Church = Murder

[Alaric]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107524.stm

Synopsis:

● A Romanian Orthodox priest ordered the crucifixion of a young nun because she was "possessed by the devil".

● The girl was 23.

● Before being crucified she had been kept shut up for several days, her hands and feet tied and without food or drink.

● Gagged and chained to a cross.

● Left alone for three days in a cold room.

● "I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this" priest said.

● A spokesperson for the Orthodox patriarchate in Bucharest refused to condemn it.

[Alaric]

The whole ordeal must have lasted about a week for her.

Pause now please, think about it. IMAGINE IT.

We are horrified by the terrorists who cut off people’s heads on video... These terrorists are children next to father Daniel, a man of the Church. At least they kill their victims right away.

How nice of the Church to refuse to condemn it.

[enfestid]

I'd say that's just a little messed up graemlins/av_ohmy.gif

[Sealclubber]

Originally posted by enfestid:
I'd say that's just a little messed up graemlins/av_ohmy.gif I concur.

[calvin]

A little?

That is downright horrific! graemlins/av_ohmy.gif av_mad.gif

[OmegaBob]

Originally posted by Alaric:
...a man of the Church... the Church to refuse to condemn it.Exactly which "Church" were YOU refering too, he asks... waiting....?

This "Church" = Romanian Orthodox.

So... will you please edit your thread subject to:
ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH = MURDER

BTW - how come you do not ask why the Jews and Muslims don't condemn it as well?

[Worbah]

This is sick... They just claimed she was a witch and killed her.

[Alaric]

Originally posted by Worbah:
This is sick... They just claimed she was a witch and killed her. The witches were usually hung or burned. Both are vast improvements over what she had to endure.

[Wingnut]

Another messed up church (http://2theadvocate.com/stories/060305/new_morecult001.shtml)

[Mr No Name]

Nice. graemlins/av_wacko.gif

[zauggru]

That's horrific. av_frown.gif

[Nerevarine]

All churches have their extremes unfortunately. These people are criminals and psychopaths and must be imprisoned for life.

[surrender903]

Originally posted by Nerevarine:
All churches have their extremes unfortunately. These people are criminals and psychopaths and must be imprisoned for life. i wish someone on this forum would understand that statement and make a blind blanket dislike of all of one religion, even after explanation from myself and others on this forum that "no, what you have experienced is the minority"

i am saddedened that this person is raising a child with such views. you know who you are, and your views reek of ignorance.

sorry for the hijacking of the thread

[Alaric]

Umm... I totaly missed that last post. Can someone please clarify?

[OmegaBob]

I missed the whole point of the thread... expect for the oh not so subtle religion/Church bashing parts (esp considering this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Roman Catholic Church)

I think I'll start a thread titled:

Italians = Murder

Don't ya think its funny how the evil Italians haven't apologized or condemned all the killings of the early Christians? I mean they threw those poor people to the lions to be eaten! They tortured and crucified them! Imagine the pain those poor Christians must have endured.

[Keith L. D.]

Sad Sad Sad...

[Alaric]

Bob,

There is a slight difference between today and 2000 years ago. It is strange that you don’t see that.

And "Church" is not always "Roman Catholic Church".

[OmegaBob]

Then why don't you edit your original comments/subject line to reflect which "church" you are referring to? Ya know... to help "clarify" your thread.

btw - Ask most people: when one makes a blanket statement (like YOU did) about "The Church"... ask them which "church" they think the statement is referring to?

btw 2 - Sarcasm. It is strange that you don’t see that.

[surrender903]

Originally posted by Alaric:
Umm... I totaly missed that last post. Can someone please clarify? no need to clarify, the person on these boards knows who they are.

[Angus McFeargus]

I'm not sure which is worse; this isolated incident, or folks who create threads about it with needlessly inflammatory subjects like "Church = Murder".

Ok, I exaggerate. The incident is obviously much worse, but the irresponsible posting is not much better.

[Alaric]

In retrospect, I think my irresponsible posting is worse by a wide margin. graemlins/av_troubled.gif

[Worbah]

Originally posted by surrender903:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nerevarine:
All churches have their extremes unfortunately. These people are criminals and psychopaths and must be imprisoned for life. i wish someone on this forum would understand that statement and make a blind blanket dislike of all of one religion, even after explanation from myself and others on this forum that "no, what you have experienced is the minority"

i am saddedened that this person is raising a child with such views. you know who you are, and your views reek of ignorance.

sorry for the hijacking of the thread </font>[/QUOTE]I think he meant that all religions have some kind of minority of fanatics that do this type of thing, and that it's these murderers and pedophiles that he wants imprisoned, not every follower of that belief.

[MarkN]

Originally posted by surrender903:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alaric:
Umm... I totaly missed that last post. Can someone please clarify? no need to clarify, the person on these boards knows who they are. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I know it's not me cuz I don't have any kids (and I intend to keep it that way). av_wink.gif

[GrammarTroll]

religion bad

[NO2STARFORCE]

chikiiin... good

[Angus McFeargus]

Originally posted by John Austin:
I'm not sure which is worse; this isolated incident, or folks who create threads about it with needlessly inflammatory subjects like "Church = Murder".

Ok, I exaggerate. The incident is obviously much worse, but the irresponsible posting is not much better. Actually, this was probably an overreaction on my part as the subject line was probably tongue-in-cheek.

Sorry!

[T.N.D.]

Charges have been brought.

web page (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050620/ap_on_re_eu/romania_exorcism_death_1)

[MarkN]

People like him just continue giving religion the bad name it deserves, regardless of the religion. That's why it'll never be a good thing at all, not as long as there are people who'll use it like it's always been: to control the masses through mental manipulation; to justify doing the most vile acts against other people, whether killing one person or attempting to wipe out an entire race because they wrongly believe that they've got some nonexistent divine right to do so; or to force their beliefs onto others in a variety of ways (through the media, on currency, going door to door, etc.), just to name a few.

[anthonyX]

People like him just continue giving religion the bad name it deserves, regardless of the religion. That is a ridiculous and perjurious statement despite you clarification. To say that people of faith deserve a bad name is very disturbing. The problem is we live in a global society that loves to emphasise the evil and negativity of life. There are far more millions of people that live their faith the best they can with out causing murder, pain and destruction. Very rarely do you read of the thousands of “Mother Teresa” like people who because of their faith strive to help people and do it without wanting the notoriety. Instead idiots like these priests get all the attention (not taking away from the severity or disgusting nature of the crime). Granted people of religion are far from perfect and many deserve the punishment that fits their crime. And those that use religion to commit crimes deserve to be raked over the coals. But your ease of lumping all religion in one box is narrowed minded.

[MarkN]

I never said "that people of faith deserve a bad name", just religion itself which ever since its inception has been used by powermad people to control others in whatever evil ways they could concieve of. Originally, it was to give uninformed people a way to explain nature and the like but it probably wasn't too long after that that someone realized what a great way it was to control people by making them believe and act in certain ways.

Look, I realize that there are billions of people who believe however they wish, many despite how they were brought up (converting to other religions, becoming atheist or agnostic, etc.) and that not every single one of them is bad just because of their beliefs. My point was about the church leaders, televangelists, politicians, etc., who use it for their own selfish reasons by trying to manipulate other people (and often succeeding) with it.

I have no problem with someone wanting to have a religion per se and believing in gods or whatnot, just as long as they don't force it on me, and besides, as I've said in a previous post somewhere they may have the right idea in believing in one or more gods but what they choose to believe doesn't make it the truth, no matter how strongly they may want to think otherwise, simply because we're all human and prone to our own fallible gullibilities.

[anthonyX]

I never said "that people of faith deserve a bad name", just religion itself which ever since its inception has been used by powermad people to control others in whatever evil ways they could concieve of. I was a little quick and jumped the gun on that and I apologize. Most people equate faith and religion as one in the same. I still maintain that religion as a whole is not bad and those that use it to manipulate do not make up the majority. So in that sense religion does not deserve a bad name. People who are abusive, corrupted and power hungry do deserve a bad name (no matter what vehicle they use wether it be religion, politics, entertainment or anything else).

[FLA]

MarkN,

Honestly, does it make you cringe when you drive down the street on sunday and see someone dressed up and walking into a church. Does it effect you personally? I'm guessing it does. I was faithless at some point in my life, and I know the thoughts that went through my head.

I realized the evil in my own thoughts for what it really was, and that made be gain faith.

There was something there, telling me to hate faith, and hating others for having faith. That hate is by definition evil... Thats what made me gain faith.

[anthonyX]

There was something there, telling me to hate faith, and hating others for having faith. That hate is by definition evil... Thats what made me gain faith. I dismissed faith of any kind other then faith in one’s self for most of my life. Then recently I lost my best friend and it has made me wonder what the purpose of life is? For him life was so short (he was 20) yet he seemed to have peace and happiness. I guess I am searching in some extent for that type of peace. I am not a saint by any stretch but I feel compelled to better myself and become a better person. Where ever that leads me I don't know but it has given me a deep respect for the people who have their faith and live it to the best of their ability.

[MarkN]

Actually, FLA, I've not been driving at all for sometime now. Most Sundays I work anyway, sometimes in the morning as early as 8am when we open, and as I walk to work (as I always do) I never see anyone all dressed up getting in their cars in the neighborhoods I walk through, at least not that I'm aware of, nor are there any churches on my route, either (I did have a couple of young Mormon guys come to my lane today but it didn't bother me in the least).

I'm sure several of the people whose houses I pass by do attend church, which is totally fine with me, but since I'm unaware of whoever may do so then no, I don't cringe about it, let alone even think of it cuz it really never crosses my mind, nor do I care if they go anyway. So no, it doesn't affect me at all. People choose whether to go or not. Why would it affect me at all simply because anyone does? It's not their attending church that bothers me. It's the kind of blinded mindset many choose to live by that bothers me. There's a difference.

[Felix]

DISCLAIMER: **Don't read this if you take offence easily**


Ok, if anyone takes personal offence, don't bother with me, I need to get this out.


Over the centuries, the churches have been screwing themselves over. If god loves us all, then why will he send us to be mutilated and tortured for eternity if we, say, use a freaking condom! Ok, lets not then, aids isnt one of the major killers in africa, and, oh, look! A pigs flappin its wings up there...
Forget Church = Murder, Church = Opression. Schizofrenics (I don't are bout spelling at the moment) wrote the bible, Moses (I think) saw a burning bush and listened to a freaking voice in his head! The voice, also known as 'god' probrally told him to light the freaking bush up in the first place!
I lived in an anglican boarding school for two years and it was complete crap. People here in NZ can be born into a religion, and every day for the rest of their life the church leeches money from them, a percentage of their wage is 'donated to the cause', the rich minister has gelled hair and a oversized gold pendant.
I also hate when they come door to door, or advertise on tv, 'We will save you, just give us a double digit percentage...' I don't get personaly offended, unless they approach me, or invade my relaxation in frony of the tv, I don't go around proclaming 'Come, join my gaming cause, the internet awaits...' I don't force anything on anyone. What gives peope that believe in a 2000 year old book the right to invade my life and try to change it, hell, what are parents for? Do not opress me, and I won't complain.
MarkN, I'm sorta with you. Ish.

P.S. According to FLA's post, I must be pure evil, but who thinks they're gonna starve me and chain me to a cross? Just you try.


*Relieved sigh*

That takes a load off. Don't worry bout complaining, read the dislaimer.

[Tutin]

I second the above and Mark.

[kyleh]

Originally posted by MarkN:
It's the kind of blinded mindset many choose to live by that bothers me. There's a difference. Blinds work both ways. I don't believe in going to church, but I do understand that.

[FLA]

Only idiots give to churches which say "Gimme double digit percentage of your salary or else." Which happens to be Mormon's, and they do have a very nice temple in California lined with Gold. But if you had any knowledge of the Christian faith, you will realize that is exactly what Jesus frowned upon. He did go into the Jewish temple and destroyed the market places because the church was affiliating itself with money. Most other christian churches consider Mormon's the work of the devil.

Regarding other things, religion is not necessarly black and white : Do this or you will burn. God has only said a few things which he frowns upon, however, that does not mean eternal damnation. Was it a killer or a thief (or both) on the cross that Jesus said he will see in heaven?

As far as me chaining you, Felix, to the cross because you lack religion in your life? What are you talking about? You speak of schizophrenics, yet you sound like one yourself.

Like in my original post, people without faith seem to create evil on their own, and maybe thats something you need to look into. You seem to really hate religion, and those affiliated with it. Maybe you have to reflect inward to figure out where that hate is coming from.

[GrammarTroll]

I hate religion because I hate stupidity, and religion makes people stupid.

Creationism (Protestant Fundies)
Indians are Jews (Mormons)
Earth goes around sun (Catholics, until recently)
Earth is a prison planet made up of intergalactic misfits (Scientology)

I believe in reality. Religion denies reality.

I don't hate religious people. Everyone has a right to believe whatever idiotic fairy tales they want to (virgins have babies, madonnas appear on tortillas, the oil lasted seven nights, the cracker becomes flesh). But I do hate the idiotic fairy tales.

And I'm sick of how our society coddles those who believe these irrational things. It's time we put rationality and thinking up on a pedestal for once.

Horses are pretty.

[Alaric]

Good one Felix.

[Deon]

Religion seems to be a personal stop-gap, a filler for whatever people deem is missing in their lives (positive role models, a father figure, a meaningful relationship with something/someone special), and has far more to do with how people feel about themselves and their lives than anything concrete that can be tested and relied on.

Sure, it serves a purpose, and no it's not always a dark one revolving around greed, power, corruption and control, however even the noble purpose of helping people through the tough times in their lives needs to be looked at closely by those leaning on it. Unfortunately, that's a lot to ask and many won't even consider looking closer at themselves. It's far easier to look at something external than to examine one's own inner workings, since many of the issues people face are ones of extremely deep hurt that are unpleasant to confront. And unfortunately, avoiding hurt is something people spend a lot of time on these days, doing anything and everything to avoid looking at pain, theirs or anyone else's.

And yet ironically, we celebrate death and pain on a daily basis. Movies and games bathe in it, advertising counts on it, religion uses it to scare people into believing. To me, that's a cry for help from our collective consciousness, begging us to look at ourselves, and the more we refuse, the more horrific our celebration of death will become until one day it hits home in more than a handful of us and we all stop and think hey, wait a minute, what's really going on here.

But that's just me; to each his own.

And the worst part? Check out the list of games I am playing (and enjoying). It's all death, death death where you look, it's glorified murder and there's a large part of me that revels in it. Sure, you can argue that they are just video games and I'm not about to go shooting people in the head in real life, but at the same time the fact that I am indulging in death-bringing for my entertainment, even though it's only virtual, should speak volumes about just how screwed up I am. That it's the norm these days is not really scrutinised too closely.

Oh well, thinking cap off, back to my games I go...

[Johannes]

Originally posted by FLA:
But if you had any knowledge of the Christian faith, you will realize that is exactly what Jesus frowned upon. He did go into the Jewish temple and destroyed the market places because the church was affiliating itself with money. More likely he did so because as a Galilean he had little understanding of the nature of life in the city and the necessary commerce that took place in the Temple courtyard. Bear in mind that at the time the worship in the Temple consisted of animal sacrifices that people had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for. Since travelling with all of the necessary sacrifices for a holiday like Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles) was highly impractical, there were moneylenders and merchants around out of necessity for people to offer sacrifices. Nothing to do with tithing (mandated in the Hebrew scriptures) or the Temple affiliating themselves with money.

[dangerballs]

Originally posted by Johannes:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FLA:
But if you had any knowledge of the Christian faith, you will realize that is exactly what Jesus frowned upon. He did go into the Jewish temple and destroyed the market places because the church was affiliating itself with money. More likely he did so because as a Galilean he had little understanding of the nature of life in the city and the necessary commerce that took place in the Temple courtyard. Bear in mind that at the time the worship in the Temple consisted of animal sacrifices that people had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for. Since travelling with all of the necessary sacrifices for a holiday like Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles) was highly impractical, there were moneylenders and merchants around out of necessity for people to offer sacrifices. Nothing to do with tithing (mandated in the Hebrew scriptures) or the Temple affiliating themselves with money. </font>[/QUOTE]More likely because he knew exactly what was going on in the temple and he was not stopped because of the popular support of his actions. The money-changers and salesman did little "necessary" commerce. They instead would use their influence to rob the poor who would visit the temple to sacrifice.

The temple would not accept foreign currency, so you had to purchase "temple coin". In doing so, the money-changers would charge exorbitant rates of exchange. The rich could afford it, but the poor would have to borrow money.

The same thing happened with the animals. The judges would quickly find any blemish on animals brought into the temple and would prevent them from being sacrificed. In their place, they would make people buy pre-approved animals (often those same "blemished" animals taken before) at very expensive rates. Once again, the rich could afford it, the poor would have to borrow even more money.

This would be the most likely reason why Jesus could get away with trashing the money-lenders tables. The common people were fed up with the theft in the name of religion. This tension ultimately comes to a head 30 years later in the Josephus account of the burning of the temple archives where the poor mobbed to rob the temple booths and drag to death the sons of Annas who were running the temple. At the time, the poor were buried in so much debt to the church, they saw no choice but to burn the archives in order to erase the records.

[kyleh]

Originally posted by Deon:
Sure, it serves a purpose, and no it's not always a dark one revolving around greed, power, corruption and control, however even the noble purpose of helping people through the tough times in their lives needs to be looked at closely by those leaning on it. Unfortunately, that's a lot to ask and many won't even consider looking closer at themselves. It's far easier to look at something external than to examine one's own inner workings, since many of the issues people face are ones of extremely deep hurt that are unpleasant to confront. And unfortunately, avoiding hurt is something people spend a lot of time on these days, doing anything and everything to avoid looking at pain, theirs or anyone else's.
That seems to be a statement against normal variances in human nature rather than religion itself. Any person, place, or thing can become corruptive to some, no matter how benign it might be in and of itself.

[Johannes]

Originally posted by dangerballs:
More likely because he knew exactly what was going on in the temple and he was not stopped because of the popular support of his actions. The money-changers and salesman did little "necessary" commerce. They instead would use their influence to rob the poor who would visit the temple to sacrifice. Less likely, but more reviosist and more in keeping with the ignorant (no slight intended here) beliefs promulgated in order to vilify Judeans. Attempting to argue that there was popular support is difficult in the face of the Gospel accounts where the crowd rejected Jesus. You can't really have it both ways.

Again, those people were there of necessity. Mondays and Thursdays were market days and days on which the Law (most likely selections from Deuteronomy) was publicly read.

Originally posted by dangerballs:
The temple would not accept foreign currency, so you had to purchase "temple coin". In doing so, the money-changers would charge exorbitant rates of exchange. The rich could afford it, but the poor would have to borrow money. Archeological evidence would seem to contradict that since many currencies were found in the Temple ruins as well as in the mounds of rubbish (containing many destroyed Jewish antiquities) thrown out by the Muslim Wakf as a result of illegal excavations. Galileans were rather provincial, and the poor would merely offer lesser sacrifices such as birds or grain as the law made provisions for. Major sacrifices would only need to be offered by the poor if they felt the need to make expiation for sins.

Originally posted by dangerballs:
The same thing happened with the animals. The judges would quickly find any blemish on animals brought into the temple and would prevent them from being sacrificed. In their place, they would make people buy pre-approved animals (often those same "blemished" animals taken before) at very expensive rates. Once again, the rich could afford it, the poor would have to borrow even more money.What judges would those be? Sadduccee judges or Pharisee judges? Either way, that interpretation is a rather popular and again ignorant revisionist one. Simple problem - as I previously stated there were provisions in the law for people to offer birds or grain offerings. Even more so, there were laws (which may very well have been ignored by the heavily assimilated Sadducees) which allowed for communal sacrifices.

Originally posted by dangerballs:

This would be the most likely reason why Jesus could get away with trashing the money-lenders tables. The common people were fed up with the theft in the name of religion. This tension ultimately comes to a head 30 years later in the Josephus account of the burning of the temple archives where the poor mobbed to rob the temple booths and drag to death the sons of Annas who were running the temple. At the time, the poor were buried in so much debt to the church, they saw no choice but to burn the archives in order to erase the records. You call being excruciated and crucified getting away with it? Damn, I'd hate to see your version of someone being penalized. av_smile.gif

Two points here. First, as much as I enjoy Josephus, he's often not so credible and all the more so since some of his works were clearly edited in another hand. His own biases are another matter altogether. The Temple treasury was primarily in the form of vessels and other sacred objects - see the Arch of Titus, and less in coin. Bear in mind that the priests and Levites did not work and depended on tithes and sacrifices to live - in the world of the Torah at least. At this point in time the leaders among the priests were generally Roman appointees who were paid by Rome.

Second, and more significantly, that isn't really logical. To say that Jesus got away with anything because of the poor fails to consider historical and cultural reality. The wealthy and powerful were generally quite hellenized and didn't care about the poor or their doing - certainly not enough to permit them to disrupt the social order. That sort of thing tended to irritate the Romans, particularly such a bloody handed and minded brute such as Pontious Pilate - He certainly wasn't willing to allow anything to upset the order in his province. The people in the Temple were simply too shocked by a mad Galilean rampage to do anything about it.