The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I am sharing a simple message of the love of Jesus and the sacrifice He paid for sin, in this post. Jesus
Jesus is going to return one day, soon and will judge the world, on account of all its sins. Revelation (the last book of the bible) gives a vivid prophetic view on the return of Christ, stating "every eye shall see". Jesus will decide who is allowed unto the Kingdom of God for all eternity through the straight and narrow path and who passes through the gates of the broad and wide path.
The Kingdom of God is heaven which is described as a place of no more tears, or pains, night or day or hunger or famin. We are told he has the best mansions lined up for his people and has glories beyond our human interpretation.
He also tells us about Hell, a place of weeping and nashing of teeth, a place of eternal punishment and terrible suffering. He also says some will have few stripes and some who reject the word of Lord will have many stripes.
My friends in order to pass from death until life you must allow in the Holy Spirit and must pray for God to come into your life. No amount of charity money or giving or helping will enter you into the Kingdom of God for all eternity except by this way; excepting the Lord Jesus into your life, the same man that took away all man's sins on the cross. John 3:16 "For God so loved the World that he sent his one and only son, for who ever believeth in him may not perish but have everlasting life" Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He paid the price for sin, in order to get the burden of sin off your shoulders and with you for all eternity in Hell, you need to trust in the Lord Jesus, who died for sin. This is the most important decision you will ever make, either accept you are a sinner and Jesus has taken away your sin or reject Jesus and face Him one day and all eternity in Hell.
God bless and thankyou for your time. If you are interested in any of the points raised in this article or you would like to ask Jesus into your life please feel free to write to me at [email protected]
Jesus is going to return one day, soon and will judge the world, on account of all its sins. Revelation (the last book of the bible) gives a vivid prophetic view on the return of Christ, stating "every eye shall see". Jesus will decide who is allowed unto the Kingdom of God for all eternity through the straight and narrow path and who passes through the gates of the broad and wide path.
The Kingdom of God is heaven which is described as a place of no more tears, or pains, night or day or hunger or famin. We are told he has the best mansions lined up for his people and has glories beyond our human interpretation.
He also tells us about Hell, a place of weeping and nashing of teeth, a place of eternal punishment and terrible suffering. He also says some will have few stripes and some who reject the word of Lord will have many stripes.
My friends in order to pass from death until life you must allow in the Holy Spirit and must pray for God to come into your life. No amount of charity money or giving or helping will enter you into the Kingdom of God for all eternity except by this way; excepting the Lord Jesus into your life, the same man that took away all man's sins on the cross. John 3:16 "For God so loved the World that he sent his one and only son, for who ever believeth in him may not perish but have everlasting life" Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He paid the price for sin, in order to get the burden of sin off your shoulders and with you for all eternity in Hell, you need to trust in the Lord Jesus, who died for sin. This is the most important decision you will ever make, either accept you are a sinner and Jesus has taken away your sin or reject Jesus and face Him one day and all eternity in Hell.
God bless and thankyou for your time. If you are interested in any of the points raised in this article or you would like to ask Jesus into your life please feel free to write to me at [email protected]
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
>
>
> Ah, but isn't he elected by the members of the church? People who are
> not infallible...
He is, but according to Catholic dogma, the Pope is God's representative. The cardinals who elect him are simply the vessels who express Gods will.
Yes, religious dogma is more tangled, contradictory, and sophistic than ANY other bureaucracy in the world...
>
.
>
>
> Woah! I don't know the history, and I don't care. I'm not religeous,
> I feel it came about as a way of explaining things that were
> previously unexplainable "Where did we come from?"
> "Well, ummmm, there's this all powerful god, right..."
Heh. Yup, can't disagree there. Man made God in his own image.
>
> Religion itself is a set of guidlines that, in theory, if everyone
> were to follow, then everyone would live a joyful and happy life.
> However, realistically, not everyone is going to follow them, and so
> it falls down.
Thing is, even the interpretation of those guidelines differs from person to person. It's only when some megalomaniac titmuffin attempts to force their particular interpretation onto others that the problem arises.
If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less
>
>
> Ah, but isn't he elected by the members of the church? People who are
> not infallible...
He is, but according to Catholic dogma, the Pope is God's representative. The cardinals who elect him are simply the vessels who express Gods will.
Yes, religious dogma is more tangled, contradictory, and sophistic than ANY other bureaucracy in the world...
>
.
>
>
> Woah! I don't know the history, and I don't care. I'm not religeous,
> I feel it came about as a way of explaining things that were
> previously unexplainable "Where did we come from?"
> "Well, ummmm, there's this all powerful god, right..."
Heh. Yup, can't disagree there. Man made God in his own image.
>
> Religion itself is a set of guidlines that, in theory, if everyone
> were to follow, then everyone would live a joyful and happy life.
> However, realistically, not everyone is going to follow them, and so
> it falls down.
Thing is, even the interpretation of those guidelines differs from person to person. It's only when some megalomaniac titmuffin attempts to force their particular interpretation onto others that the problem arises.
If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less
Religion as I see it is fine. It's just the organised religion that considers dominance over others that is wrong. And usually isn't in the name of religion at all.
"titmuffin" is the best word ever. I'm sure God would agree.
Light wrote:
> Thing is, even the interpretation of those guidelines differs from
> person to person.
So we're back to the problem of translation and interpretation again....
>It's only when some megalomaniac titmuffin attempts
> to force their particular interpretation onto others that the problem
> arises.
Indeed. But when was the last time someone tried to force religion on you? My girlfriend and her mum are religious, yet whenever I stay at hers for the weekend, neither tries to force anything on me. At least, not in that way...
> If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it
> throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a
> tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe, but it is still something that millions of people across the world believe in, be it Christianity, Buddhism - whatever.
> Thing is, even the interpretation of those guidelines differs from
> person to person.
So we're back to the problem of translation and interpretation again....
>It's only when some megalomaniac titmuffin attempts
> to force their particular interpretation onto others that the problem
> arises.
Indeed. But when was the last time someone tried to force religion on you? My girlfriend and her mum are religious, yet whenever I stay at hers for the weekend, neither tries to force anything on me. At least, not in that way...
> If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it
> throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a
> tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe, but it is still something that millions of people across the world believe in, be it Christianity, Buddhism - whatever.
Your Honour wrote:
> Indeed. But when was the last time someone tried to force religion on
> you? My girlfriend and her mum are religious, yet whenever I stay at
> hers for the weekend, neither tries to force anything on me. At
> least, not in that way...
Heh. As it happens, every Sunday, religion is forced down our necks via TV. Happily, barely anyone watches the array of blistering nonsense fronted by Michael Buerk and others over the course of Hangover day. But as for me personally, the last time was about 8 months ago when some Mormons arrived at my door.
> Maybe, but it is still something that millions of people across the
> world believe in, be it Christianity, Buddhism - whatever.
Broadly, yes they do believe in the same thing. But look at all the multitude of offshoots, subsects, and cults. As I say, if religion stayed personal then that would be fine. Alas, it's always, always hijacked by somebody who wants a little power over people.
Remember; millions of people the world over believed in fascism and eugenics. Doesn't stop both idea's being a vast crock of old toss.
> Indeed. But when was the last time someone tried to force religion on
> you? My girlfriend and her mum are religious, yet whenever I stay at
> hers for the weekend, neither tries to force anything on me. At
> least, not in that way...
Heh. As it happens, every Sunday, religion is forced down our necks via TV. Happily, barely anyone watches the array of blistering nonsense fronted by Michael Buerk and others over the course of Hangover day. But as for me personally, the last time was about 8 months ago when some Mormons arrived at my door.
> Maybe, but it is still something that millions of people across the
> world believe in, be it Christianity, Buddhism - whatever.
Broadly, yes they do believe in the same thing. But look at all the multitude of offshoots, subsects, and cults. As I say, if religion stayed personal then that would be fine. Alas, it's always, always hijacked by somebody who wants a little power over people.
Remember; millions of people the world over believed in fascism and eugenics. Doesn't stop both idea's being a vast crock of old toss.
Light wrote:
> Heh. As it happens, every Sunday, religion is forced down our necks
> via TV. Happily, barely anyone watches the array of blistering
> nonsense fronted by Michael Buerk and others over the course of
> Hangover day. But as for me personally, the last time was about 8
> months ago when some Mormons arrived at my door.
Ah, but you don't have to watch it, do you. Did you speak to the Mormons and listen to what they have to say? Were you rude? Were they rude? Or did they just say "Would you like to listen to what I have to say?"?
I imagine they didn't make you listen. They gave you the choice to listen, and you turned them down. I see nothing wrong with that. They offered you something you didn't want, fair enough.
> Broadly, yes they do believe in the same thing. But look at all the
> multitude of offshoots, subsects, and cults. As I say, if religion
> stayed personal then that would be fine. Alas, it's always, always
> hijacked by somebody who wants a little power over people.
> Remember; millions of people the world over believed in fascism and
> eugenics. Doesn't stop both idea's being a vast crock of old toss.
I didn't mean about them believing the same or different things, I meant that so many people believe in one form or another, that it must do something for them else, they wouldn't bother.
Anyhoo, its the end of my lunch now, so I haven't "done a 'dandy" if I don't reply for a while :-)
> Heh. As it happens, every Sunday, religion is forced down our necks
> via TV. Happily, barely anyone watches the array of blistering
> nonsense fronted by Michael Buerk and others over the course of
> Hangover day. But as for me personally, the last time was about 8
> months ago when some Mormons arrived at my door.
Ah, but you don't have to watch it, do you. Did you speak to the Mormons and listen to what they have to say? Were you rude? Were they rude? Or did they just say "Would you like to listen to what I have to say?"?
I imagine they didn't make you listen. They gave you the choice to listen, and you turned them down. I see nothing wrong with that. They offered you something you didn't want, fair enough.
> Broadly, yes they do believe in the same thing. But look at all the
> multitude of offshoots, subsects, and cults. As I say, if religion
> stayed personal then that would be fine. Alas, it's always, always
> hijacked by somebody who wants a little power over people.
> Remember; millions of people the world over believed in fascism and
> eugenics. Doesn't stop both idea's being a vast crock of old toss.
I didn't mean about them believing the same or different things, I meant that so many people believe in one form or another, that it must do something for them else, they wouldn't bother.
Anyhoo, its the end of my lunch now, so I haven't "done a 'dandy" if I don't reply for a while :-)
Your Honour wrote:
>
>
> Ah, but you don't have to watch it, do you.
True enough, though I would say that the fact that so many religious programs go out on our National Broadcasting network, and that the BBC is obliged by law to provide religious programs, constitutes force of some type. I take your point though.
> Did you speak to the
> Mormons and listen to what they have to say? Were you rude? Were they
> rude? Or did they just say "Would you like to listen to what I
> have to say?"?
I started off by telling them that I'd listened to what their colleagues had to say some years earlier, and that I wasn't really interested. This was a mistake on my part; they didn't leave my doorstep for a good 5 minutes, and didn't stop pursuing the "Ah, but if you let us in now, we can guarantee we will change your minds" approach. I'm always civil to religious types who turn up at my house, but I'm starting to think I should have just slammed the door in their face when they started the hard sell.
>
> I imagine they didn't make you listen. They gave you the choice to
> listen, and you turned them down. I see nothing wrong with that. They
> offered you something you didn't want, fair enough.
Had it just been "Are you interested? No? Okay, bye then" I would totally agree with you. But it wasn't; it was the hard sell. Maybe that was just these two, but even so...
That said, I do take your point that these days the influence of religion in the lives of we in the west has waned greatly (WOO-HOO!!!!). It has not done so however in the developing world (where, thanks to the Catholic church and it's phobia of contraception, AIDS is rife), to say nothing of the extremist Moslems (if you are not with us, you are infidel and must die!), fundamentalist and evangelist christians (see extemist moslems), Hindu nationalists (if you're the wrong kind of Indian, or a Pakistani, then GO TO HELL!!)....well, you get the idea.
My point is that these groups are fighting to make religion an integral part of people's lives. Co-incidentally, those religions try to dictate huge portions of how people should live their lives. So basically, as far as I can see, religious leaders are simply trying to increase the number of people whom they have control over.
It's not as if this is limited to the developing world; have you seen some of the laws being passed in the South of the USA? Laws demanding that creationism be taught in Science classes (something that is happening over here now thanks to that school in Gateshead that wants to do the same), or even going as far as suggesting that evolution shouldn't be taught at all.
>
>
> I didn't mean about them believing the same or different things, I
> meant that so many people believe in one form or another, that it
> must do something for them else, they wouldn't bother.
Oh, I agree with that; I've always said that mankind has a God-shaped hole in it's head. What I object to is people abusing that to gain power over themselves.
Actually, I should clarify the earlier point about 'Religion/good/evil' that we mentioned;
I would say thatt Religion is a contruction of man, and has absolutely nothing of the divine (should such a thing exist) in it.
Faith is something entirely personal and has nothing to do with being told that one MUST believe in a certain God or church. Faith comes from within. It can be positive or negative, but it is something that comes from the individual.
Would you agree?
>
> Anyhoo, its the end of my lunch now, so I haven't "done a
> 'dandy" if I don't reply for a while :-)
M'kay; I have to say that I'm finding it difficult to find the time to respond in the run up to Xmas. Bah, humbug...
>
>
> Ah, but you don't have to watch it, do you.
True enough, though I would say that the fact that so many religious programs go out on our National Broadcasting network, and that the BBC is obliged by law to provide religious programs, constitutes force of some type. I take your point though.
> Did you speak to the
> Mormons and listen to what they have to say? Were you rude? Were they
> rude? Or did they just say "Would you like to listen to what I
> have to say?"?
I started off by telling them that I'd listened to what their colleagues had to say some years earlier, and that I wasn't really interested. This was a mistake on my part; they didn't leave my doorstep for a good 5 minutes, and didn't stop pursuing the "Ah, but if you let us in now, we can guarantee we will change your minds" approach. I'm always civil to religious types who turn up at my house, but I'm starting to think I should have just slammed the door in their face when they started the hard sell.
>
> I imagine they didn't make you listen. They gave you the choice to
> listen, and you turned them down. I see nothing wrong with that. They
> offered you something you didn't want, fair enough.
Had it just been "Are you interested? No? Okay, bye then" I would totally agree with you. But it wasn't; it was the hard sell. Maybe that was just these two, but even so...
That said, I do take your point that these days the influence of religion in the lives of we in the west has waned greatly (WOO-HOO!!!!). It has not done so however in the developing world (where, thanks to the Catholic church and it's phobia of contraception, AIDS is rife), to say nothing of the extremist Moslems (if you are not with us, you are infidel and must die!), fundamentalist and evangelist christians (see extemist moslems), Hindu nationalists (if you're the wrong kind of Indian, or a Pakistani, then GO TO HELL!!)....well, you get the idea.
My point is that these groups are fighting to make religion an integral part of people's lives. Co-incidentally, those religions try to dictate huge portions of how people should live their lives. So basically, as far as I can see, religious leaders are simply trying to increase the number of people whom they have control over.
It's not as if this is limited to the developing world; have you seen some of the laws being passed in the South of the USA? Laws demanding that creationism be taught in Science classes (something that is happening over here now thanks to that school in Gateshead that wants to do the same), or even going as far as suggesting that evolution shouldn't be taught at all.
>
>
> I didn't mean about them believing the same or different things, I
> meant that so many people believe in one form or another, that it
> must do something for them else, they wouldn't bother.
Oh, I agree with that; I've always said that mankind has a God-shaped hole in it's head. What I object to is people abusing that to gain power over themselves.
Actually, I should clarify the earlier point about 'Religion/good/evil' that we mentioned;
I would say thatt Religion is a contruction of man, and has absolutely nothing of the divine (should such a thing exist) in it.
Faith is something entirely personal and has nothing to do with being told that one MUST believe in a certain God or church. Faith comes from within. It can be positive or negative, but it is something that comes from the individual.
Would you agree?
>
> Anyhoo, its the end of my lunch now, so I haven't "done a
> 'dandy" if I don't reply for a while :-)
M'kay; I have to say that I'm finding it difficult to find the time to respond in the run up to Xmas. Bah, humbug...
As for the 6 million Jews, yes they were slaughtered for being Jewish. But think for a second light, was it for their religion they were slaughtered, or was it because racially they were different, not being perfect Aryans and all?
Yes Hitler hijacked the German Protestant churches. They didn't hijack him and then go off to war. They sold out to stay alive. As did the Vatican.
The point is that it wasn't the churches who told Hitler to take over Germany then go off invading countries left right and centre. He did it because he wanted to.
Sure there would have been more deaths if the Crusaders had machine guns. I'm fairly certain I didn't say it wouldn't make any difference. But bear in mind another thought along those lines: the reasons people murder others today are the same reasons they did thousands of years ago. Theft. Betrayal. Hate. All of which we can all experience without religion. Had guns been around a thousand years ago there would have been more deaths because of those said reasons outside of religion than actually happened.
If we're going to get technical only Catholics claim the pope to be God's living representative on earth, I certainly don't though still am Christian. I'm not going to defend the churches when they stray from the bible. The campaign against contraception is wrong and downright stupid. Paul said when talking about sex "do not be depriving each other of it". If sex for fun was allowable back then I don't see why it wouldn't be now.
Light wrote:
> If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is more to it than that and you are clever enough to know it. People want to know others who share the same ideas and beliefs. You're an actor Light. You act with other people. Because it is something you want to do. If you don't like the play director or the other actors, if you feel they are controlling you in a way you are not happy with then you can give it up.
As YH says, you aren't forced to watch the TV. Religion on TV is no more "forced" on you than football is on women and gardening is on me. It simply is programming for an audience that does want to watch it. You don't have to be part of that audience.
Yes Hitler hijacked the German Protestant churches. They didn't hijack him and then go off to war. They sold out to stay alive. As did the Vatican.
The point is that it wasn't the churches who told Hitler to take over Germany then go off invading countries left right and centre. He did it because he wanted to.
Sure there would have been more deaths if the Crusaders had machine guns. I'm fairly certain I didn't say it wouldn't make any difference. But bear in mind another thought along those lines: the reasons people murder others today are the same reasons they did thousands of years ago. Theft. Betrayal. Hate. All of which we can all experience without religion. Had guns been around a thousand years ago there would have been more deaths because of those said reasons outside of religion than actually happened.
If we're going to get technical only Catholics claim the pope to be God's living representative on earth, I certainly don't though still am Christian. I'm not going to defend the churches when they stray from the bible. The campaign against contraception is wrong and downright stupid. Paul said when talking about sex "do not be depriving each other of it". If sex for fun was allowable back then I don't see why it wouldn't be now.
Light wrote:
> If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is more to it than that and you are clever enough to know it. People want to know others who share the same ideas and beliefs. You're an actor Light. You act with other people. Because it is something you want to do. If you don't like the play director or the other actors, if you feel they are controlling you in a way you are not happy with then you can give it up.
As YH says, you aren't forced to watch the TV. Religion on TV is no more "forced" on you than football is on women and gardening is on me. It simply is programming for an audience that does want to watch it. You don't have to be part of that audience.
They were slaughtered for revenge. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany losing the first world war (they apparently fled the country, taking their considerable wealth with them, leaving Germany short of funds or something similar), and so persecuted them. Since it can be argued that the Jewish religion played a hand in the Jews being so wealthy in the first place, it can be argued that it was religion that got them slaughtered.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> As for the 6 million Jews, yes they were slaughtered for being Jewish.
> But think for a second light, was it for their religion they were
> slaughtered, or was it because racially they were different, not
> being perfect Aryans and all?
Insane Bartender has basically answered that point for me; it's to do with both race and religion.
>
> Yes Hitler hijacked the German Protestant churches. They didn't
> hijack him and then go off to war. They sold out to stay alive. As
> did the Vatican.
Quite a long way from the brave Christian's who were martyred in the 2nd-10th century's AD, eh? Seeing as we get their sacrifice rammed down our throats by well meaning proseltysers, how come we aren't hearing more about how self-serving the church was when it came to facing a direct threat to it's temporal influence? After all, if they were only interested in saving souls, wouldn't they have stood up to Hitler as an organisation?
>
> The point is that it wasn't the churches who told Hitler to take over
> Germany then go off invading countries left right and centre. He did
> it because he wanted to.
And MY point is that religion is used to justify slaughter. And what is more, that justification tends to come with the blessing of whomever is in charge of that particular point. Are you really trying to say that it doesn't count if people only SAY they have God on their side? Tell me, do you think that the crusades would have happened if the God excuse hadn't been wheeled out? D'you think the religious German masses would have been quite so receptive to Hitler had he not been allowed to invoke the name of God in his sloganeering?
It seems to me that you're happy to ascribe positive things to religion, but reluctant to accept responsibility for the negative.
>
> Sure there would have been more deaths if the Crusaders had machine
> guns. I'm fairly certain I didn't say it wouldn't make any
> difference. But bear in mind another thought along those lines: the
> reasons people murder others today are the same reasons they did
> thousands of years ago. Theft. Betrayal. Hate. All of which we can
> all experience without religion. Had guns been around a thousand
> years ago there would have been more deaths because of those said
> reasons outside of religion than actually happened.
That's right, we can. So what gives organised religion the right to say that it can deliver mankind from these evils when it is responsible for perpetuating them? What makes them so afraid of "a godless society where evil flourishes" when you seem to be admitting that it would make no difference to the world if religion did exist or if it didn't?
My point is that basic humanity and decency does NOT spring forth from religion; it's the other way round.
>
> If we're going to get technical only Catholics claim the pope to be
> God's living representative on earth, I certainly don't though still
> am Christian. I'm not going to defend the churches when they stray
> from the bible. The campaign against contraception is wrong and
> downright stupid. Paul said when talking about sex "do not be
> depriving each other of it". If sex for fun was allowable back
> then I don't see why it wouldn't be now.
But didn't you say that the bible has been re-interpreted and some books in both Old and New testaments are considered kosher, and others aren't? So who makes these decisions? After all, your church might say that they're not straying from the bible. But with all that selective interpretation that goes on, how the hell do you know that they're not straying from it?
And more to the point, if the bible is interpreted differently by different people, what makes you think that your church has hit the nail on the head and got the absolutely 100% correct holy writ as intended by
>
> Light wrote:
> If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it
> throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a
> tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> There is more to it than that and you are clever enough to know it.
> People want to know others who share the same ideas and beliefs.
> You're an actor Light. You act with other people. Because it is
> something you want to do. If you don't like the play director or the
> other actors, if you feel they are controlling you in a way you are
> not happy with then you can give it up.
Really? More to it than that? Such as what? The comparison you're making is quite remarkably inaccurate; I act and hand over control of a small portion of my life for a few hours a week. More to the point, if I disagree with the director, I'm unlikely to face excommunication, shunning, stoning, or any of the other entertaining religious punishments. Religion tries to control people 24/7. Lifestyle choices made by an individual do not.
Sharing the same beliefs? Cool; I'm all for people discussing their faith. But it's not sharing, is it? It's IMPOSING on other people's. Which is where we get back to all those wars, battles, massacre's, and plain old fashioned ugly, sordid little murders that boil down to nothing more than one group of people trying to impose their flavour of God onto another group.
>
> As YH says, you aren't forced to watch the TV. Religion on TV is no
> more "forced" on you than football is on women and
> gardening is on me. It simply is programming for an audience that
> does want to watch it. You don't have to be part of that audience.
And as I say, it's compulsory for the BBC to have religious programming. So where is their element of choice?
I'll say again, you're doing your best to blind yourself to the evils of organised religion by saying "They're not really THAT bad..." and then trying to trivialise the negative impact of religion. I'm the first to admit that good things have been done in the name of organised religion. But you don't seem to want to accept that bone-chilling evil has been done in the name of religion too.
> As for the 6 million Jews, yes they were slaughtered for being Jewish.
> But think for a second light, was it for their religion they were
> slaughtered, or was it because racially they were different, not
> being perfect Aryans and all?
Insane Bartender has basically answered that point for me; it's to do with both race and religion.
>
> Yes Hitler hijacked the German Protestant churches. They didn't
> hijack him and then go off to war. They sold out to stay alive. As
> did the Vatican.
Quite a long way from the brave Christian's who were martyred in the 2nd-10th century's AD, eh? Seeing as we get their sacrifice rammed down our throats by well meaning proseltysers, how come we aren't hearing more about how self-serving the church was when it came to facing a direct threat to it's temporal influence? After all, if they were only interested in saving souls, wouldn't they have stood up to Hitler as an organisation?
>
> The point is that it wasn't the churches who told Hitler to take over
> Germany then go off invading countries left right and centre. He did
> it because he wanted to.
And MY point is that religion is used to justify slaughter. And what is more, that justification tends to come with the blessing of whomever is in charge of that particular point. Are you really trying to say that it doesn't count if people only SAY they have God on their side? Tell me, do you think that the crusades would have happened if the God excuse hadn't been wheeled out? D'you think the religious German masses would have been quite so receptive to Hitler had he not been allowed to invoke the name of God in his sloganeering?
It seems to me that you're happy to ascribe positive things to religion, but reluctant to accept responsibility for the negative.
>
> Sure there would have been more deaths if the Crusaders had machine
> guns. I'm fairly certain I didn't say it wouldn't make any
> difference. But bear in mind another thought along those lines: the
> reasons people murder others today are the same reasons they did
> thousands of years ago. Theft. Betrayal. Hate. All of which we can
> all experience without religion. Had guns been around a thousand
> years ago there would have been more deaths because of those said
> reasons outside of religion than actually happened.
That's right, we can. So what gives organised religion the right to say that it can deliver mankind from these evils when it is responsible for perpetuating them? What makes them so afraid of "a godless society where evil flourishes" when you seem to be admitting that it would make no difference to the world if religion did exist or if it didn't?
My point is that basic humanity and decency does NOT spring forth from religion; it's the other way round.
>
> If we're going to get technical only Catholics claim the pope to be
> God's living representative on earth, I certainly don't though still
> am Christian. I'm not going to defend the churches when they stray
> from the bible. The campaign against contraception is wrong and
> downright stupid. Paul said when talking about sex "do not be
> depriving each other of it". If sex for fun was allowable back
> then I don't see why it wouldn't be now.
But didn't you say that the bible has been re-interpreted and some books in both Old and New testaments are considered kosher, and others aren't? So who makes these decisions? After all, your church might say that they're not straying from the bible. But with all that selective interpretation that goes on, how the hell do you know that they're not straying from it?
And more to the point, if the bible is interpreted differently by different people, what makes you think that your church has hit the nail on the head and got the absolutely 100% correct holy writ as intended by
>
> Light wrote:
> If religion stayed as a matter of personal faith I would laud it
> throughout the land. As is, we have Organised religion, and it's a
> tool used to control people. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> There is more to it than that and you are clever enough to know it.
> People want to know others who share the same ideas and beliefs.
> You're an actor Light. You act with other people. Because it is
> something you want to do. If you don't like the play director or the
> other actors, if you feel they are controlling you in a way you are
> not happy with then you can give it up.
Really? More to it than that? Such as what? The comparison you're making is quite remarkably inaccurate; I act and hand over control of a small portion of my life for a few hours a week. More to the point, if I disagree with the director, I'm unlikely to face excommunication, shunning, stoning, or any of the other entertaining religious punishments. Religion tries to control people 24/7. Lifestyle choices made by an individual do not.
Sharing the same beliefs? Cool; I'm all for people discussing their faith. But it's not sharing, is it? It's IMPOSING on other people's. Which is where we get back to all those wars, battles, massacre's, and plain old fashioned ugly, sordid little murders that boil down to nothing more than one group of people trying to impose their flavour of God onto another group.
>
> As YH says, you aren't forced to watch the TV. Religion on TV is no
> more "forced" on you than football is on women and
> gardening is on me. It simply is programming for an audience that
> does want to watch it. You don't have to be part of that audience.
And as I say, it's compulsory for the BBC to have religious programming. So where is their element of choice?
I'll say again, you're doing your best to blind yourself to the evils of organised religion by saying "They're not really THAT bad..." and then trying to trivialise the negative impact of religion. I'm the first to admit that good things have been done in the name of organised religion. But you don't seem to want to accept that bone-chilling evil has been done in the name of religion too.
Page: