Author Topic: Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol  (Read 13836 times)

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #45 on: December 12, 2005, 12:21:15 PM »
Quote
You are right, WOW -- but that IS a part of our history -- why are we trying to rewrite it?

So are we going to chisel them all off?  Why?  Why rewrite our history?  We have both good and BAD moments in our history -- we don't have to try and rid ourselves of our history -- I think it would be best if we see these things AS part of our history rather than part of an ORGANIZED religion.
 

IMO we don't need to re-write anything, we need to correct the problem(s).  As far as chiseling off things, not to worry, the next conquering religion will take care of that.  Chiseling off the old religion is something christians should be very familiar with, in fact they not only chisel down the symbols, they destroy entire cities from where I'm from, Mitla for example.

Quote
I'm glad you mentioned this -- I meant to respond to you about it and I just didn't have time (and then I forgot). 

Your view is a pretty simplistic one and it seems to have come from a negative image of Christianity rather than a historical one.  Look at the historical reason.

My views are far from simplistic, simplistic is a term I would apply to most religious thinking.  My views come from history, not HIS story.  That's why that tagline is part of my profile, I truely believe in digging a little deeper for the truth.  I don't accept all the spoon fed goodie goodie stories you get from your everyday sheep hearder.  While the flock might be content to follow that route I haven't been a fan of the herd line of thinking since HS.  I like to read accounts from both sides and judge the truth for myself.  I'm a big fan of the history channel, tons of great programs and jumping off points.  Just like I didn't buy the story of US expansion being a story of heroes while ignoring the genocide being practice, I don't buy every fairy tale told behind a pulpit.

FYI, I'm not anti-christian, I'm more of a catholic hater, for obvious reasons of geography.

Quote
When Emporer Constantine became a "Christian" -- up to this time "Christianity" was severely persecuted -- when he became a "Christian" -- it changed everything.  The rise of the church occured and prominence was given to religion over paganism.  However, one thing that you seem to miss in the midst of all of this was what people "lived" for -- today people "live" for the weekends.  Back then there wasn't a 5 day work week -- it was a 7 day work week -- and it wasn't 8 to 5 -- it was dawn until dusk.  People LIVED for holidays -- about the only time people got a day off from work -- so it was a HUGE day in the lives of the common person.  Therefore, when Constantine became a Christian these "holidays" HAD to continue (or he would surely face an uprising) -- so the holidays became "Christianized."

I didn't miss any of that.  You can interperate the time of Constantine any way you like, I've yet to read anything to change my opinion on why what happened, happened.  I'm from the peon/peasant class of people, the stories told from that side of the coin are allot different than from the shinny side.  As are the stories of the cursades.

Quote
What IS interesting to me is how much paganism is continued in the present celebrating of "Christian" holidays -- i.e. lighting of Christmas trees from the druids festival of lights (they worshipped trees); coloring of Easter Eggs, etc.

Whores are interesting to me as well, but that's another story.

Quote
While I don't disagree that Christian have "hijacked" these holidays -- I think you are missing one of the most important reasons WHY these holidays were "hijacked."  It WASN'T to boost membership -- that's laughable -- it was simply because the EMPORER wanted it that way.  I'm sure it changed things little for those who didn't believe -- for those who didn't care (well, they only cared about having a holiday) -- it didn't bother than one iota -- and then there were those who did believe -- who knows how they celebrated these holidays.  All we know today is a conglomeration of beliefs and practices from MANY different religions, practices, etc.

Who cares why a whore is a whore, she/he still takes money for sex.
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2005, 12:35:31 PM »
Quote
WayOutWest,

Quote
This is where you lose me ALOT Joe.

You seem to be under the impression that the way something SHOULD be is the way it WILL be. What world do you live in? While some would say the world is what you make it, there are millions of people making the world THEIR way.

Agreed, as this is where I lose MOST people a lot.

I maintain that the ideal will never happen until given a chance to happen.  And while I agree that the world is what you make it, I recognize that millions of people are making the world their way.  I have just generally had a faith that my fellow man isn't all that different from me, which means that, given a chance, he'll do things the same way I would.  The big enemy - as I see it - is apathy.  Or, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. in a quote that hangs on my wall here at the office, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

Naive?  Perhaps.  For certain, I agree that there will be those in any situation who try to corrupt it.  And I have *DEFINITELY* grown to believe that there are evil people out there.  My goal has evolved into ENCOURAGING their apathy up until the point that their only choice is to either help in the process or fight the difficult fight of undoing things.

I believe that the world can be better than it is, and the only thing keeping it from being better than it is is the fact that we don't choose to make it better.

Quote
I guarantee you that if the gov where to implement that plan a disporpotionate amound of money would be funneled to christian organizations. They would use the excuse that the majority of QUALIFIED organizations happen to be christian. Of course the gov/christians would determine who was "qaulified". I could go on and one but you get the picture.

Which is why I'd require government oversight for government funds, which would scare off the initial money-grabbers.  And like I said, I think that anyone - Christian or not - will come to the same conclusion of what is fair and right and what is injustice.  And I'd expect any who see injustice to speak up.

I have a faith in mankind as a whole, WayOut.  I don't get more jaded until it comes to specific individuals.
Joe,

Here is the problem I have.  I agree with what you posted and I know what you know but...(you knew this was comming right?)...

I honestly spend so much time in MY world that I don't have time for anything else.  Very selfish I know.  In my world I need to spend time protecting my children, the rest of my family and myself from the REAL world.

Most of my time is spent working.  In this day and in this area I need to make alot of money, alot to me anyway.  My kids need to have their everyday needs and health requirements met, they need to be in good schools, have a decent home in a decent neighboorhood and they need to have "back-up" in the form of a strong family base(which is why I leave in the area I live in).  Then there are the little things I have that most of my family and close friends don't have, which is why I work the way I work.  I need to make sure my wife doesn't need to work, she needs to raise my kids, we need to have two cars because I don't want my family around the public if they don't need to be (i.e. on busses, walking, etc..), I need to have PC's and an internet connection for various reasons, I need to be able to pull most, if not all, of my family out of jams.  I don't have enough time to do that stuff, so I can't imagine trying to better the world at this point.  

Hopefully my kids will grow up to be independant and manage to take care of themselves and their families, THEN maybe I'll be able to be my brothers keeper.  Or I'll retire to Mexico and become even more of an INFIDEL!  Until then I'll count on people like you to carry the load for now, so if you find yourself in a jam let me know if I can help in someway.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2005, 12:36:52 PM by WayOutWest »
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Guest_Randy

  • Guest
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2005, 02:23:14 PM »
Quote
Quote
You are right, WOW -- but that IS a part of our history -- why are we trying to rewrite it?

So are we going to chisel them all off?  Why?  Why rewrite our history?  We have both good and BAD moments in our history -- we don't have to try and rid ourselves of our history -- I think it would be best if we see these things AS part of our history rather than part of an ORGANIZED religion.

IMO we don't need to re-write anything, we need to correct the problem(s).  As far as chiseling off things, not to worry, the next conquering religion will take care of that.  Chiseling off the old religion is something christians should be very familiar with, in fact they not only chisel down the symbols, they destroy entire cities from where I'm from, Mitla for example.

Quote
I'm glad you mentioned this -- I meant to respond to you about it and I just didn't have time (and then I forgot). 

Your view is a pretty simplistic one and it seems to have come from a negative image of Christianity rather than a historical one.  Look at the historical reason.

My views are far from simplistic, simplistic is a term I would apply to most religious thinking.  My views come from history, not HIS story.  That's why that tagline is part of my profile, I truely believe in digging a little deeper for the truth.  I don't accept all the spoon fed goodie goodie stories you get from your everyday sheep hearder.  While the flock might be content to follow that route I haven't been a fan of the herd line of thinking since HS.  I like to read accounts from both sides and judge the truth for myself.  I'm a big fan of the history channel, tons of great programs and jumping off points.  Just like I didn't buy the story of US expansion being a story of heroes while ignoring the genocide being practice, I don't buy every fairy tale told behind a pulpit.

FYI, I'm not anti-christian, I'm more of a catholic hater, for obvious reasons of geography.

Quote
When Emporer Constantine became a "Christian" -- up to this time "Christianity" was severely persecuted -- when he became a "Christian" -- it changed everything.  The rise of the church occured and prominence was given to religion over paganism.  However, one thing that you seem to miss in the midst of all of this was what people "lived" for -- today people "live" for the weekends.  Back then there wasn't a 5 day work week -- it was a 7 day work week -- and it wasn't 8 to 5 -- it was dawn until dusk.  People LIVED for holidays -- about the only time people got a day off from work -- so it was a HUGE day in the lives of the common person.  Therefore, when Constantine became a Christian these "holidays" HAD to continue (or he would surely face an uprising) -- so the holidays became "Christianized."

I didn't miss any of that.  You can interperate the time of Constantine any way you like, I've yet to read anything to change my opinion on why what happened, happened.  I'm from the peon/peasant class of people, the stories told from that side of the coin are allot different than from the shinny side.  As are the stories of the cursades.

Quote
What IS interesting to me is how much paganism is continued in the present celebrating of "Christian" holidays -- i.e. lighting of Christmas trees from the druids festival of lights (they worshipped trees); coloring of Easter Eggs, etc.

Whores are interesting to me as well, but that's another story.

Quote
While I don't disagree that Christian have "hijacked" these holidays -- I think you are missing one of the most important reasons WHY these holidays were "hijacked."  It WASN'T to boost membership -- that's laughable -- it was simply because the EMPORER wanted it that way.  I'm sure it changed things little for those who didn't believe -- for those who didn't care (well, they only cared about having a holiday) -- it didn't bother than one iota -- and then there were those who did believe -- who knows how they celebrated these holidays.  All we know today is a conglomeration of beliefs and practices from MANY different religions, practices, etc.

Who cares why a whore is a whore, she/he still takes money for sex.
Quote
IMO we don't need to re-write anything, we need to correct the problem(s).  As far as chiseling off things, not to worry, the next conquering religion will take care of that.  Chiseling off the old religion is something christians should be very familiar with, in fact they not only chisel down the symbols, they destroy entire cities from where I'm from, Mitla for example.

First, show me why it's WRONG to have that history written?  Because somebody has done something wrong under the guise of religion?  If we are going to operate under that kind of a principle there isn't a people -- both past OR present, who will stand up under that kind of assessment -- including "your" people!  You can't judge an entire group of people for what has been done -- that goes for Christians, Moslems, etc.  You judge PEOPLE based on what they have done -- not groups!

I never will forget someone telling me that I was responsible for the enslavement of blacks simply because I was white!  My family comes from two sides -- my mother's family were french-indian traders who helped settle this country, including a couple who actually lived among native americans and tooks wives from among them as well -- my fathers family were of german ancestry who were dirt poor but moved to Missouri in the early 1800's to prove up on a small piece of land.  

This idea that a group of people are responsible just because of the fact that we are the same color or religion is wrong!  People should be judged on their own merits and actions not based on their religion or their color.

Quote
FYI, I'm not anti-christian, I'm more of a catholic hater, for obvious reasons of geography.

Can you explain the difference between being a catholic hater and not being anti-christian?  Most of what you have written about christianity has more to do with catholicism rather than christianity (i.e. protestant).

Quote
I didn't miss any of that.  You can interperate the time of Constantine any way you like, I've yet to read anything to change my opinion on why what happened, happened.  I'm from the peon/peasant class of people, the stories told from that side of the coin are allot different than from the shinny side.  As are the stories of the cursades.

Yeah, I come from royalty!   :rofl:  

I'm not sure what you are talking about here -- I don't know what "stories" you are referring to but you mentioned "hijacking" holidays and I simply shared with you how and why the "hijacking" took place.  It's not like they told anyone "you can't celebrate it your way" -- okay, they did with the druid priests -- mainly because some of their "worship" involved sacrificing people.

Quote
Quote
While I don't disagree that Christian have "hijacked" these holidays -- I think you are missing one of the most important reasons WHY these holidays were "hijacked."  It WASN'T to boost membership -- that's laughable -- it was simply because the EMPORER wanted it that way.  I'm sure it changed things little for those who didn't believe -- for those who didn't care (well, they only cared about having a holiday) -- it didn't bother than one iota -- and then there were those who did believe -- who knows how they celebrated these holidays.  All we know today is a conglomeration of beliefs and practices from MANY different religions, practices, etc.

Who cares why a whore is a whore, she/he still takes money for sex.

What I think is interesting is that you accuse people of not being able to have a rational reasonable discussion and then you make comments like that!  Oh well, if you ever want to actually want to discuss this -- let me know.

Guest_Randy

  • Guest
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2005, 02:40:51 PM »
Quote
AMEN, BROTHER RANDY!

Seriously, though, I see things much the same way Randy laid out in his message.  I do go a few steps further, though, in the idea of a true separation of church and state.

For example, while I agree with this particular concept that Bush tried to present, I believe it crosses into a danger area:  the appropriation of government funds to churches to allow them to help the needy.  I think that's wrong.  YES, the churches will be better able to handle it than the federal government, and YES, I think they'd do a good job, and YES, I think they'd waste less money than most government agencies.  But I have a problem with this idea.  It is not the job of the government to support churches, but the job of the congregation.  I don't want government dollars going to any church - not even MY church.

If, however, the governement wanted to have a program whereby charitable organizations, with government oversight, could do the work, I wouldn't have a problem with churches, mosques, etc. being able to apply.  But there would need to be SERIOUS government oversight, and given that requirement, I think I'd rather have the government do it itself.

So I do believe in some separation between churches - and pretty much any other private organization, as well - and the governement.

But as for atheists and their extremist views whenever they see a cross, I'm wondering how many would refuse blood on the operating table if it came from the Red Cross.  Hey - it's a cross!
Personally, I think this is a VERY sensitive area -- I DON'T like faith groups accepting money from the government -- I don't like it for the government or for the faith group.  I think it causes each group to depend on the other -- and I think this is an area where the lines OUGHT to be very clear.

I think there SHOULD be exceptions to this case -- Katrina is definately one of those exceptions.  There have been churches who have opened up their facilities to help those who became instantly homeless.  Some of those churches can and will be able to provide for those they took in -- others will be unable to feed, cloth and help the people they have taken in indefinately.  I think there SHOULD be some help and aid from the government -- not for EVERYTHING but for the basic daily needs (food, cloth, etc.) but they WILL have to be careful because somebody or group will take advantage of it (even though many are sacrificing to help those in need).

Here is why I don't like this kind of set-up longterm (and I don't like Bushes idea of helping churches help people):

1)  Churches should do things to help people and they ought to pay the bill to do so -- I think it should be an intrinsic part of who they are and what they are doing.  I recently read an article about a religious group being applauded for their work among the people in their religion (i.e. they found those that were struck by Katrina and went down and helped them get back on their feet).  I'm MORE impressed by those who helped those who couldn't help themselves who WEREN'T part of their religious group.  THAT'S what I think churches exist to do.  
I don't like the idea of a church becoming dependent upon the government to help them do what they should be doing -- to me that's a recipe for disaster.
Also, when you let the government help -- it ALWAYS comes with strings attached -- I don't think faith based organizations need those strings -- sometimes they conflict with the nature and beliefs of the organizations.

2)  The government shouldn't hand off this kind of money to churches -- it also, IMO, is a recipe for disaster.  I'm not saying that some groups wouldn't do a great job or that good things wouldn't happen but I think it's as bad for the government than it is the church.  
I think the government needs to quit thinking about giving welfare and start thinking about ways to help people help themselves.  I think, with the exception of those who aren't able to work, EVERYONE should work.  If you receive welfare, you work -- the church can't implement this kind of a program -- only the government can.  If you want help, you will work -- cleaning roads, upkeep, governmental childcare agencies, etc.
I think that if the government relies on the church to care for people everywhere that it will lose sight of it's responsibility FOR the people -- and I think it will cause them to become a "job supervisor" for the churches/charities -- and I think that would be a very bad thing.

rickortreat

  • Guest
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2005, 04:08:26 PM »
Randy,

Bush wants Church's involved because he thinks that is what they want.

The Government is responsible for dealing with Natural Disasters.  The Lord knows, they charge us enough in taxes to be prepared for things like Katrina.

That the Government is incompetant and inept is the story here.

Churches are free to donate their time and effort as they see fit, but they do that out of their own values, not the governments.

I don't think Church's should become an extension of the government in any way, nor do I think the government should fund Church activities if they end up helping people the government should be.

Instead, we should be demanding that the government do what it is suppossed to do.

Church's should be telling their parishoners to consider carefully who they elect, and not be swayed by a polititicians pandering to their religious beliefs.  They should elect or not elect people based on their performance on the job.  I'd say that FEMA deserves an "F' for their performance with Katrina, and that the president who appointed these people should be made to resign for his innability to appoint capable people to run a very important department in the government.

There is no reason or need for the Church to donate time or effort on behalf of the government,  there is a need for the government to  be responsive to the people.  If they aren't, it's time for a new government!

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2005, 04:28:09 PM »
Quote
First, show me why it's WRONG to have that history written?  Because somebody has done something wrong under the guise of religion?  If we are going to operate under that kind of a principle there isn't a people -- both past OR present, who will stand up under that kind of assessment -- including "your" people!  You can't judge an entire group of people for what has been done -- that goes for Christians, Moslems, etc.  You judge PEOPLE based on what they have done -- not groups!

Why you spin off on tangents I do not know.  I didn't say it's wrong to have a written history.  My problem is history is all too often written from only one prespective.  My problem with having symbols, writtings and practices from ONE religion mingled in with gov stuff.  Muslims, Jews, etc... are NOW part of US history but you don't see any of their stuff anywhere on gov buildings.  It's only ok if it's christian, that's wrong.

Quote
I never will forget someone telling me that I was responsible for the enslavement of blacks simply because I was white!  My family comes from two sides -- my mother's family were french-indian traders who helped settle this country, including a couple who actually lived among native americans and tooks wives from among them as well -- my fathers family were of german ancestry who were dirt poor but moved to Missouri in the early 1800's to prove up on a small piece of land. 

Mmmmkay...maybe that incident is why you make some blanket statements about some races on this board.  I don't blame anyone for my current circumstances but I will definately point it out to remind myself and anyone who will listen about the tendencies and dangers of certain organizations.

Quote
This idea that a group of people are responsible just because of the fact that we are the same color or religion is wrong!  People should be judged on their own merits and actions not based on their religion or their color.

LOL! This comming from a guy who made blanket statements about certain people in his nieghborhood.


Quote
Can you explain the difference between being a catholic hater and not being anti-christian?  Most of what you have written about christianity has more to do with catholicism rather than christianity (i.e. protestant).

There is a big difference between catholics and christians.  Both have problems and I point them out, but one group is far worse and alot further from the truth.  While I allow my children to be exposed to the christian faith, teachings and lifestyle, no way I let them go down the WRONG road of catholicism.

Quote
Yeah, I come from royalty!   :rofl: 

I'm not sure what you are talking about here -- I don't know what "stories" you are referring to but you mentioned "hijacking" holidays and I simply shared with you how and why the "hijacking" took place.  It's not like they told anyone "you can't celebrate it your way" -- okay, they did with the druid priests -- mainly because some of their "worship" involved sacrificing people.

Like I said before, I don't read or believe everything from one source.  There are plenty of people who wrote about the different events in history, I just chose to read/learn from more than ONE source.

Quote
What I think is interesting is that you accuse people of not being able to have a rational reasonable discussion and then you make comments like that!  Oh well, if you ever want to actually want to discuss this -- let me know.

Is it irrational to believe a sell out is a whore?  IMO things like adopting pagen rituals and practices is selling out.  While I'm not familiar enough with Islam or the Jewish faith to say they have or have not done the same I do know enough to say christianity has, IMO of course.  There was a whole town of Jews that commited suicide rather then bend to the will of the Romans.  Families allowed themselves to be put to death rather than be conquered yet Christmas is here because we didn't want to upset the working man?  Puhleeze!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2005, 04:29:03 PM by WayOutWest »
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2005, 04:56:33 PM »
Quote
When Emporer Constantine became a "Christian" -- up to this time "Christianity" was severely persecuted -- when he became a "Christian" -- it changed everything.  The rise of the church occured and prominence was given to religion over paganism.
 :rofl:
*** Constantine the Great—A Champion of Christianity? ***

Constantine the Great—A Champion of Christianity?

Roman Emperor Constantine is among the few men whose name history has embellished with the term “Great.” Christendom has added the expressions “saint,” “thirteenth apostle,” “holy equal of the apostles,” and ‘chosen by God’s Providence to accomplish the greatest turnabout in the whole world.’ At the other end of the spectrum, some describe Constantine as “bloodstained, stigmatized by countless enormities and full of deceit, . . . a hideous tyrant, guilty of horrid crimes.”

MANY professing Christians have been taught that Constantine the Great was one of Christianity’s most prominent benefactors. They credit him with delivering Christians from the misery of Roman persecution and giving them religious freedom. Moreover, it is widely held that he was a faithful footstep follower of Jesus Christ with a strong desire to advance the Christian cause. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church have declared both Constantine and his mother, Helena, “saints.” Their festival is celebrated on June 3 or according to the church calendar, on May 21.

Who really was Constantine the Great? What was his role in the development of postapostolic Christianity? It is very enlightening to let history and scholars answer these questions.

 The Historical Constantine

Constantine, the son of Constantius Chlorus, was born in Naissus in Serbia about the year 275 C.E. When his father became emperor of Rome’s western provinces in 293 C.E., he was fighting on the Danube under orders from Emperor Galerius. Constantine returned to his dying father’s side in Britain in the year 306 C.E. Soon after his father’s death, Constantine was raised to the status of an emperor by the army.

At that time, five other individuals claimed that they were Augusti. The period between 306 and 324 C.E., after which Constantine became sole imperator, was a time of unremitting civil war. Victory in two sets of campaigns guaranteed Constantine a place in Roman history and made him the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

In 312 C.E., Constantine defeated his opponent Maxentius in the battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome. Christian apologists claimed that during that campaign, there appeared under the sun a flaming cross bearing the Latin words In hoc signo vinces, meaning “In this sign conquer.” It is also held that in a dream, Constantine was told to paint the first two letters of Christ’s name in Greek on the shields of his troops. However, this story suffers from many anachronisms. The book A History of Christianity states: “There is a conflict of evidence about the exact time, place and details of this vision.” Welcoming Constantine in Rome, a pagan Senate declared him chief Augustus and Pontifex Maximus, that is, high priest of the pagan religion of the empire.

In 313 C.E., Constantine arranged a partnership with Emperor Licinius, ruler of the eastern provinces. By means of the Edict of Milan, together they granted freedom of worship and equal rights to all religious groups. Many historians, however, downplay the significance of this document, saying that it was just a routine official letter and not a major imperial document signaling a change of policy toward Christianity.

Within the next ten years, Constantine defeated his last remaining rival, Licinius, and became the undisputed ruler of the Roman world. In 325 C.E., as yet unbaptized, he presided over the first great ecumenical council of the “Christian” church, which condemned Arianism and drew up a statement of essential beliefs called the Nicene Creed.

Constantine fell terminally ill in the year 337 C.E. At that late hour of his life, he was baptized, and then he died. After his death the Senate placed him among the Roman gods.

Religion in Constantine’s Strategy

With reference to the general attitude that Roman emperors of the third and fourth centuries had toward religion, the book Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) says: “Even when those who occupied the imperial throne did not have such profoundly religious dispositions, surrendering to the mood of the era, they found it necessary to give religion precedence within the framework of their political schemes, to lend at least a religious flavor to their actions.”

Certainly, Constantine was a man of his era. At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine” patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods. The empire, including its religion and other institutions, was in decline, and something new and invigorating was needed to reconsolidate it. The encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his victory but also the reorganization of his empire. The Christian churches that existed everywhere became his political support. . . . He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times . . . , and he requested that they keep their unity intact.”

Constantine sensed that the “Christian” religion—albeit apostate and deeply corrupted by then—could be effectively utilized as a revitalizing and uniting force to serve his grand scheme for imperial domination. Adopting the foundations of apostate Christianity to gain support in furthering his own political ends, he decided to unify the people under one “catholic,” or universal, religion. Pagan customs and celebrations were given “Christian” names. And “Christian” clergymen were given the status, salary, and influential clout of pagan priests.

Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian” church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent” mediator. Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith. It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church.

Concerning Constantine, historian Paul Johnson states: “One of his main reasons for tolerating Christianity may have been that it gave himself and the State the opportunity to control the Church’s policy on orthodoxy and the treatment of heterodoxy.”

Did He Ever Become a Christian?

Johnson notes: “Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins.” The Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “Constantine showed equal favour to both religions. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights.” “Constantine never became a Christian,” states the encyclopedia Hidria, adding: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.”

Down to the day of his death in 337 C.E., Constantine bore the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of religious matters. Regarding his baptism, it is reasonable to ask, Was it preceded by genuine repentance and a turning around, as required in the Scriptures? (Acts 2:38, 40, 41) Was it a complete water immersion as a symbol of Constantine’s dedication to Jehovah God?—Compare Acts 8:36-39.

A “Saint”?

The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Constantine was entitled to be called Great in virtue rather of what he did than what he was. Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of all those to whom the epithet [Great] has in ancient or modern times been applied.” And the book A History of Christianity informs us: “There were early reports of his violent temper and his cruelty in anger. . . . He had no respect for human life . . . His private life became monstrous as he aged.”

Evidently Constantine had serious personality problems. A history researcher states that “his temperamental character was often the reason for his committing crimes.” (See the box “Dynastic Murders.”) Constantine was not “a Christian character,” contends historian H. Fisher in his History of Europe. The facts do not characterize him as a true Christian who had put on “the new personality” and in whom there could be found the fruitage of God’s holy spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control.—Colossians 3:9, 10; Galatians 5:22, 23.

The Consequences of His Efforts

As the pagan Pontifex Maximus—and therefore the religious head of the Roman Empire—Constantine tried to win over the bishops of the apostate church. He offered them positions of power, prominence, and wealth as officers of the Roman State religion. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven.”

As apostate Christianity came into favor with the political government, it became more and more a part of this world, of this secular system, and drifted away from the teachings of Jesus Christ. (John 15:19; 17:14, 16; Revelation 17:1, 2) As a result, there was a fusion of “Christianity” with false doctrines and practices—the Trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, purgatory, prayers for the dead, use of rosaries, icons, images, and the like.—Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

From Constantine, the church also inherited the tendency to be authoritarian. Scholars Henderson and Buck say: “The simplicity of the Gospel was corrupted, pompous rites and ceremonies were introduced, worldly honours and emoluments were conferred on the teachers of Christianity, and the Kingdom of Christ in good measure converted into a kingdom of this world.”

Where Is True Christianity?

Historical facts reveal the truth behind the “greatness” of Constantine. Instead of being founded by Jesus Christ, the Head of the true Christian congregation, Christendom is partly the result of the political expediency and the crafty maneuvers of a pagan emperor. Very aptly, historian Paul Johnson asks: “Did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?”

Donatism was a “Christian” sect of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. Its adherents claimed that the validity of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister and that the church must exclude from its membership people guilty of serious sin. Arianism was a “Christian” movement of the fourth century that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Arius taught that God is unbegotten and without a beginning. The Son, because he is begotten, cannot be God in the same sense that the Father is. The Son did not exist from all eternity but was created and exists by the will of the Father.

Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

  What role did the unbaptized Emperor Constantine play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”

  After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he was determined to solidify his empire.

  Regarding the final document that was drafted in Nicaea under Constantine’s auspices, Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) observes: “It shows [Constantine’s] indifference to doctrinal matters, . . . his stubborn insistence in trying to restore unity within the church at any cost, and finally his conviction that as ‘bishop of those outside the church’ he had the final say about any religious matter.” Could God’s spirit possibly have been behind the decisions made at that council?—Compare Acts 15:28, 29.

Dynastic Murders

  Under this heading, the work Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) describes what it calls “disgusting domestic crimes that Constantine committed.” Soon after founding his dynasty, he forgot how to enjoy unexpected achievement and became aware of the dangers surrounding him. Being a suspicious person and perhaps egged on by sycophants, he first grew suspicious of his nephew Licinianus—the son of a co-Augustus he had already executed—as a possible rival. His murder was followed by the execution of Constantine’s own firstborn son, Crispus, who was dealt with by his stepmother Fausta because he seemed to be an obstruction to her own offspring’s total power.

  This action of Fausta was finally the reason for her own dramatic death. It appears that Augusta Helena, who had influence over her son Constantine until the end, was involved in this murder. The illogical emotions that often controlled Constantine also contributed to the spate of executions of many of his friends and associates. The book History of the Middle Ages concludes: “The execution—not to say murder—of his own son and his wife indicates that he was untouched by any spiritual influence in Christianity.”

jn

  • Guest
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2005, 04:59:51 PM »
WOW, for what it's worth yes, Islam and Judaism both borrowed heavily from religions that came before them.  One could go on and on about the ideas that seeped into Judaism from the ancient Sumerian and Babylonian beliefs.   Not only have Judaism, Christianity and Islam swiped ideas, holidays and symbols they have actually swiped pre existing holy sites and claimed them as their own.  For example in Jerusalem some remains of old Roman temples are now supposedly holy remains of the old Jewish Temple.  

Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2005, 05:01:38 PM »
Quote
Muslims, Jews, etc... are NOW part of US history but you don't see any of their stuff anywhere on gov buildings. It's only ok if it's christian, that's wrong.

First of all, the 10 Commandments aren't just a part of Christian heritage, WOW.

I don't see lots of Christmas trees up in Saudi Arabia, either, yet Christians are over there.  Why is that?

The fact is that it takes TIME for societies to absorb the rituals of cultures.
  America was founded primarily by Christians, just as Saudi Arabia is mostly Muslim.  You'll see Saudia Arabia observing Ramadan and the Eid, just like you'll see America observing Christmas.

America is still largely a Christian nation in terms of religious belief.  When that changes, society will change its holidays, etc.

To me, this is very much akin to the idea of "Why doesn't (insert other country) celebrate Thanksgiving?"  Because it is of less significance there, since it means little to most of their citizens.

 
Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2005, 05:34:02 PM »
Quote from: Guest_Randy,Dec 12 2005, 04:19 PM

LMAO!

You question where Reality gets his info when he CLEARLY shows you the book and sometimes author.

You counter with your "facts" that have no support or reference to support.

All I can say is "TYPICAL!"  There must be some little pamphlet they give you guys, cause almost all of you follow the same MO.

I think there is mention of it in the bible, I'll check when I've got some time.
WOW,

Also, Reality makes a quote from ONE book and that bears weight for historical accuracy?  The book makes reference to the fact that the Bible never states in it's original greek that the "cross" (at least how it is written today) made up of one timber as opposed to two timbers -- therefore it's obvious that it was one?  

Historical data shows how Romans used crosses for Crucifixions -- look it up! [/QUOTE]
Randy,

I quoted several books, not one.  Below are more.  If you are sincerely interested in discussing, i will find even more.  Otherwise if you want to google on, go for it.  
Point of clarification to RT and you, the Romans are responsible for the physical execution of Jesus, done at the fanatical ragings of the Pharasytical Jewish leaders.

*** w89 5/1 pp. 23-25 What The Love of God Means ***

Use of the Cross in Religion

3 There are also inanimate objects that if venerated may lead to breaking God’s commandments. Among the most prominent is the cross. For centuries it has been used by people in Christendom as part of their worship. The New Encyclopædia Britannica calls the cross “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” In a court case in Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church even asserted that those who reject the ‘Holy Cross’ are not Christian. But is the cross really a Christian symbol? Where did it originate?

4 The instrument of Jesus’ death is noted in Bible passages, such as at Matthew 27:32 and 40. There the Greek word stau·ros´ is translated “cross” in various English Bibles. But what did stau·ros´ mean in the first century when the Greek Scriptures were written? An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: “Stauros . . . denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun [stau·ros´] and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt.”

5 Vine goes on to say: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

6 The Companion Bible, under the heading “The Cross and Crucifixion,” notes: “Our English word ‘cross’ is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word ‘stick’ means a ‘crutch.’ Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another. . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber.”

7 Another Greek word, xy´lon, is used in the Bible to refer to the instrument upon which Jesus died. This word helps to show that stau·ros´ was an upright stake without a crossbeam. As The Companion Bible states: “The word [xy´lon] . . . generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose. . . . As this latter word [xy´lon] is used for the former stauros, it shows us that the meaning of each is exactly the same. . . . Hence the use of the word [xy´lon] . . . in connection with the manner of our Lord’s death, and rendered ‘tree’ in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24 [King James Version].”

8 The French Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Universel (Encyclopedic Universal Dictionary) says: “For a long time we believed that the cross, considered a religious symbol, was specifically for Christians. This is not the case.” The book Dual Heritage—The Bible and the British Museum states: “It may come as a shock to know that there is no word such as ‘cross’ in the Greek of the New Testament. The word translated ‘cross’ is always the Greek word [stau·ros´] meaning a ‘stake’ or ‘upright pale.’ The cross was not originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The representation of Christ’s redemptive death on Golgotha does not occur in the symbolic art of the first Christian centuries. The early Christians, influenced by the Old Testament prohibition of graven images, were reluctant to depict even the instrument of the Lord’s [death]. . . . The cross comes to be represented in the time of Constantine.”

Constantine’s Cross

*** What The Love of God Means ***

9 Constantine was the Roman emperor who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. and influenced it to adopt the unscriptural doctrine that Christ was God. He did this to solidify his empire of pagans and apostate Christians. Of him The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “On the eve of Constantine’s victory over Maxentius in 312, he saw a vision of the ‘heavenly sign’ of the cross, which he believed to be a divine pledge of his triumph.” It also says that thereafter Constantine promoted the veneration of the cross.

10 However, would God give a sign to a pagan leader who was not doing God’s will, and a pagan sign at that? Jesus rebuked his own countrymen for wanting signs. (Matthew 12:38-40) Furthermore, this pagan ruler was shedding innocent blood with carnal weapons for political supremacy and, in political intrigues, arranged the murder of relatives and other associates. In contrast, Jesus said: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought.” (John 18:36) That is why he commanded Peter: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”—Matthew 26:52.

11 The book Strange Survivals says of Constantine and his cross: “That there was policy in his conduct we can hardly doubt; the symbol he set up gratified the Christians in his army on one side, and the [pagan] Gauls on the other. . . . To the latter it was the token of the favour of their solar deity,” the sun god they worshiped. No, Constantine’s ‘heavenly sign’ had nothing to do with God or Christ but is steeped in paganism.

Venerate the Instrument of Death?

12 Even if we ignore the evidence and assume that Jesus was killed on a cross, should it be venerated? No, for Jesus was executed as a criminal, like the men impaled alongside him, and his manner of death misrepresented him in the worst way. First-century Christians would not have viewed the instrument of his execution as sacred. Venerating it would have meant glorifying the wrong deed committed on it, the murder of Jesus.

13 If your dearest friend were executed on false charges, would you make an image of the instrument of execution (say a hangman’s noose or an electric chair or the rifle of a firing squad) and then kiss that replica, burn candles before it, or wear it around your neck as a sacred ornament? That would be unthinkable. So, too, with the adoration of the cross. The fact that the cross is of pagan origin only makes the matter worse.

14 The veneration of the cross is not Christian. It does not show love for God or Christ but mocks what they stand for. It violates God’s commandments against idolatry. It reveres a pagan symbol masquerading as Christian. (Exodus 20:4, 5; Psalm 115:4-8; 1 Corinthians 10:14) To consider a pagan symbol as sacred violates God’s command: “Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? . . . ‘Quit touching the unclean thing.’”—2 Corinthians 6:14, 17.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2005, 05:38:22 PM by Reality »

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2005, 05:42:55 PM »
Quote
Quote
I love my spiritual brother, I'm just trying to blow his head off.
God wants it that way.  Have you forgotten Cain and Abel?  As long as you have gods mark, you can kill your brother and not be harmed.
 :huh:  :huh:

What makes you think Cain went unpunished?  He was punished.
Or had Gods "mark" to off Abel?

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2005, 07:04:10 PM »
Quote
Quote
Quote
I love my spiritual brother, I'm just trying to blow his head off.
God wants it that way.  Have you forgotten Cain and Abel?  As long as you have gods mark, you can kill your brother and not be harmed.
:huh:  :huh:

What makes you think Cain went unpunished?  He was punished.
Or had Gods "mark" to off Abel?
He was punished but God put a mark on him so nobody would harm him.

 
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2005, 08:03:49 PM »
True, he was banished from the Garden of Eden area and a decree given for no one to murder Cain in retribution.
 
Later on, knowing that men possessed the attribute of justice, Cain realized that they would want to kill him to avenge the murder of his brother Abel.

God did not appoint or authorize anyone to execute Cain, reserving the administration of retribution to himself. This he carried out by cutting off Cain’s line at the Flood. (Ge 4:14, 15)

After the Flood, God issued further laws, among them being the first authorization to man to execute the penalty for murder. (Ge 9:3-6)

Offline WayOutWest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2005, 08:16:04 PM »
Quote
True, he was banished from the Garden of Eden area and a decree given for no one to murder Cain in retribution.
 
Later on, knowing that men possessed the attribute of justice, Cain realized that they would want to kill him to avenge the murder of his brother Abel.

God did not appoint or authorize anyone to execute Cain, reserving the administration of retribution to himself. This he carried out by cutting off Cain’s line at the Flood. (Ge 4:14, 15)

After the Flood, God issued further laws, among them being the first authorization to man to execute the penalty for murder. (Ge 9:3-6)
Odd thing is who were these other people?

Cain and Abel were direct offsping of Adam and Eve, so who else was around?  
"History shouldn't be a mystery"
"Our story is real history"
"Not his story"

"My people's culture was strong, it was pure"
"And if not for that white greed"
"It would've endured"

"Laker hate causes blindness"

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2005, 10:23:08 PM »
Quote from: WayOutWest,Dec 13 2005, 01:16 AM

Odd thing is who were these other people?
Cain and Abel were direct offsping of Adam and Eve, so who else was around? >>end WOW quote.  dadgum db board quote.

unamed daughter of Adam and Eve left with Cain.

With Adam and Eve being perfect in body, mind and spirit along with a perfect future filled with perfect work (told to multiply and fill the Earth, subdue it.)
Meaning have children and enjoy extending the Garden of Eden earthwide.  

While this may seem gross to Pink Unicornist and others today, bear in mind they were perfect and the genetics from such a marriage or birth would not produce messed up offspring as today.  Even tho Cain was bainished after sin and imperfection took place, it was a only a relatively short time before God instituded reproductive relations to occur only between man and wife.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2005, 11:26:32 PM by Reality »