Grrrr, the f---s in CA have made it illegal for me to...

[anarchist]

Holy Christ,

What a read this thread has been, its been a roller coaster ride all the way. I have laughed, been irritated, read insightful posts, read the occasional insipid comment, thought, and been dismayed by the thoughts of some. This post will touch on a variety of points which have been mentioned and I am in a hurry so it may seem disjointed. I am not aligned with any particular group and find most of them to have some kind of malfunction but...

I thought the court decision was asinine, pure and simple. The Constitution never stated all references to religion must be eliminated and the remaining fact,despite all rhetoric, is this country was founded on Christian principles with tolerance for other beliefs. You're offended by God. You don't want your government to use that word. You don't want praises to be sung or prayers to be said. You're worried about how others may feel. I have one word for you. Emigrate.

The problem with America, as I see it, is we need to offend somebody. We are becoming a sterilized nation that tries to cater to the whims of every butthead with an agenda. I tend to think the underlying cause of this emasculation is largely the result of the freedoms we do have and the liberal agenda. You think Iran will care one iota if you object to state sponsored religion? Saudi Arabia? China? Japan? Anybody? In this country, we aren't even talking state sponsored religion but trivial slogans which have little effect on anyone, yet the activists would have you believe this some great evil or offense. Meanwhile, all those other countries who despise Christians have no problems trafficking in American currency which proclaims 'In God We Trust'.

Of course, the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been blown to hell by forces on the left and right. Democrats want to take my guns. Republicans want to tape my phone conversations. The Constitution has been under seige since 'serving the country' became a full-time profession.

There was a wonderful paper I once read and frequently reference when these types of conversations come up. It speaks directly to what underlines much of the problems that occur in America today and I find the author's viewpoint quite interesting. Those who are easily offended probably shouldn't read it. I will send a buck to whomever can tell me who the author is:

quote:

---

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like...

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "*****," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own.

Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

---

The last statement directly explains the court's decision with reference to the Pledge of Allegiance.

------------------

HT - Klipsch Synergy Premiere

Audio - Heresy, KG4

This message has been edited by crash827 on 07-03-2002 at 05:31 PM

[cluless]

It's truely amazing...I now know the seeds of war...I never could figure it out before.

Happy 4th of July, all.

[Clipped and Shorn]

"truely amazing...I now know the seeds of war...I never could figure it out before. "

exactly, and they will kill each other ten times over over these phantom differences and grand illusions.

I guess you are not clueless any more.

-KnotClipped and GnotShorn

{how often do you get to get over over over}. I think I got it over.

------------------

Cornwalls

currently upgrading

to all tube components

This message has been edited by Clipped and Shorn on 07-03-2002 at 11:12 PM

[Deang]

Geepers, I leave this thread for a couple of days and everyone goes completely ga-ga.

Since my area of knowledge lays with religion I will contain my comments to that area. I certainly have political views -- but I have become more a-political over time.

I will only say that Government has a responsibility to keep business honest, and do something about the poison in our food, water, and land. It should protect us from foreign invaders, level tyrants, gaurd the lives of the innocent, and provide for the saftey of the governed so we can pursue freedom. Other than that, I want it the hell out of my life.

I find many of the comments in this thread related to religion odd. If I were to address every one of them I would be here until morning.

The first thing I want to get out of the way is the constant confusion between Christian history, Protestant history, and Roman Catholic history. They are all completely different. Most have only a familiarity with Roman history. I will only say here that the Scriptures were on the banned book list for almost a thousand years, and if you were caught with a single sheet of it -- you were executed. The 'Dark Ages' were 'dark' for a reason.

JD said it best. Religion of the 'head' is bad. Religion of the 'heart' is very good. This is something else people do not understand: The difference between 'spirituality' and 'religion'. A 'religious' person will kill you if you do not agree with them. No 'spiritual' person would ever raise a hand against another, except in the defense of self, family, or an innocent.

As far as different and various religions go, and how to tell which one is right (for they ALL cannot be right), you simply look at the founder and his teachings. You DO NOT use the inconsistancies and imperfections of imperfect followers to damn the religion. Anyone undertaking a serious study of religion will find the Judeo-Christian principles to be the ones that are most consistant with real life.

This is so depressing, because I have so much to say --

C.S. Lewis said that if I explain the Christian religion to someone in a way so a three year old can understand it -- it is said that God would never make something so simple. If I explain it in the way a scholar understands it -- then it is said that God would never make something so complicated.

Buddha said, "Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light."

Muhammad said, "I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my examples, the Sunnah and if you follow these you will never go astray."

Yeshua said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life...I am the light of the world...He who has seen me has seen the Father...I AM."

I won't even bother with Hinduism, which doesn't even know it's founder, and is based on an "impersonal" God. A God clearly inferior to me since I have something it doesn't -- a personality.

Atheism is intersting if your a gambling man. Great stuff there. The way I figure it, everything coming around by random chance is about the same as a print shop exploding and making a book.

The problem with Jesus is that He was executed because of who he claimed he was. All he had to say was, "Psyche! just kidding folks!" So, he was either a liar, a fool, or a complete nutcase. Yet, how do we reconcile those possible conclusions with his life and teachings?

The other problem we have is even with the most conservative dating methods, the recorded history of his life were penned within the life times of those who either witnessed the events, or knew of the events. Try to imagine writing a wacked out, goofy history about FDR or Harry Truman. Think it would pass? Yet, this Gospel 'farce' changed the face of the Roman Empire within 300 years. Not bad for 'fiction'.

Forget about the discrepancies in the Bible. Any one who really studies the Bible understands them and has very little problem explaining them. Yet people make it out like it's just filled with one contradiction after another.

The problem with most Christians, and I hate to say this, are just really not good students. They like to be spoon-fed. They like to drink the milk, but never move to the meat and potatoes. The real deal will bring a grown man to his knees, and when he wakes up the next morning, and sees everything through God's eyes, his heart just breaks.

The Gospel record is filled full of quirky things. Things you miss if you're not paying attention. The kind of things that are quirky in that real life kind of way.

Let's start with end of the Gospel records. A bunch of scared men running in different directions, and hiding from the authorities. The Bible is strange that way. Anyone who has actually read it is struck by the way it never glorifies it's 'heros'. All their faults are laid bare. Compare that fact with other faiths. At any rate -- these same 'cowards' are found 40 days later (beginning of book of Acts) out in the streets preaching a message that they KNOW just got their fearless leader nailed to a tree. What happened in that forty day period to turn these men from chickens into lions? Could it have been something they saw?

Jesus is dragging his 'cross' to the hill through the streets of Jerusalem. The women are crying. Jesus turns and says to them, "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children."

What the hell did He mean by that?

The Bible never once tells us. However, we know from Josephus, a Jew who recorded Roman history in Palestine, that when Titus laid siege to the city, the conditions were so bad inside the old city that the people resorted to eating their infants. Was Jesus a prophet? You tell me.

Jesus and Barabbas are standing before the people. Pilate gives them a choice. It is a 'special' occasion you see. "Which one do you want?" Pilate asks. The people cry out, "Barabbas! Give us Barabbas!"

That's nice.

Not much discussed is that most Jews in Palestine actually accepted Jesus. In fact, they had just one week earlier accepted him as their King when he rode into the city with a great procession. The religious authorities had actually hired dissenters, who were strategically placed in the crowd. They wanted Barabbas, and so Barabbas they got.

But what was Jesus hearing as they shouted?

Jews took their names from their fathers. For example, Jesus would actually have been, Jesus-bar-Joseph. "Bar" meant - "son of", so -- Jesus son of Joseph. Now, look at the name "Barabbas". The first part is "son of", the second part is "abbas". "Abba" is the Aramaic word for "daddy". A better rendering is the european "Papa". So now, think. What was filling the ears of the God-man Jesus.

The Bible is chock full of stuff like this.

Peter said, regarding the end of the world: "The earth and everthing in it shall melt with a fervent heat...the very elements shall be dissolved."

Now, Peter was a fisherman. He's never even seen a firecracker go off, yet he comes up with this. Incidently, the Greek word for "dissolved" is "disbanding", or "dispersing". So, we have an atomic physicist statement from a fisherman.

I posted this so some of you might gain an understanding of why Christians believe the Bible. Roadhawk is right. Everything he said.

And Max, God told Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..."

I will tell you that I know God, and that since we abort (murder) over a million kids a year -- we have probably killed 100's of Einsteins, 100's of Beethovens, and who knows what else we have lost. God knows. It makes me sick even to think about it.

Some of you speak of that you know, but you also speak of that you do not know. I wish you would stop.

f>s>

------------------

Deanf>s>

Bi-amplified Klipsch RF7s using

a pair of AE-25 PP triode amps.

A SF-Line 1 loaded with 6922's

and a 9000ES finish the front.

The low bass is supplied by SVS

and Samson. The crossover is HSU.f>s>

This message has been edited by deang on 07-04-2002 at 01:00 AM

[maxg]

Dean - enlightening...

One issue however:

"since we abort (murder) over a million kids a year -- we have probably killed 100's of Einsteins, 100's of Beethovens, and who knows what else we have lost. God knows. It makes me sick even to think about it"

Is the figure really a million? - I had no idea it was that high.

I would doubt, however, that hundreds of Einsteins and Beethovens are being lost in this way each year simply because genius at this level has never been that common.

It would be like saying we are culling hundreds of Hitlers, Stalins and Mao Tse Tungs - again, fortunately this time - they are not that common either.

There is also a concern in my mind over the relative valuation of lives in this way. Does Einstein have a greater right to life than a simpler woman who is a good mother?

Of course even with the million figure accepted it kind of pales into insignificance next to the estimated 70 million people in Africa who will die from AIDS alone in the next 10 years.

Add in the people who die from starvation, malnutrition, typhus, cholera, typhoid, malaria, war and the myriad other causes and I think we have found a more likely source of loss of genius.

It is a sad endightment of society that any child should be aborted, on many levels.

Sadder still that such a large proportion of the world lives in abject poverty unable to educate, medicate, protect and even feed its children.

Should I be wrong, and should there be a final judgement day how will we not, like Nebucanezar (spelling?), be weighed in the balance and found wanting?

If the writing is on the wall I fear your abortion statistics are a mere sub-text.

[TBrennan]

Dean---How do you know most Jews in Palestine accepted Jesus? Says who? Christianity didn't change The Empire near as much as a bunch of Steppe nomads on shaggy horses did. Modern archeology is exposing most of the so-called "history" of the Old Testament as inventions to prop the legitamacy of the kingdom of Judah circa 700 bce. Also think about this: how does prophesy fit in with free will? Did God act to cause the Jews to rebel against Rome so that Titus would then level Jeruselem? Then where is their free will? Was God a closet Flavian, favoring Vespasian and his son over the Julio-Claudians? All this prophesy business, especially the obsession some have with The Apocalypse, reminds me of the Priestess of Apollo at Delphi or Druids reading the future in smoking entrails and confirms me in my thinking that maybe Protestantism isn't really Christianity at all but a modern version of Germanic Paganism (note that in Europe that only Germanic Peoples, with the exception of the Welsh, are Protestant) and that only the Catholics, Orthodox and perhaps The Church of England, being Apostolic churches, are truely Christian, for what that's worth. Don't take it personally buddy but that's what I'm thinking.

[Deang]

Max,

So, we don't do anything about the things we can do, because we don't do anything anything about the things we can't do?

Suffering is part of the human condition. It is a consequence of sin. Everything we see, touch, and experience has been tainted by it. Nothing is in the condition it was originally created. We know from the Bible that the entrance of sin into the created order did not just cause biological degradation -- but botanical as well. Something changed the mechanism of how things work, and come into being. Everything that springs forth is degraded from the original design. Since everything is in this 'fallen' condition when it comes forth, it is even that much more susceptible to sin's destructive power. Things run down, rust, corrode, fragment -- die.

The point here is that the cards are stacked against us. The level of degradation is so high, the level of human suffering so elevated -- the scope of it so large -- that it would be impossible for us solve every problem resulting from it. Suffering and the resultent death are symptoms of this 'disease' -- that pervades everything.

We should make laws, and create consequences and punishment for those violate them. Morality is the basis for every successful and stable society. A people willing to work for the good of others is what makes 'civilization' feasable to begin with. When a people no longer work for the good of others -- there is a breakdown. If you will say that you cannot legislate morality -- I will say that even a stop sign modifies behavior, and if this is not an example of 'legislating morality', then what is it?

We should endeavor to treat the symptoms the best we can. We should help the poor, comfort those who suffer, and protect in the innocent. It is clear however, that we cannot 'save' everyone. We cannot make a 'law' that rids us of suffering. We can, however, make laws that that can reduce the murder of unborn children. Many states that allow abortion, will also charge one with double homicide if they murder a woman with child.

We have lasted about 1/2 the time of the Old Roman Empire. With things as they are now, try to imagine what it will be like here in another 250 years. History shows us that there is a direct correlation between 'knowledge' and 'morality'. As the knowledge curve goes up, the morality curve goes down. Most civilizations actually crumble at the pinnicle of their accumulated knowledge.

What is the cause of this? It is arrogance and pride. Man begins to place his reliance on his intellectual capability, apart from what the dictates of his conscience and heart tell him. He begins to rationalize all types of behavior. Greed, lust, jealousy, envy, hate, worship of self -- all go completely unchecked.

You do not have to be a "Christian Nation" to experience the judgement of God. Any nation that aids in the suppression of God's truth, and throws up its hands to allow individuals to determine for themselves what is 'right' -- is simply asking for it.

It is not that we have taken God out of our schools (which we haven't), or that we have taken him out of our society (which we haven't) -- it is because we have taken him out of our lives. Therein lies the problem. Our crime rates, and other problems, reflect this. We are clearly perched on a slippery slope.

f>s>

------------------

Deanf>s>

Bi-amplified Klipsch RF7s using

a pair of AE-25 PP triode amps.

A SF-Line 1 loaded with 6922's

and a 9000ES finish the front.

The low bass is supplied by SVS

and Samson. The crossover is HSU.f>s>

This message has been edited by deang on 07-04-2002 at 02:54 PM

[Deang]

How do you know most Jews in Palestine accepted Jesus? Says who?f>s>

I accept the Biblical record. The division was between Christ and the religious authorities, not the people. Also, the first Gospel sermon preached by Peter saw the conversion of 3000 Jews (Acts 2). Shortly thereafter it was 5000.f>s>

Christianity didn't change The Empire near as much as a bunch of Steppe nomads on shaggy horses did.f>s>

LOL. Well, I guess everyone gets a little credit. Still, after Constantine, things kind of took off. Sure, much of it was pagan in nature since most people weren't willing to give up their polytheistic believes, but the genuine article was there too -- along side the madness.f>s>

Modern archeology is exposing most of the so-called "history" of the Old Testament as inventions to prop the legitamacy of the kingdom of Judah circa 700 bce.f>s>

Who believes that? Finklestein and a handful of apostates?f>s> http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

How does prophesy fit in with free will? Did God act to cause the Jews to rebel against Rome so that Titus would then level Jeruselem? Then where is their free will? Was God a closet Flavian, favoring Vespasian and his son over the Julio-Claudians?f>s>

To foresee something is not the same as ordaining it. The actions of people are part of God's permissive will. He sits on the outside of time seeing from beginning to end. This does not mean he orchastrates every event and action. However, He certainly uses them as part of His divine plan. God did not cause the Jews to rebel against Rome, but God in Christ certainly foresaw it. The Jews did not just rebel against Rome, they rebelled against God. Throughout their history God has used other nations and peoples to chastise them. More times than not, that was the very nature of prophecy -- to warn the people of approaching judgement.f>s>

All this prophesy business, especially the obsession some have with The Apocalypse, reminds me of the Priestess of Apollo at Delphi or Druids reading the future in smoking entrails and confirms me in my thinking that maybe Protestantism isn't really Christianity at all but a modern version of Germanic Paganism (note that in Europe that only Germanic Peoples, with the exception of the Welsh, are Protestant) and that only the Catholics, Orthodox and perhaps The Church of England, being Apostolic churches, are truely Christian, for what that's worth. Don't take it personally buddy but that's what I'm thinking.f>s>

I think your posts are a riot. What reason would I have to take it personally or be offended? You have the right to think whatever you want.

At any rate, I completely agree with you here. The best Commentary on the Book of Revelation is Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, 9/10 of the book has been fulfilled. Prophecy was meant for the people to whom the prophecy was given, during the time in which they were living. There are some small exceptions to this, where there is some dichotomy, and a vision or prophecy applies to both the near future, and then also stretches to the end of time -- but not very often. Revelation was written for the 1st Century Church, and primarily deals with God's judgement of political Rome. I could go on forever here, but that is enough. The book is symbolic and allegorical. The Literalistic interpretations common today are in complete contradiction to the plain words of Jesus and the Apostles concerning The End.

f>s>

------------------

Deanf>s>

Bi-amplified Klipsch RF7s using

a pair of AE-25 PP triode amps.

A SF-Line 1 loaded with 6922's

and a 9000ES finish the front.

The low bass is supplied by SVS

and Samson. The crossover is HSU.f>s>

This message has been edited by deang on 07-04-2002 at 10:52 PM

[TBrennan]

Dean---Well some people get offended when talking religion or politics, though they are the 2 of the subjects most worth talking about. So I wanted to assure you that my opinions were not meant to personally offend. The book I recently read by 2 Israeli archeologists about history and the Bible (I forget the name and I left the book at work) was most persausive. I don't put much stock in the Bible nor need I do so, being a Catholic I think the most important part is where St. Peter gets his power of attorney from Christ, with that as a given (if you hold with it) the rest doesn't matter so much. :-)

[jdm56]

I REALLY hate to stick my head in this firestorm, but...

Tom, do you ever have a little doubt about Peter's "power of attourney", considering that Jesus refers to him as Satan? As in "Get thee behind me..." I've always puzzled over the Catholic contention that the Church was built upon Peter, when in the bible, Christ is pointed to as the "chief corner, whom the builders rejected"; the "stone cut out of the mountain without hands" etc. When I read this verse: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church", it only makes sense, gramatically and scripturally, if Jesus is refering to himself as the rock. Especially considering after all, that he did just refer to Peter as Satan.

------------------

JDM

[Deang]

There are two different things going on here.

Tom is right in that Jesus gave Peter "The Keys" to the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter used those keys when he preached the first Gospel sermon on Penetcost. He effectively "unlocked" the door for people to gain admittance.

J.D., you are right in that Jesus is certainly not building the Church on Peter. What He is actually building the Church on is the statement that Peter made.

Jesus: So tell me, who do you say that I am?

Peter: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus: You are right, and I say that you are Cephas (small pebble), and upon this Rock (the statement that Peter had just made) I will build my Church.

We know that Peter was married ("Peter's Mother-in-Law lay sick with a fever."), and that Peter was never in Rome.

However, in spite of the problems with Catholic doctrine -- no one has yet cornered the market on biblical truth, and all Christian denominations contain some error from one degree to another. During the Reformation everyone felt the need to take an isolated concept from the Scriptures and build on it. I mean, Luther threw the book of James into the Thames river, and Calvin never seemed to catch on that the very nature of God's character put natural limits on His sovereignty (love limits sovereignty).

We are imperfect creatures, and are certainly prone to error in every area of our lives because of this. A lack of perfect understanding is only natural. That is why there is grace.

So, if God accepts me in my conditon, with my imperfect life and error in thought -- than He most certainly will also accept another in the same condition -- with a different position.

f>s>

The Kingdom of God is a kingdom of inclusivity, not exclusivity.

That is another one of the 'quirky' things about Christianity. One is not good enough to gain admittance into the Kingdom -- but are instead probably bad enough.

At any rate, Tom -- It would be great if you would get me the name and author of that book. I'm always looking for more reading material.

f>s>

------------------

Deanf>s>

Bi-amplified Klipsch RF7s using

a pair of AE-25 PP triode amps.

A SF-Line 1 loaded with 6922's

and a 9000ES finish the front.

The low bass is supplied by SVS

and Samson. The crossover is HSU.f>s>

This message has been edited by deang on 07-05-2002 at 10:01 AM

[TBrennan]

Dean---There is a great amount of ancient writing and tradition testifying that Peter was in Rome. Now certain Protestants have a vested interest in tearing down Peter's presense there and his founding the Roman Church since the presence of Peter's Church calls into question the legitamacy of non-apostolic Christian churches. If Peter founded the Catholic Church, and Peter knew Christ and presumably understood his wishes, then churches founded by people like Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc. can be considered presumptuous. In any case I figure we Catholics have all the bases covered; we have The Sacrements and Good Works thing going and if we're wrong and justification is by faith alone, well we have that covered too. How can we lose? :-) Whereas if faith alone is insuffcient and St. Peter WAS the founder of the True Church he might be pissed at you when you meet him in front of the Pearly Gates. "Oh yeah, I know you. You're the guy that didn't believe I was in Rome and founded my Church there. Hmmmm. What are we gonna' do with you? Well how 'bout some time in Purgatory? Oh, you don't believe in Purgatory? Would you rather go to Hell? Okay, I didn't think so, Purgatory it is then." :-)

This message has been edited by TBrennan on 07-06-2002 at 12:04 AM

[Deang]

Man, we could debate these things to no end, and to what end?f>s>

If Peter was ever in Rome , he sure wasn't there during the time frame set down by Catholocism. I also believe both Eusibus and Iraneous used sources that were suspect.f>s>

As far as purgatory goes, there are lots of problems with this one.

The first one is that Paul said, "To be apart from the body is to be present with the Lord."

The second is that it undermines the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. The writer of the book of Hebrews says, "...And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

The third is that the concept of "purgatory" comes from the Apocrapha, which neither Jesus, nor any N.T. writer even once qouted from.

At any rate, what will be will be -- even if it never comes to pass

f>s>

------------------

Deanf>s>

Bi-amplified Klipsch RF7s using

a pair of AE-25 PP triode amps.

A SF-Line 1 loaded with 6922's

and a 9000ES finish the front.

The low bass is supplied by SVS

and Samson. The crossover is HSU.f>s>

This message has been edited by deang on 07-06-2002 at 12:31 AM

[Clipped and Shorn]

If you all are talking about it, it ain't spirituality, not even remotely,this I know for sure.

-yackety yack

------------------

Cornwalls

currently upgrading

to all tube components

This message has been edited by Clipped and Shorn on 07-06-2002 at 01:55 AM

[mobile homeless]

Lord. I will have to do my best to disassociate some of the comments from the individuals as many were so painful, it was hard to read without sagging in my chair. It's going to be hard speaking to a few in the 2 Channel in the same way... Ignorance is bliss takes on a new meaning.

Kudos to a few who saw some light. The bulk of the responses sounded like bad talk radio. As I have found in the past, audio forums are dominated by a rather conservative lot that see America, partriotism, and Religion in a rather narrow and shortsighed light (Unfortunately, the ideas of might is right & Love it or leave it seem logical within this domain).

Frankly, the title of this post was horrid enough and the fact that it received six pages of response with many in agreement was scary, indeed, although some interesting points were made here and there. But the "God is American" mentality is a depressing refrain, indicative of post 9/11 sentiments.

kh

Phono Linn Sondek LP-12 Valhalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point

CD Player Rega Planet

Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified

Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks

Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect

Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover

Links system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s>

This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 07-06-2002 at 08:11 AM

[John Warren]

,

[Curmudgeon]

Here is a picture that I like much better:

[Clipped and Shorn]

and the rest of the story.....

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

------------------

Cornwalls

currently upgrading

to all tube components

[Mallette]

I've only looked at page 1 and page 6. MH's comment above is all I need as an excuse not to look at what is inside this sandwich. My own quest for understanding has led me through all the major religions, flirtation with aetheism, and almost everything in between. What changed that was children. I returned to regular church attendance after my daughter was born for one reason: I could find no viable system elsewhere "...to raise up a child in the ways he should go." Even if that child should elect to be an aethist later in life, at least she will know what it is she is rejecting. I have come to see a well-rounded person as a tripod that has three legs: family, tribe, and tribal religion. It has been this way for millenia, and it is too soon to pull one of those supports without endangering the person. My own studies of the major religions finds them so similar that I rather doubt that even God can tell them apart. Do I believe every word of the Nicene Creed. Absolutely. One cannot practice a tribal religion partially. Do I believe that Christianity is the only way the Creator has revealed Himself to the universe? Absolutely not, as to do so would be to place limits on that which has no limits. If I were Thai, I'd be a devout Buddhist. With a bit more Cherokee than I possess, I'd follow the Great Spirit. However, the religion of my tribe is Christianity, so I follow and attempt to practice the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I belong to the Anglican (Episcopalian) catholic tradition. I really wanted to join the church of Rome, but one big thing abosolutely prevents that: closed communion. How any church thinks it can peer into the soul of a person and determine whether they are Christian or not completely astounds me. This is the single most egregious error of Rome. Until those barriers come down, I will not call the Roman Church "Catholic," but only "catholic." Of course, as mentioned in posts above, many other non-scriptural errors have become enshrined in the Roman tradition, but none of them so glaring as this.

I have come to love my parish, with the spiritual and physical support system it provides my whole family. I feel for those so intent on being "scientific" that they must attempt to prove or disprove religion. It is not about that. Our science cannot even define what keeps us from flying off the planet, so I find it laughable to presume we've somehow determined that there is or is not a Creator.

Now, if I can just determine what Evil Force is affecting my SME...

BTW, I also believe in Santa Claus and fully expect to find a pair of Moondogs under the tree this year. Life is a LOT more fun that way!

Dave

------------------

David A. Mallett

Average system component age: 30 years.

Performance: Timeless

[Deang]

Nice post Mallet. I would just like to point out that the various beliefs are not as close to being the same as you state. I mean, you seemed to have no trouble deciding which side of fence to fall on. If YOU can choose a belief system by sifting through them, and making an informed choice based on your understanding of the teachings, and the application thereof -- then you can be assured that God as well can tell a difference.

Doctrine ultimately reveals the character of God. Bad doctrine and dogma malign His character. It is not likely He is unconcerned with what people believe about Him -- anymore than you are not concerned with what people believe about you.

Kelly -- I don't understand how you can compare the content of this thread to 'bad' talk radio. It's a good thread with some intelligent debate, completely devoid of hate mongering. I think many of us shifted our views to center somewhat, I know I did. I would hope you WOULD separate the views of certain individuals here, from their content on the 2 Channel Forum -- for the wall between church and state does not extend to people.

Clipped -- and your point is? A person who speaks of their faith and related teachings is not "spiritual"? Does this also mean a person who speaks of the nuts and bolts regarding their audio equipment is not a "music lover"?

The fact that everyone has been encouraged to not speak of religion and politics in mixed company, has given us an almost completely ignorant electorate, as well as equally ignorant church assemblies.

Audioholic -- I have no idea how The Stooges apply to anything in this thread. Am I dense? Are you infering this constitutes the makeup of individuals here who have an interest in maintaining the godly heritage of our country? Nice.

Regarding the last page of this thread -- Tom and myself have this little thing going, and though it is obvious we are not going to agree -- I don't think either him, or me, is interested in lighting any torches and setting fire to one another. So what is the point in jumping in here and making comments deriding our beliefs?

f>s>

------------------

Deanf>s>

Bi-amplified Klipsch RF7s using

a pair of AE-25 PP triode amps.

A SF-Line 1 loaded with 6922's

and a 9000ES finish the front.

The low bass is supplied by SVS

and Samson. The crossover is HSU.f>s>

This message has been edited by deang on 07-06-2002 at 12:11 PM