steve wrote: When somoene says he's a christian, he's a christian. That covers a lot of territory, but I'm not interested in parsing-out every individual sub-group.

This "definition" of the term, "Christian" may be well suited for a rant, but little else. We need to speak with a certain level of precision when dealing in these matters for discouse to have any real value.

My point still stands.

I've demonstrated that the Chabad Lubavitch sect (which comprises a tiny minority of the 2% minority of Americans who claim Judaic identity) has the power to have a 30 foot tall symbol representative of their religion--the Menorah--erected on the White House lawn every Hanukkah since the 1970s. This is a remarkable show of power and influence and the Lubavitch representative in Washington stated as much himself, "it's a brazen display of influence." Indeed, influence that Christians certainly don't have in the US in 2006.

I've also demonstrated that the Chabad Lubavitch sect has been able to influence the US Congress to pass into law a statement "acknowledging" that Talmudic, Noahide Law forms the "basis of civilized society ... upon which our great Nation was founded." This is incredible. If Christians attempted to have Congress officially acknowledge that the Christian Gospel forms the "basis of civilized society ... upon which our great Nation was founded" the earth would quake, and the ADL would unleash it's fury and the effort would be immediately crushed.

Some people have made comments to the effect that this is some kind of conspiracy theory. What I'm stating is fact. And I don't mind saying that from my perspective, it's the people who speak of a Christian "tyranny of the majority" who are the conspiracy theorists. What evidence is there of anything even remotely approaching a tyranny imposed by Christians in the US in 2006? This is crazy talk. The worst tyrannies of our time have, for the most part, been Communist regimes. And they have been real tyrannies with a body count around the 100 million mark. Let's be real.

If you're opposed to the little influence that Christians have in the US in 2006, but have nothing to say about the inordinate influence which the Lubavitchers have, I have to wonder about your perspective. Maybe you're just unaware of these things.

In any case, the next time you open your refrigerator or kitchen cabinet or go grocery shopping, look for these symbols on the item labels and consider whether Christians manifest the power and influence that it takes to bring most of the nation's grocery products under the jurisdiction of their religious mandates. I think not, but some other group has.


http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/kosher_Food_Symbols.htm#USA


And keep in mind that although meat generally doesn't have kosher symbols on the package, that is because nearly the entire meat industry is kosher, pork aside. But to put kosher symbols on meat products would have a negative impact on the meat industry because many people object to the cruel tratment that animals are subjected to during kosher slaughter as documented here:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=agri_short

Wow, you're a total wack-job.

Walter is that you?

ytrehalf wrote:I've also demonstrated that the Chabad Lubavitch sect has been able to influence the US Congress to pass into law a statement "acknowledging" that Talmudic, Noahide Law forms the "basis of civilized society ... upon which our great Nation was founded." This is incredible.

Oh, give me a break. Michael Moore once paid a D.C. lobbyist a couple of grand and had a resolution passed by Congress which made one day of the year known officially as "TV Nation Day" (that was the name of his TV show).

It's no big fucking deal, pal. Get over it.

ytrehalf wrote:If you're opposed to the little influence that Christians have in the US in 2006, but have nothing to say about the inordinate influence which the Lubavitchers have, I have to wonder about your perspective. Maybe you're just unaware of these things.

Yeah, I know, it's just awful that Christians currently hold majority power in the 3 branches of federal government and in probably every single state government too.

What a persecuted minority! I feel so sorry for you!

Shake, fucker.

Gramsci wrote:Anyhoo, this isn't a person dig are you. But I'm interested in your thoughts as to why a person can cherry-pick the pleasant bits of the Bible, ignore the crazy stuff and still call themselves a Christian. Surely all of the violent, sexist, homophobia is just as valid as the compassionate and moral philosophy? And if you only follow the "pleasant bits", then you're not really a Christian with a capital "C", but someone that simply agrees with some of the philosophy of the Bible. I can't reconcile how a Christian can ignore huge sections of their holy book, simply when modern society finds it offensive or that science disproves it in such a way as to be unambiguous.

the thing is - and perhaps these come across as rather dubious justifications - but as i'd stated before, the Bible is not the literal word of God. period. thus, a lot of the less becoming segments of it can be ruled out simply by good translation. case in point, the homosexuality thing. there are words in both Hebrew and Aramaic (the language in which the New Testament was written) for consentual same-sex intercourse. these words are found nowhere in the Bible - every reference to same-sex intercourse in the Bible uses words for either "sodomy" or "promiscuity." it's a lot different to say "homosexual sex is a sin" than it is to say "promiscuity is a sin." sodomy, i suppose, is up in the air. depends on your definition.

another thing is that the Bible is very deliberately dated. the Jews don't even offer burnt or otherwise dead animals anymore since the Temple was razed. in the same sense, a lot of the crazy Leviticus thou-shalt-not-eat stuff was simply health-food stuff. some fucker died from eating a clam, so they said "God says you can't eat clams." (and yes, that is a Sam Kinison bit.) so a lot of it simply doesn't apply to the modern world.

lastly, and this relates to my first point, the fact the Bible was written by man makes it fallible to the prejudices and ideologies of the day in which it was written. thus, as society progresses and changes, its ability to re-interpret the texts should (key word there) progress and change as well. in fact, the fundamentalist literal interpretation of the book - being so much less tolerant and so much more exclusive - i would argue is much less "Christian" (with a capital "C") than taking it as allegory.

...of course, that was the idea behind the Qur'an, too, and look how far they've come in the last 1500 years (snicker snicker).

When somoene says he's a christian, he's a christian.

This is a completely worthless definition. For example, a crazy person with no respect for logic could regard himself as a "Christian" but at the same time not believe that Jesus even existed. Still, this would be a "Christian" according to that definition.

Instead, I propose that a "Christian" is any person who believes that Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation. That may not be narrow enough, but it's a starting point. The definition should not be any wider than that.

larsxe wrote:Instead, I propose that a "Christian" is any person who believes that Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation. That may not be narrow enough, but it's a starting point. The definition should not be any wider than that.

Okay, how do we know if he believes that? He tells us. So, anybody who says he's a Christian is one.

For what it's worth, I am not a christian by your definition because I do not believe I am damned without salvation. I believe I am doing just fine.

Jesus was an incredible guy, and I like essentially everything he says with respect to how we should treat each other on earth.

Christians? Some of them are just as good as regular people. Get a bunch of them together on any one topic though, and it'll probably be retrograde right-wing bullshit.

whether Christians manifest the power and influence that it takes to bring most of the nation's grocery products under the jurisdiction of their religious mandates

modern christianity places no restrictions on diet outside of a limited time of the year for catholics. as has been stated in this thread modern christianity has done away with the rules it finds "inconvenient" to modern living such wearing cloth woven from numerous fabrics. also they seem to have eased up on usury a bit.

the jewish minority in this country has been around long enough to gain some influence, that is why kosher symbols appear on some food, give the muslim or hindu minority some time, we'll have their symbols on there as well.