Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet
Hmmm. That's a tough call. If their job description says that they have to attend public events when they can be spared, then it might be appropriate for them to have to go to this one. But if that's the case, they should also be obligated to go KKK parades, too, if requested, and Neo-Nazi marches, and any other public events. In other words, it must be all or none, and it must be clearly in their job description so that they knew what they were getting in to.
Jeff
Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet
Those quotes scare the snot out of me.
In the 1930s, Pacelli and his associates negotiated with the Nazis to form a contract which got signed in 1933 as the Reich Concordat with the approval of the Pope. Note that the Catholic hierarchy believes in the infallibility of Popes in matters of faith and morals (ever since the First Vatican Council of 1870). This Concordat with its Papal infallible authority had arguably neutralized the potential of 23 million Catholics to protest and resist and which helped Hitler into legal dictatorship. [Cornwell, p. 4] After the agreement, Hitler, mimicking Pacelli fourteen years earlier stated, "I will devote my entire strength to cultivating and strengthening the relations between the Holy See and Germany." [Cornwell, p. 136] (Hitler, spent more time and effort on the concordat with Pacelli than on any other treaty in the entire era of the Third Reich [Cornwell, p. 150]). This Concordat gave Germany an opportunity to create an area of trust with the Church and gave significance to the developing struggle against international Jewry. According to John Cornwell, this papal endorsement of Nazism helped seal the fate of Europe which makes it plausible that these Catholic prejudices bolstered aspects of Nazi anti-Semitism. [Cornwell, p. 28]
The Concordat and the following Jewish persecutions resulted in the silence of the Pope and the bishops. Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich, referring to the Nazi attacks on the Jews, wrote to Pacelli, confirming that protest proved pointless since it could only extend the struggle to Catholics. He told Pacelli, "Jews can help themselves." [Cornwell, p. 140] Most bishops and Cardinals were Nazi sympathizers as were bishop Wilhelm Berning of Osnabruck and Archbishop Grober of Freiurg ( Pacelli's choice for emissaries).
On April 25, thousands of Catholic priests across Germany became part of an anti-Semitic attestation bureaucracy, supplying details of blood purity through marriage and baptism registries in accordance with the Nazi Nuremberg laws which distinguished Jews from non-Jews. Catholic clerical compliance in the process would continue throughout the period of the Nazi regime. [Cornwell, pp.154] Any claimed saving of all-too-few Jewish lives by a few brave Catholics must stand against the millions who died in the death camps as an indirect result of the official workings of the Catholic body.
After <I>Kristallnacht</I> (where Nazis broke Jewish store windows and had synagogues burned) there issued not a single word of condemnation from the Vatican, the German Church hierarchy, or from Pacelli. Yet in an encyclical on anti-Semitism, titled<I> Humani generis unitas </I>(The Unity of the Human Race) by Pope Pius XI, a section claims that the Jews were responsible for their own fate. God had chosen them to make way for Christ's redemption but they denied him and killed him. And now, "Blinded by their dream of worldly gain and material success," they had deserved the "worldly and spiritual ruin" that they had brought down upon themselves. [Cornwell, p. 191] Cardinal Theodor Innitzer, archbishop of Vienna warmly received Hitler in Vienna after his triumphal march through the capital where he expressed public satisfaction with Hitler's regime. [Cornwell, p. 201] Meanwhile, Cardinal Bertram sent Hitler an effusive telegram, published on October 2 in the Nazi newspaper <I>Volkischer Beobachter,</I> "The great deed of safeguarding peace among the nations moves the German episcopate acting in the name of the Catholics of all the German dioceses, respectfully to extend congratulations and thanks and to order a festive ringing of bells on Sunday." [Cornwell, p. 202]
Originally posted by kern
The idea that Christian Nation = moral society is complete nonsense. There have been several countries that called themselves "Christian Nations" (such as Nazi-era Germany) who were far from moral. It also seems to me that some of the worst atrocities in American history (genocide of Native Americans, firebombing of German and Japanese civilian population, etc.) were committed before most people claim these moral declines started. And how about all those so-called Christian activites of the middle ages which we'd all like to forget now? These do not invalidate Christianity (of course), but in my mind there is no clear connection between a "christian nation" and a moral society.
Now, if you literally had a "christian nation" (i.e. everyone in the nation is a devout Christian) then of course morals would be higher according to Christian standards, but this *cannot* be accomplished by legislation. You can't force people to be moral Christians through two words in a pledge or a phrase on a coin.
There are also good examples of non-Christian nations which have very low crime rates, and which would certainly be considered "free nations", such as modern Japan, which has less than a 1% Christian population.
-Chris
Originally posted by eldermike
Jeff,
What is the moral anchor for atheist? I know personally an atheist that tells me that it's the law. But is the law moral? He also tells me it's the parents responsibility to instill moral values. Where do parents get them? This is a serious question. The atheist friend I am speaking of is a good man, He just will not admit His morals are Christian based.
Blessings
Originally posted by eldermike
Jeff,
Thanks for your answer.
I agree that Christian values exist in places were atributing them to Christianity would be difficult to pull off. However, I believe that we were created in the image of God, therefore values are simply a design feature. Scripture is the Christian anchor and God is the author of scripture. Perhaps your view of the nature of values is evidence of this since we seem to share certain values with and without scripture. Could that be design? It would seem to me that atributing this to natural causes would be difficult.
Blessings
...
You are also faced with biblical passages such as these:
"... their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)
"Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:16)
"...and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children." (Isaiah 13:18)
"Then Manahem smote Tipsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women wherein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)
It is not possible to read these Charles Manson-like passages and at the same time claim that the Bible teaches only reverence for life. Less reverence cannot be fathomed. Any compassionate human being cannot read these horrible descriptions of murder without having the stomach turn. And no amount of rationalizing can justify any of it. Such descriptions render the Bible obscene.
Chirstian apologists will explain, earnestly and patiently, that killing and murdering are not the same thing. The ancient Hebrew words for "murder" and "kill" are different, you see. And there were translation errors made througout the Old Testament, and especially in the Ten Commandments, you see. That means that the commandement should read, "Thou shalt not murder" rather than "Thou shalt not kill," you see. So when God ordered entire communities to be slaughtered, including the babies, he was ordering only that they be killed, not murdered. You see.
This sort of linguistic hairsplitting is intelligence-insulting, and betrays an astonishing callousness. Dead babies are dead babies, and I don't care which Hebrew verb you use to describe how they got that way. The obscenity of the destruction of Samaria, as described in Hosea 13:16 cannot be translated out of trouble; The verse, in its entirety, states, "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
Well, that paints a pretty clear picture. You can play Name That Verb forever, but you will never change the monstrous nature of that appalling directive.
Since most of us have never dashed an infant to pieces, it is a challenge even to imagine how one might go about doing it. Try to envision such a thing, and as you do so, freeze your face muscles and go look in a mirror. You will see pain, shock, disgust, and perhaps a bit of nausea. But try not to sidestep this mental exercise. We are talking about the "Holy" Bible here, so let's plow through this.
Imagine, then, grabbing, say, a six-week-old, screaming infant away from its equally screaming mother. How would you "dash" the tiny baby to pieces? Perhaps you would grab the baby by its ankles and swing it, like a golf club, smashing its little head against a stone wall or tree, until its skull cracked and its brains spilled out. That should certainly qualify as dashing in pieces.
As for "ripping up" the pregnant women, it would probably just be a matter of using a sword and stabbing at their swolen bellies, repeatedly, until the fetuses were destroyed and the women were, literally, ripped up and lying, dead, in pools of their own blood.
(At this point, you might want to make note, again, of your facial expression.)
...
Those quotes scare the snot out of me. I was especially freaked out by former President Bush's comment that atheists should not be allowed to be citizens.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson: secular humanist.
Jeff
Originally posted by TheBear
I can fully understand and appreciate your concerns, Jeff. I would be just as upset, maybe even more, if I witnessed the Congress trying to endorse and establish any religion.
I just don't see it happening, and pray that I never will.
Sometimes, we need to separate the personal religious convictions of lawmakers from what the lawmakers are actually doing in the performance of their public duties and sworn obligations. One of their main obligation is to uphold the Constitution of The United States. And, even though there are many non-Christians in the Senate, 99 to 0 rejected the ruling.
So, rest easy my friend. Congress is not going about, trying to establish any religion, regardless of what an individual says in reference to what they personally believe.
John
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?