Yes there is extremism in Christianity


Retired_Can_Soldier
#1
Over the span of my lifetime I have seen many things which made me question organized reliigion. My first exposure to extremism was the Jonestown massacre in Guyana in 1978 in which approximately 913 people were led to their Death by their leader Jim Jones.

David Coresh at Waco Texas was another who gave way to using Christianity in conjunction with murder of the innocents. While many groups claim it was the US Government that burned Camp Davidian and its occupants to the ground. Most people understand that Coresh was a extremist who abused his power so that he could control his followers.

911 of course was one of the most horrific senseless acts on the part of an extremists. The murder of innocents was found from an idea that their way was better and that a God would reward the slaughter of innocent people.

Now a new savage idea is being allowed to run amok promoting hate and given time will morph into something darker and more dangerous.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his followers believe soldiers' deaths and serious injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan are God's punishment for the United States tolerating homosexuality, Until recently they been protesting outside the funerals of soldiers, but are being blocked by citizens and groups trying to protect the families of fallen soldiers.

Their tactic is changing. Now they're promising to protest outside every VA hospital. These sick monsters can be seen carrying signs which read: "Thank God for maimed soldiers." or "God hates Fags."

Extremism is a dangerous thing and people like this are sick creatures. They are as dangerous as Hamas, as Al Quada or Charlie Manson.

We can make no excuse for this hate mongering and those who would share blame for their actions. A very dear friend of mine is a MInister of the church and his Son is gay and he understands fully that it is not a choice, it is a decision made by nature or god or both.

I also have a friend who still serves that came out after 12 years serving his Country. He is one of the best soldiers I have had the pleasure of serving with and given a Combat situation I would be confident to be a part of his section or even his fire team partner.

So what is the purpose of my post here? I suppose it is just perspective and to disperse stupid comments or accusations.

In my Canada, everyone should be free, everyone is equal and hate and ignorance should never be tolerated or excused. Mr. Phelps, Mr. Bin Laden and their supporters might profess to be different, but they are very much the same in that they are self righteous hypocrites who know nothing of God or his will.

Here's to free speech!
M
 
FiveParadox
#2
Hear, hear, Retired_Can_Soldier .
 
Finder
#3
I must agree with you that organized has many problems with twisting religous doctrine to meet the goals of those who are in the top of the hierarchy, or the perceived collective goals of the group, depending on our it is orginized. It would seem the so called religions of the book Koran, Bible, and Torrah has some of the worst ongoing history of violance and extremism as all three magor religions are actually closely related to one another. However religous extremism is not isolated to the "religion of the books" but to almost any religion you can think of to very degree's of extremism.

Though you have found your own enlightment on this issue with seeing the faults of orginized religion I would put forth to you that the goal of our society and any enlightend society were to further the seculer puplic life of the state and leave religous one's to a individual and private choice for one to take hold of to one self and not take offence if others do not agree with them (such as prayers at school and what not).

Though many on the Chrisiian right believe this type of argument is an attack on their rights and an act of the devil and those of none religous people, I would say it is nothing of the above. In all three religions what matters most is not how one is seen by others, indeed this is frowned at. Truly the only meaningful religous expirance is the personal relationship you have between "god" and yourself and not between yourself and the church.

Now perhaps most of what I just said has a deist leaning to it as I have admitted that I am more or less a "Christian" Deist, but it is the one which makes most sence to me, and the one which to myself appearsto be most tolerant. A seculer nation may not please the Temples, Churches and Mosques but it is one which should please many individuals.
 
zoofer
#4
There are more idiot nutters who are not Christians as there are those who are Christians. Stalin and Mao killed more innocent people than any Christian. Christianity imbues a sense of right and wrong in people. Governments should be secular and the population should at least be taught the eleven Commandments.
I made the 11th one up.
It says "Don't mess with Texas".
 
Cosmo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

Christianity imbues a sense of right and wrong in people.

So does most other spiritual belief systems. *shrug* The problem is whether people choose to follow that sense of right and wrong and that has little or nothing to do with religion, imo. Of course being raised catholic did substantially increase my sense of guilt, even when it wasn't warranted. Not always a good thing.

I agree that government needs to be secular. Separation of church and state is essential for any kind of true freedom. We don't all follow the same holy books.

Extremists come in every stripe ... and I have yet to meet a zealot that isn't fueled by fear. Pretty sad.
 
Finder
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

There are more idiot nutters who are not Christians as there are those who are Christians. Stalin and Mao killed more innocent people than any Christian. Christianity imbues a sense of right and wrong in people. Governments should be secular and the population should at least be taught the eleven Commandments.
I made the 11th one up.
It says "Don't mess with Texas".

"Don't mess with Texas"

But why, it's easy to annex. The Americans did.

Anyhow people like Stalin and Mao, also killed many more seculer people, communists, socialists, Liberals, in Stalins case anyone who he didn't think supported him he had a simple solution... kill or sends to kulacg to die slower. Mao on the other hand allowed his nation to unlesh what could be seen as a permanent revolution which killed largely the old communist order and what was left of the capitalist class.

zoofer, you do bring up a good point that seculerism at the hands of a tyrant be it Stalin, Mao or even Maximilien Robespierre, in the name of a unproven theory can bring just as bad results as a funimental religous society.

HOWEVER, seculerism as mused by the enlightend Republican founders of the USA, though explained in a Deist manner which left it open for future generations to misinterupt as the Christian right currently does, had a ton of removing Church and State, which many of the enlightend Republican desists who penned the declarition of independance and constitution believed in.

Though like many documents of the American revolution today they are misinterupted all too often by people who do not understand the beliefsof there forfathers, instead apply their own ignorance to the historic documents.
 
Finder
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Cosmo

Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

Christianity imbues a sense of right and wrong in people.

So does most other spiritual belief systems. *shrug* The problem is whether people choose to follow that sense of right and wrong and that has little or nothing to do with religion, imo. Of course being raised catholic did substantially increase my sense of guilt, even when it wasn't warranted. Not always a good thing.

I agree that government needs to be secular. Separation of church and state is essential for any kind of true freedom. We don't all follow the same holy books.

Extremists come in every stripe ... and I have yet to meet a zealot that isn't fueled by fear. Pretty sad.


Agreed but as long as you do not have seculerism replace religion as a cult you should do fine. Liberal seculerism is the best way to go. Replacing it with a cult of personality is not.
 
Cosmo
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Agreed but as long as you do not have seculerism replace religion as a cult you should do fine. Liberal seculerism is the best way to go. Replacing it with a cult of personality is not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing it with a cult of personality", Finder, but am most interested to hear your opinion on it.

I have an aversion to any organized religion. I have no quarrel with those that find value in it, but it just isn't for me. When dogma replaces common sense and decency, I think religion becomes detrimental. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
 
Finder
#9
You have to excuse me I'm not one of those people who cut and paste articles or winipedia docs as a post so I'll give you an easy to understand version. The Cult of personality is generally used by extremist governments in place of a national religion, where the "leader" is seen as the great "hero" of the nation or party. Though this can often take different forms and the leader or hero does not have to be alive as long as it relfects the current administration. Such leaders, heros and what not can be found in history and even to this current day. Currently one of the biggest cult of personalities which go far and wide out side of the source nation for the cult is the Cult of Personaility around Che in Cuba and really around the world for the Cubian type communism which is starkly different to that of the Soviet union and Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe the cult of personaility was often reflected by the current leader of the communist states. For instance Chowchescu (sp) in Romania. Also in almost all Eastern European nations under communism a super man figure/Hero was also deified by that of V.I. Lenin who had thousands of statues around Eastern Europe, parts of Africa, Asia and Cuba.

In history, Stalin, Hitler and Mao had strong cults of personaility around their respective leaderships which faded slowly after their deaths. Also some kings have had cult of personailities during their lives. Recently Kim2 from NK's cult of personility represents the traditional sence of the great leader and hero being deified by the people.

Cult of Personailities are in general not a really good thing. Though it is hard to draw the line at admiration and where cult of the personaility starts. As both can have simuler appearances at least at first.
 
fuzzylogix
#10
Religion is humans way of celebrating the incredible mystery and awe of life. All human beings have ways of celebrating the mystery that is religion, whether by envisioning one God, or many Gods, or by embracing an ideology of nature. There is no right answer. The only right resolution is a meaning that comes out of it for each individual.


Organized religion is a way of humans coming together to create a power base. Organized religions pit their members against other religions. This is no different than sports teams pitting against each other. History has not changed. From the initial days of humanity, religion has been used as an excuse to take something from someone else.

Nonextremism is as dangerous as extremism. When we begin to compare OUR religion as being better or more rational or less atrocious than THEIR religion, we are being as dangerous as they are. We are using religion to explain a situation that is based on a power struggle and has nothing to do with religion.
 
cortezzz
#11
how about just pushing the reset button and doing away with religion-----
or--- how could this be done
the question we ned to ask is how to make life so satisfying and complete that the illusion of an afterlife andd another --- higher mystical world -- or even -- greater purpose arent nessessary
 
Said1
#12
That's when you would be answered with Pascal's wager. To which I would respond with the classic "talk to the hand", Cortezzzzzzz.
 
#juan
#13
Retired_Can_Soldier.wrote:
Quote:

Over the span of my lifetime I have seen many things which made me question organized reliigion. My first exposure to extremism was the Jonestown massacre in Guyana in 1978 in which approximately 913 people were led to their Death by their leader Jim Jones.

David Coresh at Waco Texas was another who gave way to using Christianity in conjunction with murder of the innocents. While many groups claim it was the US Government that burned Camp Davidian and its occupants to the ground. Most people understand that Coresh was a extremist who abused his power so that he could control his followers.

911 of course was one of the most horrific senseless acts on the part of an extremists. The murder of innocents was found from an idea that their way was better and that a God would reward the slaughter of innocent people.

The Jonestown massacre, and the events at Waco were brought about by religious extremists right enough, but 9/11, was brought on, by U.S. foreign policy, or the lack it. I don't condone such an attack but since the Danish cartoon incident, we know the Muslim response to perceived insult. Fifty odd years of one-sided support of Israel, among other things, has made enemies for the U.S. throughout the Arab world. 9/11 was a direct result of that foreign policy.
 
darkbeaver
#14
There is extremeism in Christianity, the statement is simple enough, or is it to simple, no other religion has been even remotely close to the kind and scale of human depravation as
Christianity.We can redily see in the light of modern archeology and history that none of the tennants or traditions of the modern christian church are correct nor have they ever been, to continue to give it the tacid position and respect it has traditionally come to expect in our western civilization is insane. To inflict it upon children is criminal phycological abuse. The most important icon of christianity is santa claus, christmas has become the giant christian orgy, it,s where and when the highest ideals of our world come together in a credit carnival of mindless gluttony and bullshit.
 
Curiosity
#15
What worldly fingerpointing....

I assume Canada has no extremes in any religious group?

Are we only examining Christian religion or are other religions permitted in this??? But if you are tackling Christianity only -

I might remind some people Family Law had to be rewritten in modern times to remove much of the policies of the Roman Catholic Church which literally dictated the mores and practices of marriage, childbirth, cohabitation, etc. of Canadians for decades.

Even those who were non-Catholic had to follow those laws.

Other dictates could be argued such as the Kirpan and the headgear worn by those in the RCMP - not of Christian faith.

But let us look everywhere else rather than at our own doorstep.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#16
Funny how even willingnes to acknowledge extremism in Christianity still offers excuses from the apologist for 911.

Sadly I think the hijackers of the planes would disagree with you that in the last moments of their lives they were doing it for Allah, not foriegn policy.

That's the difference between me and you SJuan. I am able to identify the shortcomings of my culture while you will not.
 
Curiosity
#17
Retired....

After your last post I need to apologize for something I have written on the 9/11 topic.

Obviously it does not include your thoughts. WC
 
Sassylassie
#18
What I find disturbing is that we can debate Extreme Christianity and it's short comings but any attemp to discuss the topic of Extreme Islam and I am screamed at that I am racist. I don't equate a religion with a race. If I can't discuss this topic than Extremist have already won.

If Canadians can't discuss this how will we deal with it when it becomes a sociatial issue.
 
#juan
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier

Funny how even willingnes to acknowledge extremism in Christianity still offers excuses from the apologist for 911.

Sadly I think the hijackers of the planes would disagree with you that in the last moments of their lives they were doing it for Allah, not foriegn policy.

That's the difference between me and you SJuan. I am able to identify the shortcomings of my culture while you will not.

I find it strange that the first time I saw a suicide demonstration, it was in VieNam.(I wasn't there, I saw it on TV)A Buddhist monk poured gasoline over himself and lit it. I was shocked at the time and we saw that kind of thing a few more times before that war ended.

Suicide bombers were probably seen in first in Palestine and Israel. Surely one has to wonder what would drive people to this kind of extreme. The root of the troubles in Palestine are to do with the thoughtless meddling with borders by the U.S. and Britain and the ignoring the injustice of the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel who was aided and abetted by the U.S.. Without the creation of Israel would there be suicide bombers in Palestine? I doubt it.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#20
There is a distinct difference between someone who takes their own life in protest and those who deliberately target innocent people. If suicide bpmbers were to blow themselves up in protest in an area where others were not hurt your argument might have basis.

Yet they do not and that deflates your argument and changes your stance.

When you side with extremism, you endorse it. Cowardice in it's purest form.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#21
Quote:

SJUAN:Without the creation of Israel would there be suicide bombers in Palestine? I doubt it.



I'm guessing you don't support the two state solution.


Is pushing them into the sea your answer?
 
#juan
#22
Don't try to put words in my mouth. Israel is now a fact of life. While I would not have voted for it's creation without first taking care of the Palestinians who lived and farmed there for the last twelve hundred years or so. I believe there will be no peace until the Palestinians have a country. No thought was given to the Palestinians at all who were the majority of the people in Palestine. Israel did what ever they wanted and any complaint at the UN was promptly vetoed by the U.S..(like about a hundred and fifty times.)
 
Jay
#23
Quote:

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War is referred to as the "War of Independence" (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות) or as the "War of Liberation" (Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור) by Israelis. For Palestinians, the war marked the beginning of the events referred to as "The Catastrophe" ("al Nakba," Arabic: النكبة). After the United Nations partitioned the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, the Arabs refused to accept it and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others, attacked the newly established State of Israel. It was the first in a series of open wars in the Arab-Israeli conflict. As a result, the region was divided between Israel, Egypt and Transjordan.

Perhaps a better question might be....would there be suicide bombers in Palestine if they accepted the 2 state solution given to them?
 
fuzzylogix
#24
The Middle East crisis began long before 1948. And to state that Palestine should have accepted the 2 state solution given to them is showing a lack of understanding of the full history of the region. Britain originally took over the area of Iraq as a buffer to protect India. Then,as Europe began fighting Turkey, Britain used the Arabs to help fight against the Turks, thereby promising them all sorts of things that they had no intention of fulfilling. They backed the Husein faction and its rival the S'audi faction at the same time, and then realized that basically they couldn't honour all the conflicting agreements. So after WWI, Churchill sat down with his group of 40 thieves which included only 2 Arabs and basically carved the region up. There were massive atrocities committed between the Arabs that the British turned a blind eye to and even encouraged. The Palestinians land was basically given away because they werent considered of any importance or any threat. Yes, the Palestinians have the right to their own land. Gee....surprising they're so bitter isnt it?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#25
SJuan

So those that send children to murder the innocents get a pass? That really is the question. There are injustices in every Country. Does that warrant sending young people to not only take their own lives, but the lives of others?

Because I never hear your type say this must stop, I only get finger pointing and excuses.

I can criticize my culture and being of Irish descent I would never excuse the acts of the IRA. Why does Islam get a pass?

Incidently, why does it always come back to Pallestine and Israel?
Bin Laden was a Saudi, not a Palestinian.

Or is Palestine the reason for all terrorism. Perhaps Timothy McVeigh was upset about "the occupation."

Funny how you've detoured this thread, but not surprising.
 
#juan
#26
Retired_Can_Soldier

I have not attacked you, nor have I insulted you. Yet you have called me a coward and you repeatedly get my name wrong. You aren't that stupid. Don't do it again.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#27
Quote:

I have not attacked you, nor have I insulted you. Yet you have called me a coward and you repeatedly get my name wrong. You aren't that stupid. Don't do it again.

#Juan. First off sorry for getting your nick wrong. I guess I need a set of specs. Secondly, whether you are a coward or not is beyond me. I was generalizing.

Obviously if I've hit a raw nerve, maybe there is something there, I don't know. Yet you took what I thought to be a fairly balanced thread on extremism and detoured it into an anti-israeli/usa rant.

Finally, I'm not sure what mistake I might be making that would draw a threat from you, but let's hear it. As a moderator will you turf me for disagreeing with you or are you saying that if I get your name wrong again you'll come to Ontario and teach me a lesson


Please explain.
M
 
Sassylassie
#28
Juan; since you have used the open forum to air your Anti-American views I feel compelled to file a complaint against you publicly. It is my opinion that for the past week you have made post that are biased and Anti-American, that would be exceptable if you were a regular forum member but you are not-you are suppose to be a moderator. You are using your position as a Moderator to intimidate and control threads. When one of your post shows up in a thread I don't know what I am 'ALLOWED" to post because of your bias. I find the treatment of those of us who support the Afgan Mission and Support the Americans appalling.

In conclusion, I have had enough of your un-fair treatment. Congrat Juan at this rate you won't have anyone left but the Moonbats enjoy.


P.S. Retired Canadian Soldier is was a pleasure to meet you. Cheers.
 
Jay
#29
Jaun isn't that bad.....I don't think he moderates with an Anti-American bias....maybe he does, but he probably would have killed me by now if he did. I don't think he likes Americans etc, but he is allowed his opinions and I would rather him talk then just sit and read on the side-lines....maybe I'm just strange that way.

But Jaun isn't an anti-American like DB, Aeon and Cortez....
 
Jay
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by fuzzylogix

The Middle East crisis began long before 1948. And to state that Palestine should have accepted the 2 state solution given to them is showing a lack of understanding of the full history of the region. Britain originally took over the area of Iraq as a buffer to protect India. Then,as Europe began fighting Turkey, Britain used the Arabs to help fight against the Turks, thereby promising them all sorts of things that they had no intention of fulfilling. They backed the Husein faction and its rival the S'audi faction at the same time, and then realized that basically they couldn't honour all the conflicting agreements. So after WWI, Churchill sat down with his group of 40 thieves which included only 2 Arabs and basically carved the region up. There were massive atrocities committed between the Arabs that the British turned a blind eye to and even encouraged. The Palestinians land was basically given away because they werent considered of any importance or any threat. Yes, the Palestinians have the right to their own land. Gee....surprising they're so bitter isnt it?

Ummm their bitter because they completely failed against Israel...utterly and without reservation, they failed.

Yes I think they should have accepted the two state solution offered to them, and I believe they would be better off and have more than they do now, and wouldn't feel the need to blow themselves up killing Israelis along with them.
 

Similar Threads

40
Christianity is modernizing?
by L Gilbert | Apr 16th, 2018
5
Education Key to Fighting Islamic Extremism
by Bar Sinister | Feb 17th, 2010
98
Proof of Christianity
by alasdair | Nov 12th, 2006
50
Iran's Islamic Extremism.
by Johnny Utah | Apr 1st, 2006
48
MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam
by Finder | Mar 7th, 2006