodbaths in "recorded" history, setting civilization back thousands
of years.
It has always been "my god is bigger than yours". You can observe the
same attitudes in day care with children.
Christians in general have been made to look better by the
progress of modern civilization.
Indeed. Which leaves me wondering when the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
an exerpt from the "curse of cain" (Not that i am that well
"learned", but i just happened to know where to "cut and paste" a few
goodies)
"Many of us imagine that the secular world has freed us from the
encumbrances of religion, the rule of one deity and the authority of
his priesthood, but the myth of monotheism continues to foster our
central notions of collective identity. As a cultural formation,
monotheism is strikingly tenacious. Its tenet - one god establishes
one people under God - has been translated from the sphere of the
sacred to nationalism, and thence to other collective identities. Most
historians of nationalism concede that the concentration of power in
an omnipotent sovereign was far too useful to divest at the birth of
modern nationalism, and so allegiance to a sovereign deity in order to
forge a singular identity became, in secular terms, allegiance to a
sovereign nation to forge a national identity. That issued in such
ironies as the following rhetoric from one of the architects of
(secular) German nationalism: 'He who does not love the fatherland
which he can see, how can he love the heavenly Jerusalem which he does
not see?' In other words, the injunction of Romans 13:1: 'Let every
person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no
authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been
instituted by God' - has been farther reaching than Paul could have
ever imagined. In our nation's infancy, John Cotton advised John
Winthrop of the Plymouth Colony that a 'distinction which is put
between the Laws of God and the laws of men becomes a snare... surely
there is no human law that tendeth to common good but the same is a
law of God.' And this has endured. [...] Monotheism is a myth that
grounds particular identity in universal transcendence. And monotheism
is a myth that forges identity antithetically - agains the Other.
"Monotheism would make an ontological claim that only one god exists.
Monolatry or henotheism would better describe the kind of exclusive
allegiance to one deity (from a field of many) that we find in [the
Bible]. [Schwartz, 1997]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
20 Feb 2004 02:17:43 AM |
|
|
(jha_amin) wrote in message news:<33b7880.0402191333.6e6b8494@posting.google.com>...
Monotheism (not just christianity) has been the cause of the greatest
bloodbaths in "recorded" history, setting civilization back thousands
of years.
Yes, you keep bringing up history and I'm well aware of history --
and, as we have discussed, Christianity went through a reformation a
long time ago. Meanwhile, the world waits for the Islamic
fundamentalists to BEGIN their reformation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
19 Feb 2004 01:18:45 AM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0402182105.4ecb1e34@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote:
dsteven@flashmail.com (Steven Douglas) wrote in message
In this world, the Christian religion went through a reformation a
long time ago. When do you think the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
Reformation should be a work in progress, a never ending journey
instead of a destination you feel you have reached.
You start with the idea that reformation should be a work in progress,
and later you mention the progress of modern civilization. The
Christian reformation allowed for the creation of secular governments,
with separation of church and state. Of course it is always a work in
progress, but notice how it allows the freedom to practice any
religion -- or no religion.
To think you have arrived may be a mistake.
To have never begun its own reformation is Islam's mistake.
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So go the
three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference in the
them.
Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of fundamentalists
who terrorize modern civilization, and you see no difference?
So would that be the voice of fear or hate? It can be so difficult
to discern the deep-down roots of emotional belief systems. Why do
our minds so often cling to the emotions we revile, as if ... (ahhh!)
.... as if they give meaning to life? ... Fear, desire.
Christians in general have been made to look better by the
progress of modern civilization.
Indeed. Which leaves me wondering when the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
19 Feb 2004 10:56:57 AM |
|
|
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc38oqo.k6e.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
In article <a2b35e99.0402182105.4ecb1e34@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote:
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So go the
three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference in the
them.
Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of fundamentalists
who terrorize modern civilization, and you see no difference?
So would that be the voice of fear or hate?
In the case of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network, it is
clearly a voice of hate.
Or ... if you were referring to me, all I did was make a statement of
fact. And unless you can show me where my statement is factually
incorrect, I stand by it.
It can be so difficult to discern the deep-down roots of emotional
belief systems.
Try *factual* belief systems ... unless you are able to show me where
my statement is *factually* incorrect?
Why do our minds so often cling to the emotions we revile,
Speak for yourself ... or maybe that's what you're doing.
as if ... (ahhh!) ... as if they give meaning to life? ...
Fear, desire.
Christians in general have been made to look better by the
progress of modern civilization.
Indeed. Which leaves me wondering when the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
20 Feb 2004 02:04:10 AM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0402190856.189c71a8@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402182105.4ecb1e34@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote:
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So go the
three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference in the
them.
Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of fundamentalists
who terrorize modern civilization, and you see no difference?
So would that be the voice of fear or hate?
In the case of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network, it is
clearly a voice of hate.
The point of the question was to ask yourself, "Why?"
Or ... if you were referring to me, all I did was make a statement of
fact. And unless you can show me where my statement is factually
incorrect, I stand by it.
You are deluding yourself, it was an emotional statement.
It can be so difficult to discern the deep-down roots of emotional
belief systems.
Try *factual* belief systems ... unless you are able to show me where
my statement is *factually* incorrect?
What is a "*factual* belief system?" Are you trying to imply that you
are making a rational argument? If so you should try to understand that
the appearance of rationality in an emotionally based argument is an
illusion. All emotional or moralistic arguments start with a desire
(e.g. the support of a belief system), and the presentation of "facts"
deigned to support the argument are subject to that desire. A belief
system may be supported by facts, but it is still rooted in desire.
Come on Stephen, dig deeper. Why do you believe what you believe?
Take your mind apart. Thus far your arguments present a seemingly
very shallow awareness of existence. A level of awareness that
doesn't yet seem aware that it can question it's own existence.
Why do they hate us? Why do we hate them? Why do we fear?
Why do we do the things we do?
Why do our minds so often cling to the emotions we revile,
Speak for yourself ... or maybe that's what you're doing.
It is possible to start questioning why we do the things we do,
by questioning why others do the things that they do. But
ultimately finding any real answers to those questions, requires
overcoming the fear of taking apart our own belief systems.
It's your mind Stephen, what are you afraid of?
as if ... (ahhh!) ... as if they give meaning to life? ...
Fear, desire.
Christians in general have been made to look better by the
progress of modern civilization.
Indeed. Which leaves me wondering when the Islamic fundamentalist
reformation will happen?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
20 Feb 2004 03:06:43 AM |
|
|
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402190856.189c71a8@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402182105.4ecb1e34@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote:
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So
go the
three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference in
the
them.
Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of
fundamentalists
who terrorize modern civilization, and you see no difference?
So would that be the voice of fear or hate?
In the case of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network, it is
clearly a voice of hate.
The point of the question was to ask yourself, "Why?"
Okay, *why* does the brutal Islamic government of Sudan enslave and
slaughter Christians in southern Sudan? Are you going to blame the
U.S. for that one too?
Or ... if you were referring to me, all I did was make a statement of
fact. And unless you can show me where my statement is factually
incorrect, I stand by it.
You are deluding yourself, it was an emotional statement.
Oh ... but would you please show me where my statement was *factually*
incorrect? First do that, and then I'll consider playing this game ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
21 Feb 2004 05:57:53 PM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0402200106.6c690a68@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402190856.189c71a8@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402182105.4ecb1e34@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote:
Men place shackles on their fellow man in the name of god. So
go the three major monotheisic religions. I see little difference
in the them.
Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of
fundamentalists who terrorize modern civilization, and
you see no difference?
So would that be the voice of fear or hate?
In the case of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network, it is
clearly a voice of hate.
The point of the question was to ask yourself, "Why?"
Okay, *why* does the brutal Islamic government of Sudan enslave and
slaughter Christians in southern Sudan? Are you going to blame the
U.S. for that one too?
Too? Look Steven, this is not persecution. I am not out to attack
your identity as either a Christian or an American. I am attacking
an emotional reflex. A successful attack would see you, in time,
turn upon your own argument.
Why is it important to you that it is Christians being attacked in
the southern Sudan? Why are you not simply concerned that people
are being slaughtered?
Violence, slavery, and civil war have been an active part of the
life-cycle in Sudan for as long as anybody there has been alive.
It is a problem exacerbated by famine, economic failure, and a
declining educational base. For the most part humans respond to
their environment as a conditioned reaction, or as a submission
to the collective will (which is also subject to conditioning).
As Spartans were Spartans, those emersed in a violent environment
will tend to react violently. Religion may exacerbate the problem,
but it is not necessarily the root cause.
Or ... if you were referring to me, all I did was make a statement of
fact. And unless you can show me where my statement is factually
incorrect, I stand by it.
You are deluding yourself, it was an emotional statement.
Oh ... but would you please show me where my statement was *factually*
incorrect? First do that, and then I'll consider playing this game ...
Well it wasn't really a factual statement since the emphasis was placed
on emotional argument, but I'll try to focus on the "factual" elements
of your "statement". So within the words that you picked to portray
your statement, what are the facts that you are presenting?
"Oh? One of them has propagated a worldwide network of
fundamentalists who terrorize modern civilization, and
you see no difference?"
"Oh?":
Clearly a question/challenge, as in "You think so? Think again."
So we'll skip that part, since it's not a fact.
"One of them":
Hmmm, well "One of them" is not a fact either. It is an argument
posing as a subliminal choice. Taken in context with the rest of
the argument it is an implication of guilt, drawing in the
suggestion that there is only one party that is at fault. But for
the sake of your "factual" statement we'll look past the rhetoric,
and substitute what seems to have been your implication. The
context of the statement is taken in reference to the monotheistic
religions, and your vitriol is apparently directed at Islam, so
I'll assume that these words are intended to say "Islam".
"has propagated":
Apparently meaning "is the cause of", or "has given birth to".
"a worldwide network of":
Refering to a group of people that is distributed or operating
globally.
"of fundamentalists":
Indicating that the group of people being referenced, believes in
strict adherence to a basic set of beliefs or principles. But,
the context puts a negative emphasis upon this term indicating
further that it should be taken in it's emotional context; to
portray that the group is inconsiderate of perspectives different
to their own.
"who terrorize modern civilization":
Ahhh, the crux of the argument. So what you seem to be saying is
that Islam has caused the birth of a group of people whose
belief in a core set of fundamental principles has led them to
formulate a worldwide plot to terrorize modern civilization. But
what does that mean? What does it mean to "terrorize modern
civilization"? And you've left an open-ended implication in your
"statement". You've implied that Islam, as a religion, is solely
responsible for this drive to "terrorize modern civilization".
But why? Are you suggesting that it is the belief in a basic
set of principles, and their unwillingness to be considerate of
different perspectives that is the sole cause for their aggressions?
Terrorism is a rather nebulous term. A person's interpretation
of that term depends upon the perspective from which they view
it. For some, terrorism is synonymous with suicide bombings.
But for others terrorism is represented by high-altitude bombings,
or sanctions, or increased police control, or fear-mongering
speeches. And unless you are unwilling to consider the perspectives
of others it is not really practical to pin it down as being the
sole responsibility of a single group, or a single belief system.
And where is the proof that it is religion, and specifically
one religion, that is the cause of all these varied forms of
terrorization.
I'm sorry but I'm still a bit confused by the innuendos, and
incomplete allegations within your statement. What exactly was
the fact that you were trying to present?
"and you see no difference?":
No, because I see that people's emotional reflexes vary
individually but on the whole are not very different.
Now what was the emotional trigger behind your statement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
22 Feb 2004 02:29:59 AM |
|
|
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc3fs40.7lj.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
In article <a2b35e99.0402200106.6c690a68@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Okay, *why* does the brutal Islamic government of Sudan enslave and
slaughter Christians in southern Sudan? Are you going to blame the
U.S. for that one too?
Too? Look Steven, this is not persecution. I am not out to attack
your identity as either a Christian or an American. I am attacking
an emotional reflex. A successful attack would see you, in time,
turn upon your own argument.
Why is it important to you that it is Christians being attacked in
the southern Sudan? Why are you not simply concerned that people
are being slaughtered?
Well, the discussion had turned to the three major monotheistic
religions. Of course you're right, the Islamic government of Sudan
enslaves and kills all those who disagree with their religious
doctrine.
As for the rest of your post, I'm going to save both of us a lot of
time. Prior to 9/11, my thoughts on this topic were very similar to
yours. In fact, on that very day, I got into an argument with a
coworker who said some things I considered quite ignorant. I used the
same supercilious attitude on him that you're using on me.
Here is an article that was written in 1999. If I had read this in
1999, I'd have scoffed at it. It's really too bad more of us weren't
paying attention in 1999. Instead, most of us had our heads in the
sand (as many still do, including you).
"Islamic Terrorism in the United States"
http://www.nscf.net/terror
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
22 Feb 2004 06:48:47 PM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0402220029.3d58d947@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:<slrnc3fs40.7lj.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
In article <a2b35e99.0402200106.6c690a68@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Okay, *why* does the brutal Islamic government of Sudan enslave and
slaughter Christians in southern Sudan? Are you going to blame the
U.S. for that one too?
Too? Look Steven, this is not persecution. I am not out to attack
your identity as either a Christian or an American. I am attacking
an emotional reflex. A successful attack would see you, in time,
turn upon your own argument.
Why is it important to you that it is Christians being attacked in
the southern Sudan? Why are you not simply concerned that people
are being slaughtered?
Well, the discussion had turned to the three major monotheistic
religions. Of course you're right, the Islamic government of Sudan
enslaves and kills all those who disagree with their religious
doctrine.
As for the rest of your post, I'm going to save both of us a lot of
time. Prior to 9/11, my thoughts on this topic were very similar to
yours. In fact, on that very day, I got into an argument with a
coworker who said some things I considered quite ignorant. I used the
same supercilious attitude on him that you're using on me.
Here is an article that was written in 1999. If I had read this in
1999, I'd have scoffed at it. It's really too bad more of us weren't
paying attention in 1999. Instead, most of us had our heads in the
sand (as many still do, including you).
"Islamic Terrorism in the United States"
http://www.nscf.net/terror
Hmmm, well I can't say that I would have scoffed at the article.
I recall seeing some old billboards with slogans such as "Death
to the USA", and "We will not allow our destiny to be controlled
by the Superpowers", when I travelled through Iran in 1990. That
the despotic elements of the Iranian leadership (e.g. Khamenei
and Rafsanjani), might plot a violent counter to what they
perceive as the Satanic threat of Pax-Americana is not improbable.
And there is a very real animosity towards Israel spread
throughout the Arab world.
But that does not mean that Islam produces evil people. That
analysis would be inconsistent with the nature of a village
that opens it's best room to a traveller coming in from the
desert, or of the taxi driver that spent all day searching
for the man who had left his wallet in the back seat (and
who would not take any reward for returning it), or of the
thousands of Iranians who held candlelight vigils for the US,
and the victims of Sept. 11th. But those images don't feed
the emotional beast that gives meaning to the persecution
model. No, to feed the beast it's better to focus on the
extreme behaviours.
But is it the religion that changes the man, or the man
that changes the religion? I'd say both. All belief
systems (including atheistic belief systems) are malleable
mental constructs. Their interpretation is dependent upon
the experiences and emotional state of the interpreter,
just as they shape the experiences and emotional state of
interpreter. But ultimately it is emotional reflexes that
facilitate violence. If you want to overcome that reflex
you have to focus first on becoming aware of it.
Actually, if you set aside ideological differences and look
at the emotional personas of the likes of Khamenei and
Rafsanjani, you will probably find that their subsequent
patterns of reasoning are essentially the same as the likes
of Perle, Wolfowitz, and Kristol. Both parties see in their
adversary the great evil. Both see in themselves the great
hero. And damn it all, they will reap whatever destruction
they have too, to save their people, to save the world. And if
they should happen to gather some extra wealth in the process,
well it's just fair compensation for the difficult decisions
they've had to make, right?
Now look at how the emotional chains of the masses are
pulled. How is the fever illicted? What reflexes are fired?
And who's pulling those chains?
Probably the best description that I have seen yet for the
root cause of why young men join terrorist groups, was given
by Robin Morgan in an interview on Flashpoints. She and
her study group looked past the social and cultural
contexts that are used to justify the violence, and instead
looked at the common behaviours of as many terrorist groups
as they could, from Islamics, to Tamil Tigers, to White
Supremist Groups. What she and her group found was that the
behaviour was consistent with the hero fantasy. You know the
dark sunglasses, secret operations, being a member of an elite
combat team out to thwart an incredibly evil enemy. The same
fantasy that sets young men and women in the west to conjure
images of being secret agents thwarting terrorism. A desire
to be special.
The audio file containing Robin's interview is no longer on
the flashpoints server, but I can offer some of my own
observations regarding that phenomena, as captured on google:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BB3D73B.E871DA1%40telusplanet.net
If you focus on the people involved in conflict as groups
classified by good and evil, then you will feed the emotional
beast that drives the conflict. It is better to focus on the
people as people, good or bad. Try to see why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
23 Feb 2004 05:12:39 PM |
|
|
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc3ijfe.lpo.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
Probably the best description that I have seen yet for the
root cause of why young men join terrorist groups, was given
by Robin Morgan in an interview on Flashpoints. She and
her study group looked past the social and cultural
contexts that are used to justify the violence, and instead
looked at the common behaviours of as many terrorist groups
as they could, from Islamics, to Tamil Tigers, to White
Supremist Groups.
Setting aside the fact that Islamics account for FAR more terrorism on
a worldwide basis ...
What she and her group found was that the behaviour was consistent
with the hero fantasy. You know the dark sunglasses, secret
operations, being a member of an elite combat team out to
thwart an incredibly evil enemy. The same fantasy that sets
young men and women in the west to conjure images of being secret
agents thwarting terrorism. A desire to be special.
So terrorists don't really believe in a cause, they're just in it for
kicks? Sorry, that theory is about as simplistic as it gets.
Does that theory explain rioting in Nigeria, where Islamic
fundamentalists burned down a newspaper's offices and killed innocent
civilians -- because they didn't like something that was written about
the Miss World pagent?
Does that theory explain the horror of the disco bombing in Bali?
Does that theory explain the ongoing campaign of terror in the
Philippines?
Does that theory explain Chechen terrorism in Moscow?
If you focus on the people involved in conflict as groups
classified by good and evil, then you will feed the emotional
beast that drives the conflict. It is better to focus on the
people as people, good or bad. Try to see why.
Yes, I am well aware that most Muslims are good people. I've been very
specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamic
terrorists."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
25 Feb 2004 11:41:40 AM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0402231512.480352f2@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:<slrnc3ijfe.lpo.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
Probably the best description that I have seen yet for the
root cause of why young men join terrorist groups, was given
by Robin Morgan in an interview on Flashpoints. She and
her study group looked past the social and cultural
contexts that are used to justify the violence, and instead
looked at the common behaviours of as many terrorist groups
as they could, from Islamics, to Tamil Tigers, to White
Supremist Groups.
Setting aside the fact that Islamics account for FAR more terrorism on
a worldwide basis ...
"From 1991 through the end of 2002, 8,924 people were killed
in attacks by international terrorists, according to the U.S.
State Department."
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0402c.asp (quote source)
We are all outraged by terrorism, and all frightened by it's
potential. But put it into perspective. You're not outraged
by traffic deaths, or deaths due to starvation, disease,
cluster bombs, daisy cutters, sanctions, or little Johnny
down the street. So what is it that makes Islamic terrorism
so special to you? What is that you really fear?
What she and her group found was that the behaviour was consistent
with the hero fantasy. You know the dark sunglasses, secret
operations, being a member of an elite combat team out to
thwart an incredibly evil enemy. The same fantasy that sets
young men and women in the west to conjure images of being secret
agents thwarting terrorism. A desire to be special.
So terrorists don't really believe in a cause, they're just in it for
kicks? Sorry, that theory is about as simplistic as it gets.
Oh they believe. Belief gives meaning. But simplistic, no.
This is something that you may not get right away, but try
to observe how your thoughts form. Focus in on your primary
thread of consciousness, and then pay attention to the
malleability of your thoughts. Watch how they are shaped
by different internal desires. Your reasoning will wrap
most strongly around whichever desire gains strongest voice.
All the other desires exist in parallel with your primary
thread of consciousness, but their influence will vary
dependent on your mood and which you choose to place
importance on. Belief in any meaning depends on upon
the desires that drive it.
If you are primarily a visual thinker, you might do this
by focusing on how you can bring up different images in
your mind. You might look at a tree, and then close your
eyes keeping that image in your mind. How many branches
are there? Can you count them with your eyes closed? What
colour is the bird on the lower branch? Was that lower
branch actually there, or did your mind add it in?
Was the bird there? How are your mental images effected
by music, by the movie you watched recently, by the person
you just saw? The images are malleable.
An even more appropriate context for this media is the
thread of consciousness built around language. Language
gives our thoughts structure. As such, we use that
structure not only to express ourselves, but to facilitate
a process of reasoning, of constructing arguments. To
experiment with this, pick a topic upon which you are
undecided, and think of an argument to support a particular
point of view. Now change your point of view, and argue
it from a different point of view. Do it again, and
again. Your arguments are malleable (not real).
You've demonstrated this ability within this very
thread. You started with a denouncement of a
monotheistic religion, and then moved the argument
as needed to support the desire that spawned it.
Right now you're trying to argue that terrorists
have a purposeful cause for committing murder. And
then further down you'll narrow the argument to try
and say that it is focused upon a specific group,
and not the religion as a whole. So your argument
is malleable, but what is the real driving desire
behind it?
My arguments also are malleable, as are my desires.
Am I arguing in support of terrorism? Do you think
I would support murder? What is the point of my
argument? What am I attacking?
Does that theory explain rioting in Nigeria, where Islamic
fundamentalists burned down a newspaper's offices and killed innocent
civilians -- because they didn't like something that was written about
the Miss World pagent?
Rioting is not the same as terrorism. It is more
spontaneous, less nurtured.
I can't remember what the specific objections were
to the Miss World pageant that brought on the rioting,
but the magnitude of the reaction is interesting in
that it is centered upon conformance to an artificial
protocol. You and I might disagree about the benefits
associated with beauty pageants, but our cultural
background would almost guarantee that we would not
see a pageant as being particularly harmful. Certainly
we would not consider a pageant to be something worth
rioting over.
But what if it were an issue of the American flag?
What if a special interest group lobbied to have the
flag changed, and succeeded in convincing some liberal
government body that it was the right thing to do.
Do you think that there would be any protests or
rioting? It's a piece of coloured cloth. Certainly
not something worth getting violent about. But let's
face it some people would take it very seriously.
Why?
Does that theory explain the horror of the disco bombing in Bali?
Does that theory explain the ongoing campaign of terror in the
Philippines?
Does that theory explain Chechen terrorism in Moscow?
The Chechen case probably leans more towards being a
facet of war than immaturity. In their case, there is
open, localized conflict. Emotional factors would of
course still play a role, but the choice to engage is
not so removed as it would be in the case of joining
an international terrorist group such as Al Qaida.
And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there isn't
a whole gamut of other emotions involved. For the
Palestinian whose brother was murdered in front of him,
it's not for kicks. For those surrounded by, and
consumed by the carnage of war it may or may not be
for kicks. But don't tell me that the boys in Tora Bora
and the boys that pulled off 9/11, weren't getting off
on their cloak and dagger adrenalin rush. That would be
like saying that the American soldier who declares "it's
pay back time for the ragheads" isn't in it for kicks.
If you focus on the people involved in conflict as groups
classified by good and evil, then you will feed the emotional
beast that drives the conflict. It is better to focus on the
people as people, good or bad. Try to see why.
Yes, I am well aware that most Muslims are good people. I've been very
specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamic
terrorists."
You may be narrowing the classification, but you are still
feeding that emotional beast. You just can't see it yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
25 Feb 2004 09:53:06 PM |
|
|
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc3pnik.kcl.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
We are all outraged by terrorism, and all frightened by it's
potential. But put it into perspective. You're not outraged
by traffic deaths, or deaths due to starvation, disease,
[snip, as my eyes glaze over from reading your lengthy, long winded,
tedious, and excessively wordy reply]
First of all, how the hell do you know what does or doesn't outrage
me?
And next, hasn't anyone ever told you of the value in being concise?
You're far more likely to hold a reader's attention if you are
concise.
So what is it that makes Islamic terrorism so special to you?
My first post in this thread was a response to someone who made snide
remark about historical Christianity. I responded by pointing out that
Christianity had gone through reformation a long time ago, and
wondered when the Islamic fundamentalist reformation might happen? By
the way, the question still stands if you'd like to take it on (and if
you do, please try to be concise).
Rioting is not the same as terrorism. It is more
spontaneous, less nurtured.
For the innocent people who died, it probably felt like terrorism.
I can't remember what the specific objections were
to the Miss World pageant that brought on the rioting,
The Islamic rioters were offended because someone said Mohammed would
have probably wanted to marry one of the beauty pagent contestants. It
was a stupid comment, but not worth the death and destruction that
ensued.
Finally, when I wrote:
Yes, I am well aware that most Muslims are good people. I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and
"Islamic terrorists."
You replied:
You may be narrowing the classification, but you are still
feeding that emotional beast. You just can't see it yet.
The only thing narrowing is your comprehension of what I have written
in this thread. One more time (please pay close attention), I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamic
terrorists."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
26 Feb 2004 11:48:33 AM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0402251953.6e24b62c@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:<slrnc3pnik.kcl.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
We are all outraged by terrorism, and all frightened by it's
potential. But put it into perspective. You're not outraged
by traffic deaths, or deaths due to starvation, disease,
[snip, as my eyes glaze over from reading your lengthy, long winded,
tedious, and excessively wordy reply]
First of all, how the hell do you know what does or doesn't outrage
me?
It's rhetoric. Your emphasis on a single group as a destructive
entity fails to recognize that western moral standards are also
in need of some serious evaluation. Stating that you are not
outraged by these other deaths is a way of saying wake-up. There
are a lot of bigger problems than fundamentalists, and we are not
innocent.
And next, hasn't anyone ever told you of the value in being concise?
You're far more likely to hold a reader's attention if you are
concise.
True.
So what is it that makes Islamic terrorism so special to you?
My first post in this thread was a response to someone who made snide
remark about historical Christianity. I responded by pointing out that
Christianity had gone through reformation a long time ago, and
wondered when the Islamic fundamentalist reformation might happen? By
the way, the question still stands if you'd like to take it on (and if
you do, please try to be concise).
Rioting is not the same as terrorism. It is more
spontaneous, less nurtured.
For the innocent people who died, it probably felt like terrorism.
Yes, any violent death would be terrorizing.
I can't remember what the specific objections were
to the Miss World pageant that brought on the rioting,
The Islamic rioters were offended because someone said Mohammed would
have probably wanted to marry one of the beauty pagent contestants. It
was a stupid comment, but not worth the death and destruction that
ensued.
Yes it was a stupid comment, and should have been left at that.
But the violent reaction is not a problem limited to Islamic
fundamentalists. It is a problem of how humans define meaning
and process.
Finally, when I wrote:
Yes, I am well aware that most Muslims are good people. I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and
"Islamic terrorists."
You replied:
You may be narrowing the classification, but you are still
feeding that emotional beast. You just can't see it yet.
The only thing narrowing is your comprehension of what I have written
in this thread. One more time (please pay close attention), I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamic
terrorists."
Yes, most Islamic fundamentalists have a problem. They
have convinced themselves so strongly of their own self
righteousness that they are blinded to the destruction
they spread.
Most Christians have the same problem.
Most atheists have the same problem.
Etc.
So why do I keep hammering you about that emotional reflex?
Because that is the source of violence. Conflict resides in
the mind, that is where it must be ended.
I'll try to make this concise.
Jesus was a real man. Read the Gospel of Thomas. He was a
profound philosopher. He was not supernatural. The walking
on water, etc. were embellishments, probably added by the
Romans.
A real man, who understood that he could not throw himself
off a cliff and survive, died so that his people could
have their saviour. That is love. It is not supernatural.
What he left are his words, his philosophies.
They are incredible, but they only work if the
philosopy is heeded. Idolatry does not work.
You are not going to heaven. Your heaven is here.
Few people would accept that then, they had no reason too.
It is only recently that modern science has been able
to start understanding how thought is generated.
It is a physical process.
God's not going to make the peace, we have too.
That means looking inside. No more scapegoats.
Blame perpetuates the violence. Understanding why we
do the things we do, opens the door to resolution.
Why do you think Jesus advocated loving (i.e. respecting)
your enemy? What is the sense in that statement?
--
None of this would matter except for one thing, technology.
Man has always had a carnal nature, and will undoubtedly
continue to have such for some time, c'est la vie. It's a fact
that we have to learn to accept. People fight, wars happen,
you can't stop it. But technology necessitates learning how.
On an evolutionary scale, we are like a teenager grasping the
keys to the car without the benefit of a driving instructor.
We are about to play with the fabric of life in ways for which
mankind on a whole has not demonstrated suitable maturity.
Our advance is a positive thing, but the potential for disaster
is huge. So how do we accelerate our maturity to match our
knowledge?
All my earlier blathering was about trying to get you to
look at the physical process that is you. What are you?
What does it mean to be human?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
27 Feb 2004 01:49:10 AM |
|
|
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc3scbp.hru.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
It's rhetoric. Your emphasis on a single group as a destructive
entity fails to recognize that western moral standards are also
in need of some serious evaluation.
You're must be comparing western societies to utopia. In that case,
you're right -- western societies fall far short of utopia. Now make a
comparison of the two societies under discussion here. How can you
possibly suggest some sort of equivalence?
Yes, most Islamic fundamentalists have a problem. They
have convinced themselves so strongly of their own self
righteousness that they are blinded to the destruction
they spread.
Most Christians have the same problem.
Most?
Most atheists have the same problem.
Most?
Etc.
Etc.?
So why do I keep hammering you about that emotional reflex?
Because that is the source of violence. Conflict resides in
the mind, that is where it must be ended.
There is a serious threat from a segment of people who want to remake
our society into one that resembles theirs. Yes, the conflict resides
in their minds and they need to be defeated.
I'll try to make this concise.
Jesus was a real man. Read the Gospel of Thomas.
Ah yes, doubting Thomas. That's fine, there are various
interpretations of Jesus. What is more important than any one
interpretation is awareness of his message. I'm very comfortable with
the Jesus I know and love.
All my earlier blathering was about trying to get you to
look at the physical process that is you. What are you?
What does it mean to be human?
It means finding a balance between our carnal and spiritual natures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
27 Feb 2004 03:47:50 AM |
|
|
"And when he heard the sound of many birds within the trees,
he knew there would be but a few footprints in the sand."
IOTW: It doesn't matter. ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
26 Feb 2004 12:10:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:48:33 GMT, Michael Hambly
<michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402251953.6e24b62c@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:<slrnc3pnik.kcl.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
We are all outraged by terrorism, and all frightened by it's
potential. But put it into perspective. You're not outraged
by traffic deaths, or deaths due to starvation, disease,
[snip, as my eyes glaze over from reading your lengthy, long winded,
tedious, and excessively wordy reply]
First of all, how the hell do you know what does or doesn't outrage
me?
It's rhetoric. Your emphasis on a single group as a destructive
entity fails to recognize that western moral standards are also
in need of some serious evaluation. Stating that you are not
outraged by these other deaths is a way of saying wake-up. There
are a lot of bigger problems than fundamentalists, and we are not
innocent.
And next, hasn't anyone ever told you of the value in being concise?
You're far more likely to hold a reader's attention if you are
concise.
True.
So what is it that makes Islamic terrorism so special to you?
My first post in this thread was a response to someone who made snide
remark about historical Christianity. I responded by pointing out that
Christianity had gone through reformation a long time ago, and
wondered when the Islamic fundamentalist reformation might happen? By
the way, the question still stands if you'd like to take it on (and if
you do, please try to be concise).
Rioting is not the same as terrorism. It is more
spontaneous, less nurtured.
For the innocent people who died, it probably felt like terrorism.
Yes, any violent death would be terrorizing.
I can't remember what the specific objections were
to the Miss World pageant that brought on the rioting,
The Islamic rioters were offended because someone said Mohammed would
have probably wanted to marry one of the beauty pagent contestants. It
was a stupid comment, but not worth the death and destruction that
ensued.
Yes it was a stupid comment, and should have been left at that.
But the violent reaction is not a problem limited to Islamic
fundamentalists. It is a problem of how humans define meaning
and process.
Finally, when I wrote:
Yes, I am well aware that most Muslims are good people. I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and
"Islamic terrorists."
You replied:
You may be narrowing the classification, but you are still
feeding that emotional beast. You just can't see it yet.
The only thing narrowing is your comprehension of what I have written
in this thread. One more time (please pay close attention), I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamic
terrorists."
Yes, most Islamic fundamentalists have a problem. They
have convinced themselves so strongly of their own self
righteousness that they are blinded to the destruction
they spread.
Most Christians have the same problem.
Most atheists have the same problem.
Etc.
So why do I keep hammering you about that emotional reflex?
Because that is the source of violence. Conflict resides in
the mind, that is where it must be ended.
I'll try to make this concise.
Jesus was a real man. Read the Gospel of Thomas. He was a
profound philosopher. He was not supernatural. The walking
on water, etc. were embellishments, probably added by the
Romans.
A real man, who understood that he could not throw himself
off a cliff and survive, died so that his people could
have their saviour. That is love. It is not supernatural.
What he left are his words, his philosophies.
They are incredible, but they only work if the
philosopy is heeded. Idolatry does not work.
You are not going to heaven. Your heaven is here.
Few people would accept that then, they had no reason too.
It is only recently that modern science has been able
to start understanding how thought is generated.
It is a physical process.
God's not going to make the peace, we have too.
That means looking inside. No more scapegoats.
Blame perpetuates the violence. Understanding why we
do the things we do, opens the door to resolution.
Why do you think Jesus advocated loving (i.e. respecting)
your enemy? What is the sense in that statement?
Wow, this is really an excellent post. I have a lot of the same
thoughts. The only thing I disagree with here is that *this* is
Heaven (what a ***** deal if that's the case) .. This is not Heaven.
This is where we all have our own personal "Cross to bear". This is
where we become the people we're going to be when we physically leave
this world and our souls descend to Heaven. Some don't make it; some
get sent back to "try again" (didn't get it right the first time
there, Charlie! Off ya go..)
I call this life school.
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
26 Feb 2004 08:11:27 PM |
|
|
In article <llds30lh2lijpi3jps5usftq788rrakrl5@4ax.com>, Dani <dani7200@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:48:33 GMT, Michael Hambly
<michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402251953.6e24b62c@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:<slrnc3pnik.kcl.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
We are all outraged by terrorism, and all frightened by it's
potential. But put it into perspective. You're not outraged
by traffic deaths, or deaths due to starvation, disease,
[snip, as my eyes glaze over from reading your lengthy, long winded,
tedious, and excessively wordy reply]
First of all, how the hell do you know what does or doesn't outrage
me?
It's rhetoric. Your emphasis on a single group as a destructive
entity fails to recognize that western moral standards are also
in need of some serious evaluation. Stating that you are not
outraged by these other deaths is a way of saying wake-up. There
are a lot of bigger problems than fundamentalists, and we are not
innocent.
And next, hasn't anyone ever told you of the value in being concise?
You're far more likely to hold a reader's attention if you are
concise.
True.
So what is it that makes Islamic terrorism so special to you?
My first post in this thread was a response to someone who made snide
remark about historical Christianity. I responded by pointing out that
Christianity had gone through reformation a long time ago, and
wondered when the Islamic fundamentalist reformation might happen? By
the way, the question still stands if you'd like to take it on (and if
you do, please try to be concise).
Rioting is not the same as terrorism. It is more
spontaneous, less nurtured.
For the innocent people who died, it probably felt like terrorism.
Yes, any violent death would be terrorizing.
I can't remember what the specific objections were
to the Miss World pageant that brought on the rioting,
The Islamic rioters were offended because someone said Mohammed would
have probably wanted to marry one of the beauty pagent contestants. It
was a stupid comment, but not worth the death and destruction that
ensued.
Yes it was a stupid comment, and should have been left at that.
But the violent reaction is not a problem limited to Islamic
fundamentalists. It is a problem of how humans define meaning
and process.
Finally, when I wrote:
Yes, I am well aware that most Muslims are good people. I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and
"Islamic terrorists."
You replied:
You may be narrowing the classification, but you are still
feeding that emotional beast. You just can't see it yet.
The only thing narrowing is your comprehension of what I have written
in this thread. One more time (please pay close attention), I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamic
terrorists."
Yes, most Islamic fundamentalists have a problem. They
have convinced themselves so strongly of their own self
righteousness that they are blinded to the destruction
they spread.
Most Christians have the same problem.
Most atheists have the same problem.
Etc.
So why do I keep hammering you about that emotional reflex?
Because that is the source of violence. Conflict resides in
the mind, that is where it must be ended.
I'll try to make this concise.
Jesus was a real man. Read the Gospel of Thomas. He was a
profound philosopher. He was not supernatural. The walking
on water, etc. were embellishments, probably added by the
Romans.
A real man, who understood that he could not throw himself
off a cliff and survive, died so that his people could
have their saviour. That is love. It is not supernatural.
What he left are his words, his philosophies.
They are incredible, but they only work if the
philosopy is heeded. Idolatry does not work.
You are not going to heaven. Your heaven is here.
Few people would accept that then, they had no reason too.
It is only recently that modern science has been able
to start understanding how thought is generated.
It is a physical process.
God's not going to make the peace, we have too.
That means looking inside. No more scapegoats.
Blame perpetuates the violence. Understanding why we
do the things we do, opens the door to resolution.
Why do you think Jesus advocated loving (i.e. respecting)
your enemy? What is the sense in that statement?
Wow, this is really an excellent post. I have a lot of the same
thoughts. The only thing I disagree with here is that *this* is
Heaven (what a ***** deal if that's the case) .. This is not Heaven.
This is where we all have our own personal "Cross to bear". This is
where we become the people we're going to be when we physically leave
this world and our souls descend to Heaven. Some don't make it; some
get sent back to "try again" (didn't get it right the first time
there, Charlie! Off ya go..)
I call this life school.
I would go a bit further and say that this ~can~ be Heaven, but once we've
gotten to that point, why the heck would we stay here? I think this was the
true sacrifice of Jesus - He left Heaven, even though He did not personally need
it, to show us the Way. That was a huge sacrifice, IMHO.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
26 Feb 2004 12:37:27 PM |
|
|
In article <llds30lh2lijpi3jps5usftq788rrakrl5@4ax.com>, Dani wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:48:33 GMT, Michael Hambly
<michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote:
In article <a2b35e99.0402251953.6e24b62c@posting.google.com>,
Steven Douglas wrote:
Michael Hambly <michael@blackbirdsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:<slrnc3pnik.kcl.michael@hammer.i.blackbirdsoftware.com>...
We are all outraged by terrorism, and all frightened by it's
potential. But put it into perspective. You're not outraged
by traffic deaths, or deaths due to starvation, disease,
[snip, as my eyes glaze over from reading your lengthy, long winded,
tedious, and excessively wordy reply]
First of all, how the hell do you know what does or doesn't outrage
me?
It's rhetoric. Your emphasis on a single group as a destructive
entity fails to recognize that western moral standards are also
in need of some serious evaluation. Stating that you are not
outraged by these other deaths is a way of saying wake-up. There
are a lot of bigger problems than fundamentalists, and we are not
innocent.
And next, hasn't anyone ever told you of the value in being concise?
You're far more likely to hold a reader's attention if you are
concise.
True.
So what is it that makes Islamic terrorism so special to you?
My first post in this thread was a response to someone who made snide
remark about historical Christianity. I responded by pointing out that
Christianity had gone through reformation a long time ago, and
wondered when the Islamic fundamentalist reformation might happen? By
the way, the question still stands if you'd like to take it on (and if
you do, please try to be concise).
Rioting is not the same as terrorism. It is more
spontaneous, less nurtured.
For the innocent people who died, it probably felt like terrorism.
Yes, any violent death would be terrorizing.
I can't remember what the specific objections were
to the Miss World pageant that brought on the rioting,
The Islamic rioters were offended because someone said Mohammed would
have probably wanted to marry one of the beauty pagent contestants. It
was a stupid comment, but not worth the death and destruction that
ensued.
Yes it was a stupid comment, and should have been left at that.
But the violent reaction is not a problem limited to Islamic
fundamentalists. It is a problem of how humans define meaning
and process.
Finally, when I wrote:
Yes, I am well aware that most Muslims are good people. I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and
"Islamic terrorists."
You replied:
You may be narrowing the classification, but you are still
feeding that emotional beast. You just can't see it yet.
The only thing narrowing is your comprehension of what I have written
in this thread. One more time (please pay close attention), I've been
very specific in referring to "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Islamic
terrorists."
Yes, most Islamic fundamentalists have a problem. They
have convinced themselves so strongly of their own self
righteousness that they are blinded to the destruction
they spread.
Most Christians have the same problem.
Most atheists have the same problem.
Etc.
So why do I keep hammering you about that emotional reflex?
Because that is the source of violence. Conflict resides in
the mind, that is where it must be ended.
I'll try to make this concise.
Jesus was a real man. Read the Gospel of Thomas. He was a
profound philosopher. He was not supernatural. The walking
on water, etc. were embellishments, probably added by the
Romans.
A real man, who understood that he could not throw himself
off a cliff and survive, died so that his people could
have their saviour. That is love. It is not supernatural.
What he left are his words, his philosophies.
They are incredible, but they only work if the
philosopy is heeded. Idolatry does not work.
You are not going to heaven. Your heaven is here.
Few people would accept that then, they had no reason too.
It is only recently that modern science has been able
to start understanding how thought is generated.
It is a physical process.
God's not going to make the peace, we have too.
That means looking inside. No more scapegoats.
Blame perpetuates the violence. Understanding why we
do the things we do, opens the door to resolution.
Why do you think Jesus advocated loving (i.e. respecting)
your enemy? What is the sense in that statement?
Wow, this is really an excellent post. I have a lot of the same
thoughts. The only thing I disagree with here is that *this* is
Heaven (what a ***** deal if that's the case) .. This is not Heaven.
This is where we all have our own personal "Cross to bear". This is
where we become the people we're going to be when we physically leave
this world and our souls descend to Heaven. Some don't make it; some
get sent back to "try again" (didn't get it right the first time
there, Charlie! Off ya go..)
I call this life school.
Dani
http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas3.html
http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas29.html
http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas109.html
http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas113.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Saint Isidore of Laytonville" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
23 Feb 2004 11:56:29 AM |
|
|
http://www.abrieflookattomorrow.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hambly" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
25 Feb 2004 11:34:32 AM |
|
|
In article <20040223125629.20595.00000216@mb-m28.aol.com>,
Saint Isidore of Laytonville wrote:
http://www.abrieflookattomorrow.com/
You know when I first posted that link back in Sept of 2001
I included it primarily because it was my first post to APN,
and I thought that maybe I should try to stay on topic. But
also I was a curious to see what other takes there might be
on LC Thomas' theory. A Brief Look At Tomorrow was my first
encounter both with interpretations of Nostradmus, and with
conspiracy theories.
Normally I would have probably paid it little heed. In fact
the only reason I encountered the ABLAT site was because of
rumours related to Nostradmus and a quatrain about the twin
towers (subsequently proved to be a fake). Curiosity led me
to first that site and then APN. LC Thomas' theories seemed
pretty over the top to me at first, but set against a crazy
backdrop of collapsing skyscrapers, anthrax, and talk about
nuking a country of 21 million people it actually seemed to
make some sense. It was even more disturbing when I noticed
that he had tagged bin Laden early, and predicted an attack
on New York for the fall of 2001. Coupled with declarations
of "You're with us, or against us", and the subsequent fear,
I could not help but question what it all meant.
Since then I have learned a lot. I've learned that patterns
exist everywhere, and that the human brain can be very good
at detecting those patterns. But that doesn't automatically
imply that the patterns have the meanings that conditioning
or desire might have us assume. The perception of a pattern
does not necessarily mean that it is preordained. I've also
learned that conspiracies can be real, but that the motives
may be more gray than we normally like to accept. Behind it
all there exists real people making fucked up decisions. To
cling to a need for supernatural meaning, means accepting a
perception of reality that is dominated by the ego.
Challenging the perception of the meaning of life, requires
a willingness to accept the reality of death. A willingness
to accept that life does not revolve around the self. It is
at first a barren realization, but behind it lies a door to
an opportunity to be truly awed that the Universe exists at
all. In front of that, our reasons for fighting seem little.
--
P.S.I've also learned that doing a DJMin style lining up of
the columns, is not so magical as it might first appear. ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Saint Isidore of Laytonville" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
22 Feb 2004 10:55:58 AM |
|
|
Latest Haiti scientific research suggest it was a
drunk soldier named Antonio Arnold Goldberg.
The Psychedelick Pope
Saint Isidore of Laytonville
^Ö^ Patron Saint of the Internet ^Ö^
°°^Ö^ °°
http://apple2.org.za/gswv/me
AOXOMOXOA and ENESSA QUA ONNICA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gerald" |
|
| Title: Re: Who Killed Jesus? |
18 Feb 2004 02:09:38 PM |
|
|
In article <13013-403204DC-29@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net>, sUSAn B Anthony
says...
ST. AUGUSTINE, FL --
Actor Mel Gibson's controversial new film, The Passion of the Christ,
has been coming under intense criticism for months now.
The answer lies plainly in the scriptures. There are four centers to blame.
Obviously since Rome alone had authority to kill Jesus and did in fact execute
him, blame the procurator Pilate. Since the Apostle Judas fingered Jesus for
the Sanhedrin thugs, blame Judas. Since the Jewish religious authorities were
the ones who arranged it and insisted upon it, blame them. Of course it is only
these specific people involved in the act in some way who can be blamed by the
foregoing considerations but these are probably fewer than a hundred. What's
left out is all human beings from Adam until the end of time. Christ came to
earth to save mankind from its estrangement from God by reason of s | |
