[goMac]

I found this link in a Google Ad:

aboutthebook

Hil-ar-ious. I'm a Democrat, but seriously, politicizing children's books? Kind of an early age to start, don't you think?

Link to some sample pages:
Sample pages

Don't make too much of a fuss conservative friends, I'm sure I wouldn't have to dig too deep to find similar books from your side of the fence.

[hyteckit]

I think it's a response to these books.

Amazon.com: Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!: Books: Katharine DeBrecht,Jim Hummel

Amazon.com: Why Mommy Is a Democrat: Books: Jeremy Zilber,Yuliya Firsova

[Cold Warrior]

Just another example of how society teaches people what to think, not how to think. All sides do it.

[nonhuman]

There's a kids store down the street from me that sells a book called 'My daddy is a pretzel'.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

Google Ads:

Why Mommy is a Democrat
The book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read!

Showed up for me a few months ago too. I was a little shocked that no one wanted to tear into it.

Maybe it should be titled "Baby's first Brainwashing".

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Just another example of how society teaches people what to think, not how to think..

Like "Everday Math". We used to teach society that 2 +3 =5. Now we teach students that the total is insignificant as long as they claim to understand how to think.

All sides do it

Not all sides have 90% of school administrators and teachers in their pocket. It's one thing to publish a book. It's another issue entirely as to which books students are required to read.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Not all sides have 90% of school administrators and teachers in their pocket. It's one thing to publish a book. It's another issue entirely as to which books students are required to read.

So the Democratic Party stuffs these people into their pocket, or do they happen to appeal to the same mentality that would make someone want to become a teacher?

Your statement implies the former, while it is the latter I believe to be true.

[art_director]

if ann coulter can write a book anyone can write a book.

[peeb]

I don't think Ann wrote hers.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by art_director 

if ann coulter can write a book anyone can write a book.

can and should are such worlds apart.

I don't agree with the indoctrination of kids into politics at a young age. They can pick up family core values from their parents without it being about political parties, and they can grow up to accept or reject these values as they see fit, if they've been raised to think, which seems to scare people in positions of power, whatever side you're on.

[Jawbone54]

Kids' lives are being complicated too early already. The idea of introducing politics into their lives so early is ridiculous, no matter what political party is advocated by the book.

I'm all for kids learning about history, but they don't have to be introduced to the dirty side of the political system so early.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by chris v 

I don't agree with the indoctrination of kids into politics at a young age. They can pick up family core values from their parents without it being about political parties, and they can grow up to accept or reject these values as they see fit, if they've been raised to think, which seems to scare people in positions of power, whatever side you're on.

In total agreement.

[besson3c]

Jawbone: have you seen Jesus Camp? Are you for kids being taught religious dogma to this extent at such a young age?

If you haven't seen Jesus Camp, I'm not just saying this to slam your religion. Based on everything you've written, I feel pretty confident in assuming that you are nothing like the documented individuals in Jesus Camp

[Jawbone54]

I went to a Christian camp from the age of 8-18, and I work at that camp every summer. It is NOTHING like Jesus Camp. This year I'll post some pictures to show how different it is.

I think everyone has to assume that the people that made Jesus Camp were making a particular point, so they went out and found the absolute worst Christian camp out there, and portrayed it in just the right way to shock people, especially non-Christians. I haven't seen the whole movie, but I've seen about 30 minutes of it. Comparing those kids to Islamic fundamentalists was...a bit much.

But yeah, still wild.

[besson3c]

I don't think the comparison was unjust... I think Christians like those depicted in Jesus Camp (assuming it was an accurate depiction) believe just as strongly and, as a testament to their beliefs, would display their beliefs in exactly the same way if given the same marching orders.

The difference is that Christians today, for the most part, are not given the same destructive marching orders, perhaps save the Westboro Baptist clowns. In the past, this was not the case.

My point is that the same underlying mentality is the same - these people would probably do just about anything out of religious conviction if given adequate instruction/motivation/inspiration/whatever.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't think the comparison was unjust... I think Christians like those depicted in Jesus Camp (assuming it was an accurate depiction) believe just as strongly and, as a testament to their beliefs, would display their beliefs in exactly the same way if given the same marching orders.

The difference is that Christians today, for the most part, are not given the same destructive marching orders, perhaps save the Westboro Baptist clowns. In the past, this was not the case.

My point is that the same underlying mentality is the same - these people would probably do just about anything out of religious conviction if given adequate instruction/motivation/inspiration/whatever.

I think it's a bit unfair to assume so much about religious people, especially since, in order for Christians to be as violent and aggressive as radical Islamist terrorists, they'd have to do exactly what Jesus commanded them not to do.

The Westboro Baptists are a perfect example of people calling themselves Christians, but doing nothing to reflect Christian beliefs. The outrage you hear from 99% of Christianity against the Westboro Baptists is a pretty good indication that we strongly frown upon that sort of fanaticism and lunacy. Imagine how we'd react if the Westboro Baptists were actually bombing soldiers' funerals instead of protesting them.

As a Christian, I am trying to live my life according to the standards set forth in the New Testament. I'm a long ways off from following them as I should, but my living a radical life for Christ shouldn't be considered a frightening thing by anyone.

If we were walking into people's housing and shoving crucifixes into their eyeballs, I could understand the distaste that some have for religion, Christianity in particular.

I guess I should focus on the fact that the vast majority of us are not blindly obeying "marching orders" from some random lunatic behind a pulpit. We're relying on spiritual leaders who read the Bible, attempt to follow the Bible, and will probably study it until the day they die. Additionally, all Christians are called to "study to show (themselves) approved."

A dedicated, studious Christian would be able to distinguish between fanatical marching orders and the Word of God. I think part of the problem for Christians these days is that we're neither dedicated, nor studious. I'm reading a book right now called unChristian by David Kinnaman about the perception of Christians in today's society. It's a real eye-opener about the shortcomings of modern Christianity. My father has been using material from it in his messages for three weeks now.

All-in-all, if we focused on studying and living out Scripture even half as much as we focus on memorizing illegal immigration talking points, we'd probably be perceived a lot differently.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I think it's a bit unfair to assume so much about religious people, especially since, in order for Christians to be as violent and aggressive as radical Islamist terrorists, they'd have to do exactly what Jesus commanded them not to do.

How do you explain the bloody history of Christianity then?

If we were walking into people's housing and shoving crucifixes into their eyeballs, I could understand the distaste that some have for religion, Christianity in particular.

Yeah, having my eye poked out by a crucifix would provide distaste

I guess I should focus on the fact that the vast majority of us are not blindly obeying "marching orders" from some random lunatic behind a pulpit. We're relying on spiritual leaders who read the Bible, attempt to follow the Bible, and will probably study it until the day they die. Additionally, all Christians are called to "study to show (themselves) approved."

Same question as above... Also, do you think that the Koran is literally providing marching orders, or is this some radical (human) fringe of Islam?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you explain the bloody history of Christianity then?

Imagine Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church was the leader of the only government-allowed religion in North and South America. Let's randomly call him "The Mope," who lives in a special city called "The Tatican."

Let's say that Phelps instituted similar lunatics into positions of power throughout the Western Hemisphere. His successors and their co-conspirators blinded the masses through centuries of fear, torment, and corruption.

His movement becomes so powerful that whoever The Mope at the time is wields power over all the countries in North and South America. He, in effect, becomes God, and his word, rather than the Bible, becomes dogma. The people don't know any difference between the Bible and his orders, because the Bible is only allowed to be printed in the language we'll call "Jatin." Those who work for The Mope are the only ones who speak Jatin, so they can pick and choose what they want from the Bible, even fabricate entire portions of it, and deliver it to the masses.

The Mope says whatever he wants from the safety of Tatican City. The governments and their people listen intently. They even believe that if they go violently destroy an entire culture in the name of the Holy Doman Church, they're in the will of God.

That whole segment wasn't a knock on Catholicism, but it was a knock on Catholicism in the Middle Ages. It was hijacking Christianity, or what they called Christianity.

Yeah, having my eye poked out by a crucifix would provide distaste

Another assumption. You might rather enjoy it.

Same question as above... Also, do you think that the Koran is literally providing marching orders, or is this some radical (human) fringe of Islam?

The Qur'an is a little bit more difficult to study than the Bible (although the Bible can be extremely complicated, especially when attempting to read original Greek and/or Hebrew texts), but it's not as vague as some have argued.

I have a copy of the Qur'an in my house. I haven't read the entire thing, but I've studied it on and off every few months. There are some sections that speak very clearly...

"Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's cause) is ordained for you" (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:216)

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and worship is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against As-Zatimun (the polytheists and wrong doers)" (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:193)

"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him" (Surat At-Taubah 9:111)

"(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, "Verily I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire" (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14)

"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter" (Surat Al-Maidah 5:33)

"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful" (Surat At-Taubah 9:5)

Compared to:

Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword in its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

[besson3c]

What about if you compare the Qur'an to the Old Testament and all of the fire and brimstone/vengeful God stuff in there? Similarities?

Regardless, whether it is a sin to wear clothes of mixed fibers, whether you should not mix pork with dairy, whether you should fight for Allah, whether the world was created in 7 days and two of every animal were put on a boat, it all sounds like wild mysticism to me, no disrespect intended...

I respect the notion that some stuff in the Bible should not be interpreted literally, but I have difficulty with knowing when this treatment should be applied, and why it cannot be extended to other religions as well....

[osiris]

just to poke in here - I think that's an unfair comparison besson3c - the New Testament is a new covenant between God and the people. Supposedly gone are the days of fire and brimstone. At least that's what I was taught.

[Jawbone54]

A few, except for the fact that it's the "Old" Testament, followed by the New, in which Jesus turned the Jewish world on its head, including some of the perceptions Jews had about Gentiles.

Focus particularly on the writers of Paul in the New Testament. Doesn't sound like the most violent of teaching.

[EDIT - osiris chipped in while I was responding]

Originally Posted by osiris

just to poke in here - I think that's an unfair comparison besson3c - the New Testament is a new covenant between God and the people. Supposedly gone are the days of fire and brimstone. At least that's what I was taught.

Beat me to it.

God's still a God of judgment, but judgment is God's duty, not ours.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you explain the bloody history of Christianity then?

Not all of Christianity has a bloody history. You can rest the blame for >99% of the carnage on the shoulders of one particular church.

What about if you compare the Qur'an to the Old Testament and all of the fire and brimstone/vengeful God stuff in there? Similarities?

Regardless, whether it is a sin to wear clothes of mixed fibers, whether you should not mix pork with dairy, whether you should fight for Allah, whether the world was created in 7 days and two of every animal were put on a boat, it all sounds like wild mysticism to me, no disrespect intended...

I respect the notion that some stuff in the Bible should not be interpreted literally, but I have difficulty with knowing when this treatment should be applied, and why it cannot be extended to other religions as well....

For Christians, the OT exists to explore the Law within a historical context. However, Jesus makes certain notions quite plain:

Matt. 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Jesus fulfilled the Law and established a new covenant, founded in love.

As for the fire and brimstone God of the OT, the Bible mirrors the life and struggles of a particular time and period. The world was much less pleasant and more brutal then, and it's reflected in the scriptures of that era. Luckily, this was addressed by Jesus and he commanded his followers to a different path, much the same way the Jews were led by their teachers, but there were growing pains involved. Personally, I don't believe that Islam has matured to the same point, and they're currently at the stage Christianity was during the Crusades. Eventually they'll calm down, like every other major religion in the world.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Personally, I don't believe that Islam has matured to the same point, and they're currently at the stage Christianity was during the Crusades. Eventually they'll calm down, like every other major religion in the world.

So where does that put Scientology?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

So where does that put Scientology?

With Amway?

[Jawbone54]

Pa-KOW!

[peeb]

It's easy to find violence in the New Testament - you can pick either the Christian or Muslim scripture and read into it whatever you want.

Matthew
Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19
"The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12
Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15
"Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34
In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13
Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51
The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30
Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41
Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Mark
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12
Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13
Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10
If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38
Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49
Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

Luke
God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20
Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9
John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17
Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37
Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15
Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5
Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47
According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31
Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27
Jesus also believes the story about Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32
In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

John
As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36
The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36
Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14
Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6
Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66

Acts
Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
Peter has a dream in which God show him "wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls." The voice (God's?) says, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat." 10:10-13
Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God's, Satan's?) tells him to "Arise, Peter; slay and eat." 11:5-6
The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23
David was "a man after [God's] own heart." 13:22
The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam.12:31 and 1 Chr.20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34
Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11

Romans
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9
God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12

1 Corinthians
If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you. 3:17
Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab 10:8
If you tempt Christ (How could you tempt Christ?), you'll will die from snake bites. 10:9
If you murmur, you'll be destroyed by the destroyer (God). 10:10

Ephesians
We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. 1:4-5, 11
God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn't do. 1:7
The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2
Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God. 5:6

Colossians
God bought us with someone else's blood. 1:14
God makes peace through blood. 1:19-20

1 Thessalonians
God is planning a messy, mass murder in "the wrath to come" and only Jesus can save you from it. 1:10

2 Thessalonians
Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9
Jesus will "consume" the wicked "with the spirit of his mouth." 2:8
God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12

Hebrews
God will not forgive us unless we shed the blood of some innocent creature. 9:13-14, 22
Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. 10:28-29
God ordered animals to be "stoned, or thrust through with a dart" if they "so much as ... touch the mountain." 12:20

James
If you are merciless to others, God will be merciless to you. (Two wrongs make a right.) 2:13
James says Abraham was justified by works (for being willing to kill his son for God); Paul (Rom.4:2-3) says he was justified by faith (for believing that God would order him to do such an evil act). 2:21

1 Peter
We are all, according to Peter, predestined to be saved or damned. We have no say in the matter. It was all determined by "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."1:2
"The precious blood of Christ ... was foreordained before the foundation of the world."
God planned to kill Jesus from the get-go. 1:19-20
God drowned drowned everyone on earth except for Noah and his family. 3:20

2 Peter
God drowned everyone else on earth except for Noah and his family. 2:5, 3:6
God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death. 3:7
When Jesus returns, he'll burn up the whole earth and everything on it. 3:10

1 John
Jesus' blood washes away human sin. 1:7

Jude
"The Lord destroyed them that believed not. 5

Revelation
Jesus "washed us ... with his own blood." 1:5
Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
Jesus has "the keys of hell and death." 1:18
Repent -- or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. (Like the limbless knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail.") 2:16
"I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23
"Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." God created predators, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11
"Thou art worthy ... for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." 5:9
God gives someone on a white horse a bow and sends him out to conquer people. 6:2
God gave power to someone on a red horse "to take from the earth ... that they should kill one another." 6:4
God tells Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth's population with the sword, starvation, and "with the beasts of the earth." 6:8
The martyrs just can't wait until everyone else is slaughtered. God gives them a white robe and tells them to wait until he's done with his killing spree. 6:10-11
God tells his murderous angels to "hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of your God on their foreheads." This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God's loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was their God-given job to "hurt the earth and the sea" just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job. 7:3
144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4
Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes in the blood of the lamb. 7:14
God sends his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water. 8:7-13
"Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." 8:11
The angels are instructed not to "hurt the grass [how could they? He already had all the grass killed in 8:7] ... but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads." God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them with scorpions for five months. Those tormented will want to die, but God won't let them. 9:4-6
God makes some horse-like locusts with human heads, women's hair, lion's teeth, and scorpion's tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9:7-10
Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth's population. 9:15-19
Anyone that messes with God's two olive trees and two candlesticks (God's witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5
God's witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues "as often as they will." 11:6
After God's witnesses "have finished their testimony," they are killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11:7
Their dead bodies lie unburied for three and a half days. People will "rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another." After another three and half days God brings his witnesses back to life and they ascend into heaven. 11:8-12
When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. "The third woe cometh quickly." 11:13-14
"The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"
God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8
Those who receive the mark of the beast will "drink of the wine of the wrath of God ... and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." 14:10-11
"The great winepress of the wrath of God ... was trodden ... and the blood cam out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles." 14:19-20
Seven angels with seven plagues are filled with the wrath of God. 15:1, 15:7
The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1-21
God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
"They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." (Are they going to eat her first and then burn her?) 17:16-17
To punish her God will send plagues and famine, and "she will be utterly burned with fire." 18:8
God will send plagues, death, and famine on Babylon, and the kings "who have committed fornication with her" will be sad to see her burn. 18:8-9
Jesus makes war. 19:11
With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful into holy war. 19:12-15
"Come ... unto the supper of the great God." An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, "both free and bond, both small and great." 19:17-18
The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. "And all the fowls were filled with their flesh." 19:20-21
God will send fire from heaven to devour people. And the devil will be tormented "day and night for ever and ever." 20:9-10
Whoever isn't found listed in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. 20:15
All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." 21:8

[Chongo]

The "violence"in the NT you cite, for the most part, is for the after life. the violence of the Koran, for the most part, is to visited upon those who do not proclain that "There is no G*d but G*d, and Mohamed is his prophet" Just ask Steve Cenatnni of FNC.

On a lighter note and back on topic.

I love how the Happy healthy Earth looks like Michael Moore

[peeb]

Well, I'm not sure I agree - but if it is after life, so what? Assuming you believe it, what's the difference?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

With Amway?

Heh. multi-level marke... I mean religion. WTF Tom Cruise?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not all of Christianity has a bloody history. You can rest the blame for >99% of the carnage on the shoulders of one particular church.

Really? There's only a few Christian churches I can think of that haven't had a bloody history... For the most part the churches the originated in the US are pretty clean... but if the Church originated in Europe? Generally those churches came about with some sort of bloodshed.

[peeb]

Hardly any religious organization older than a few decades has an unblemished past. That's the point - it's not that one religion is better or worse than the others, it's that one aspect of religion is its tendency to bring out the worst in people.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Really? There's only a few Christian churches I can think of that haven't had a bloody history... For the most part the churches the originated in the US are pretty clean... but if the Church originated in Europe? Generally those churches came about with some sort of bloodshed.

You can point to the Roman church as the originator of most of the violence, I can't think of any others that even come close. The Greeks and Russians have had some squabbles, and the Armenians were on the defensive for centuries, but for the most part other churches have been relatively peaceful throughout their histories. Of course, the Protestant Reformation wasn't bloodless, but most of that rests at the feet of the RCC.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

it's that one aspect of religion is its tendency to bring out the worst in people.

Yeah. Those ****in' Buddhists are always getting up in my face and ****.

[peeb]

Erm, no, Shaddim.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. Those ****in' Buddhists are always getting up in my face and ****.

In 1959 Bandaranaike (first woman premier) was assassinated by a Buddhist monk.
BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Timeline: Sri Lanka
Manshark's Random Rants: What happened in Sri Lanka Yesterday

It's hard to believe, but even Buddhism has assholes.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. Those ****in' Buddhists are always getting up in my face and ****.

Those greedy bastards!

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's hard to believe, but even Buddhism has assholes.

That was never in question.

I'll refresh you on your argument. You said "one aspect of religion is its tendency to bring out the worst in people".

Do you think the examples you give above are proof of this? It was Buddhism which contributed to them being assholes? Did you even read past the first paragraph in the blog you linked to? What was its conclusion?

[insert obnoxious ad hominem about the need for scholastic improvement here]

[peeb]

Well, it is possible to argue that the bad behavior of the clergy of any religion can be attributed to non-religious factors, but when a radical Buddhist party member who is also a monk assassinates someone I guess I do attribute it to their religious beliefs, at least in part.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You can point to the Roman church as the originator of most of the violence, I can't think of any others that even come close. The Greeks and Russians have had some squabbles, and the Armenians were on the defensive for centuries, but for the most part other churches have been relatively peaceful throughout their histories. Of course, the Protestant Reformation wasn't bloodless, but most of that rests at the feet of the RCC.

Unfortunately for your argument the Roman Catholic Church is the church that all other churches originated from. Regardless, in Spain you had the Catholics vs. the Moors (religious violence on both sides of the aisle), the Spanish Inquisition, the Church of England in Britain, the mentioned Protestant Reformation...

Not to mention, with the discovery of the new world most the European religions brought their problems over here. There was the Salem witch hunt, the abuse of native peoples by all the respective state religions, and so on....

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Unfortunately for your argument the Roman Catholic Church is the church that all other churches originated from. Regardless, in Spain you had the Catholics vs. the Moors (religious violence on both sides of the aisle), the Spanish Inquisition, the Church of England in Britain, the mentioned Protestant Reformation...

Ummm, not at all. Most Protestant churches come from the RCC but there are literally 100s of others, most Orthodox, that have never had direct affiliation with Rome.

Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Roman church gets picked on because they are the 800lb gorilla in the room, unfortunately this gorilla has done a bit more than simply trash some luggage. The examples you listed are directly linked to Roman actions. Well, maybe not Henry VIII's divorce.

Not to mention, with the discovery of the new world most the European religions brought their problems over here. There was the Salem witch hunt, the abuse of native peoples by all the respective state religions, and so on....

Atrocities which were almost all Roman in origin. Salem was bad, inexcusable, but it was isolated. Not that many people in the colonies were accused of witchcraft, nothing like the ~100,000 who were put to the question in Europe.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Ummm, not at all. Most Protestant churches come from the RCC but there are literally 100s of others, most Orthodox, that have never had direct affiliation with Rome.

Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um what? The Orthodox and Roman churches started as the same church.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The Roman church gets picked on because they are the 800lb gorilla in the room, unfortunately this gorilla has done a bit more than simply trash some luggage. The examples you listed are directly linked to Roman actions. Well, maybe not Henry VIII's divorce.

Atrocities which were almost all Roman in origin. Salem was bad, inexcusable, but it was isolated. Not that many people in the colonies were accused of witchcraft, nothing like the ~100,000 who were put to the question in Europe.

Where ever you introduce religion into the government it seems to always end in disaster. Seriously, look at any government that lumped in religion into the official state policy and you'll probably find a lot of wars in the name of religion. It's one reason why the U.S. based religions are significantly tamer.

[chris v]

So. How about that kid's book, eh?

(sorry for the off topic psot)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Um what? The Orthodox and Roman churches started as the same church.

Well, when it all started there was the "Christian church" (actually, they were simply a minor Jewish sect), but due to distance and cultural differences they actually separated long before the first ecumenical council (325CE). Even the Eastern churches had separated by then into three separate jurisdictions, their patriarchs were: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Ironically, the Roman patriarch, Pope Silvester I, didn't attend the first council, but he sent representatives in his place, most notably Hosius of Cordoba.

At any rate, the whole of Christianity was quite diverse within just a couple centuries of the Apostles' deaths.

Where ever you introduce religion into the government it seems to always end in disaster. Seriously, look at any government that lumped in religion into the official state policy and you'll probably find a lot of wars in the name of religion. It's one reason why the U.S. based religions are significantly tamer.

Many nations still have official state-funded churches; Germany, England, Denmark, Iceland, Greece, etc. etc.. In fact, there appear to be more countries with official religions than without. It seems to me, however, that society as a whole calmed down a bit, most religions with it. Fact is, if it weren't religion being used to do terrible things, during the darker times in our history, it likely would have been something else.

Perhaps U.S. denominations seem to be "significantly tamer" because they were conceived during a time when mankind itself was becoming more civilized?

[peeb]

LOL - what makes you think that 'mankind is becoming more civilized'?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

How about the fact that modern day peebs are free to walk around without being pilloried, tarred and feathered, flogged, caned, stoned to death, drawn and quartered, impaled, etc. etc?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

How about the fact that modern day peebs are free to walk around without being pilloried, tarred and feathered, flogged, caned, stoned to death, drawn and quartered, impaled, etc. etc?

Depends where you live. US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Japan, sure. Everywhere else, not so much.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Even the Eastern churches had separated by then into three separate jurisdictions, their patriarchs were: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Ironically, the Roman patriarch, Pope Silvester I, didn't attend the first council, but he sent representatives in his place, most notably Hosius of Cordoba.

Um, all those churches actually followed the rule of the central church in Rome. It wasn't until the great schism that those churches then fell under the Orthodox church.

Give this a read:
History of the Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At any rate, the whole of Christianity was quite diverse within just a couple centuries of the Apostles' deaths.

That may be, but until the Great Schism, all the churches fell under the jurisdiction or Rome.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Many nations still have official state-funded churches; Germany, England, Denmark, Iceland, Greece, etc. etc.. In fact, there appear to be more countries with official religions than without. It seems to me, however, that society as a whole calmed down a bit, most religions with it. Fact is, if it weren't religion being used to do terrible things, during the darker times in our history, it likely would have been something else.

Haven't Germany and England both had very severe religious persecution issues?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Perhaps U.S. denominations seem to be "significantly tamer" because they were conceived during a time when mankind itself was becoming more civilized?

Or perhaps because there wasn't a state sponsored "us vs. them" mentality.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Um, all those churches actually followed the rule of the central church in Rome. It wasn't until the great schism that those churches then fell under the Orthodox church.

Give this a read:
History of the Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That may be, but until the Great Schism, all the churches fell under the jurisdiction or Rome.

Even that article, which is heavily skewed towards the Roman POV, reveals a great deal of truth about that arrangement.

By the fifth century, the ecclesiastical had evolved a hierarchical "pentarchy" or system of five sees (patriarchates), with a settled order of precedence. Rome, as the ancient center and largest city of the empire, was understandably given the presidency or primacy of honor within the pentarchy into which Christendom was now divided. Plainly, this system of patriarchs and metropolitans was exclusively the result of ecclesiastical legislation; there was nothing inherently divine in its origin. None of the five sees, in short, possessed its authority by divine right. Though it was and still held that the patriarch of Rome was the first among equals. The original Pentarchy of the ancient Roman Empire: East and West.

The Roman patriarch led many of the debates and was regarded with great respect, but they were all independent. At that time, the suggestion of a single, universal congregation would have been met with bewilderment. In essence, there was no "rule", there was dialog. They all maintained a large degree of autonomy while remaining in communion with each other. It's similar to the way the LWF, the Lutheran World Federation, is established today.

To quote noted historian Jaroslav Pelikan:

"... [the Roman See] held a degree of authority, but from a position of scholarship and population. There was no concept of central leadership within the ecclesiastical body."

Haven't Germany and England both had very severe religious persecution issues?

Every church has, to some degree, but central to both issues was the separation from Rome and Papal influence.

Or perhaps because there wasn't a state sponsored "us vs. them" mentality.

Perhaps. Likely it's a combination of those factors.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Depends where you live. US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Japan, sure. Everywhere else, not so much.

True, true.