Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hobo who wrote (1411)	1/18/2001 12:26:43 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

in every answer that you are giving me you are "justifying" the existence of the church by saying that it is not the "official" position of the church(es) in all the various examples of violence in review. I am not justifying the existance of the church at all. It doesn't need justification. (btw maybe we should be more specific then saying the church, are you talking about the Catholic church, all orginized religions or are you talking about something else, or perhaps something different in different cases) this leads me to think that the church, in spite of their obvious power over the people, they do NOT take a pro-active stance to stop the continued killings. in spite of their love preaching and all the rest. All assume you are talking about the Catholic Church until you tell me otherwise. It has no power over the people. It has influence. It can suggest and some people will listen. But it can not stop all murders and human rights abuses everywhere even all such abuses commited by Catholics. The preaching about love and doing what is right and the rest is the church using their influence. If people decide not to listen to it it can not stop them. Terorists, dictators and other armed thugs don't wait on church approval before they go out and kill someone. their effectiveness as managers of a flock is none, as it clearly each of these flocks are running amuck, since they do whatever they want anyway So you think the Church should be responsibile for any of the actions of any of its hundreds of millions of members? Should the US pay compensation to every victem of any crime by any of its citizens? Even if the church had the kind of power it had in the middle ages it could not control the actions of its members to that extent that you seem to think it should. No very large orginization has ever had that kind of power. if a ceo (or a management company), does not obtain their self imposed objectives, why continue paying for their "services" --as persuasive and filled with love as they may be-- they are all the same ineffective Its a lot easier to make money then it is to change peoples hearts. and quit preaching ineffective guilt ridden doctrines that all they achieve is absolutely nothing Those doctrines to a large extent are the mission of the Church. You are not asking for a change in management you are asking the church to disolve itself. Personally I believe in relgious freedom. If people don't like those doctrines then they don't have to believe in these doctrines or be a member of a church that supports such them. saying "it is not so" does not make the situation any different, in spite of how many times you repeat it. So you can say "it is so", but I am barred from saying "it is not so"? and go very long on: Pagan, Voodoo & Wiccan, Corp Gotta watch those pagans. They used to be the biggest killers on the earth when they had power. But seriously if thats what you want to believe (which one? all three? some sort of mix?) feel free. I'm not going to try to outlaw your religous choices or extort money from you or groups you support. No wait you should pay reperations for all the killings by the ancient Romans, Greeks, Persians, Summarians, Babalonians ect. (just kidding) Tim