I appreciate your polite toleration and attempt to understand my views, Kosh. You have a point except that the settlers did not land and attack. They had travelled half way across the world... They had to "settle" somewhere.

I agree. In defense of myself, I must say that I was simply responding to comments on my posts.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 21, 2001).]

Dear Ish,
If you tried to "settle" now in any other country now without their government's approval, you will get deported as an illegal immigrant. The Native Americans at that time is doing the "deportation" only in a different way.

Today's circumstances are quite different from the past, but you have a vaid point. Thanks.

Ish

Dang, you beat me to the post... ;-)

I probably don't have to point out to you
that this attitude is both indefensible and
unprovable. In fact, it's unsupportable based
on statistics.

As a counter example, we too have been getting ready for a new house. After much
searching we found a builder that would
build us a huge house, at square foot costs
well below the average real estate prices.
Not to mention a walkout basement and a lot
that backs to permanent open space. Our lot
premium for this privilege is 1/3 of those
being charged by other developers. Then
to make sure our current house didn't sell
too fast, we priced it high. But it sold
in 3 weeks anyway, making the new house
even more affordable.

And all this without the 10% tithing or
prayer.

It's all a matter of how you want to "color"
your attitudes on things.

That missionary in S. America whose wife
and kid were killed by the DEA (or whoever)
was in Church the next week preaching that
it was God's choice to kill the wife and kid
but spare the other one. (Which seems pretty
sick to me).

With this stance it's pretty easy to attribute everything to meddling
of a "benign" God.
After all, that's what the Greeks and Romans
did before Christianity came along.

And there are also plenty of financial
examples of non-Christians who've struck
it rich. Heck, Bill Gates is (was?) the
richest man in the world, and I'm pretty
sure he's the anti-christ... ;-)

Lance

Ish: How are they guilty? I'm just dying to hear this twisty spin.

Lets see...we have settlers that came half way around the world and basically landed and took what they want.

Just about every treaty made with the Indians was with intent to defraud or break later.

And it was the "manifest destiney" and "God given" doctrines that were driving that expansion. Although I guess like runs to like. The ancient Hebrews slaughtered their way into the "holy land", the American settlers slaughtered their way into the west.

yep, real Christian.

Would you defend a homeowner today who shot a person in the process of stealing his home or property? Somehow I doubt it.

BTW, I quized out of AmHist 1 & 2 going into collge...so if there is anyone ignorant of history around here, I suggest you look deeply in a mirror. You just might find the person.

I would like to know why "you can't throw the baby out with the bath water". I hear this alot.

I believe the baby drowned in the tub. Don't throw it out the window, bury it.

Thank you for your opinions, Lance, but I strongly disagree. I'll also refrain from personal attacks. You may think whatever you like of me.

As for the Native American issue, I think Kosh made a mistake in bringing that up. As for myself, I made a mistake in reacting to it. I think Kosh got most of my point and seemingly without taking it to heart. That, I appreciate.

The point was, similar to what I said before, that you don't want to throw out a whole bushel of apples because you find a bad one. If you label Christianity by its "bad apples", then you have to paint other groups the same way. If a member of the SecWeb steals from someone, we wouldn't blame the SecWeb... Surely, you understand this?

Anyway, I think this thread is going nowhere for me now, and it is only making Lance post thumbs down, angry faces, and insults. Cool off, Lance, and hopefully we'll meet in another forum and friendlier atmosphere.

Later,
Ish

*a* bad *one*?

Countless numbers have suffered, throughout history, to further the profit of christianity. Whether that profit be counted by souls saved, coffers filled, or both. It is disingenuous, at best, to characterize with the phrase "a bad one".

Christians "paint other groups" every day.

Lance

Ish: I'm not really upset with you personally. I'm upset with the appalling level of ignorance and arrogance shown in these last few threads. (Not just you, BTW.)

I understand completely that you had nothing to do with any of the last 2000 years of Christian attrocities. But you do belong to the organization (unlike SecWeb) and it might be a good idea to work to change it as the doctrines that drove those attrocities are still in place today.

I also remember watching some Senate hearings on CSPAN a while back...and they were focusing on the legal definition of conspiracy for some reason. Anyhow, the thing that struck me was this: "A person who joins an organization, knowing what the organization is, inherits culpability for prior crimes by that organization."

To put it in simple terms, if you join a Mafia family, you are legally responsible as well for their past crimes.

Now how does this apply to Christianity? Well...the history of the church is well known. It is an organization that does indeed have a level of control over its members lives...in fact thats one of the claimed principle benefits. Since you know the crimes and its past, technically under that definition, you're still responsible for them.

Now how does SecWeb differ? Well...for starters there's no organization. None, zippo, nada. We have no heirachy, no pope, no bishop making policy. We don't even really have property to speak of. And if you want to try and tie atheism to Stalin (the favorite strawman), it won't fly as there is no grand pubah of atheism. Its a belief system versus an organization.

Now lets put the Indian/Conquistador issue to rest. Basically these people that came to our shores were hostile invaders. Moral? Hell no. Ethical? Nope. Polite? Not hardly. In most cases the invaders were welcomed with open arms and then took everything. And when the Indians/Aztecs/Mayans/et al had the audacity to object, slaughtered. Sure they got some back in self defense, but it was the Indian equivalent of Custers last stand. They were going down, probably by that time knew it, and wanted to take as much of the baddies down with them. And you can't deny the root of Christianity in all of this.

Lets address the original topic of the thread. I have no problem with free charity and it should be tax deductable under the current system. I have huge problems with our tax system, but thats a whole 'nother thread in and of itself.

What I do have a problem with is grandiose churches which are essentially social clubs for Christians that cost me tax dollars. These things should NOT be tax free at all. I have no objection to Christians building them, just wish they'd quit mouching off the rest of us.

Hope this helps clarify the issues here.

Well put on all topics, Lance.