Re: Why Fear and Detest the Atheist?

[Starkiller]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:35:34 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

>"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote
>> Raymond wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist
>>>>Stalin had
>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>
>>>
>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>
>> Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>> people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>
>Hitler and Bush are clearly Christian. But the point is moot regardless.
>According to Christianity, God wanted Hitler, Bush and Stalin in power.
>Further, according to Christianity, god wanted people to obey them.
>
>Romans 13: "Submission to the Authorities 1Everyone must submit himself
>to
>the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which
>God
>has established. The authorities that exist have been established by
>God.
>2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
>what
>God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
>themselves.
>3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do
>wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do
>what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do
>you
>good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for
>nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on
>the
>wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not
>only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. "
>
>Whether or not any given evil leader is Christian isn't the point. The
>point is that Christianity requires that people obey the orders of evil
>leaders.
>
>Just say "no".
>
>Karl Johanson
>

And how many times have you all cited "Give unto Caeser that which is
due Caeser" when you talk about conservatives being against taxes?
And it still doesn't say that Christians should go out and commit
genocide and inquisitions. Your cites above basically just say that
you should obey the law of the land. Are you saying that it shouldn;t
be that way? Are you saying that Christians should consider
themselves to be above the law of the land?
Are you saying that if I consider the president to not be "of God"
that I should go out and just ignore all of the laws of the nation?
Got news for ya brainiac. You got to abide by the law wherever you
are or you will be punished for it when caught. And it won't be God
doing the punishing at that point.

Hell of a bunch of extrapolation you had to come up with from simply
obeying the law to "doing the evil deeds of evil leaders".

 

[Starkiller]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:54:36 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:38:03 -0600, Starkiller
><NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:17:43 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
>><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:58:09 -0600, Starkiller
>>><NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:19:53 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
>>>><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:37:53 -0600, Starkiller
>>>>><NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:17:48 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Raymond wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had
>>>>>>>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>>>>>>>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>>>>>>>>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
>>>>>>>the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
>>>>>>>fighting for the work of the Lord."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
>>>>>>>fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
>>>>>>>a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
>>>>>>>men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
>>>>>>>sufferer but as a fighter."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a
>>>>>>>Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of
>>>>>>>God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hitler used the belief system held by most Germans to manipulate the
>>>>>>masses. A lot of folks that didn't believe in **** with their heart
>>>>>>had no problem using the beliefs of others in manipulative ways.
>>>>>>Hitler could have professed being a "Christian" all he wanted but to
>>>>>>commit genocide against "The Chosen" is something no true Christian
>>>>>>would even consider.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why are so many Christians in denial about Christianity's bloody past?
>>>>
>>>>The bloody past is due to those that twist the religion to suit their
>>>>own selfish desires. That's what a "false prophet" is and it was
>>>>written that history would be filled with such types.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. They simply practices Christianity as they saw it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why is it that you types want to assign blame to a religion rather
>>>>than those that commit the crimes?
>>>
>>>We do when the religion is to blame.
>>>
>>>Do you seriously imagine that MArtin Luther wasn't a Christian but
>>>just twisting religion to commit crimes?
>>>
>>>Or the conquistadors?
>>>
>>>Or the Confederate slave owners?
>>>
>>>Or the Protestants who slaughtered Catholics and vice versa during the
>>>Reformation?
>>>
>>>Or the crusaders?
>>>
>>>Or Pope "Innocent" III who ordered the massacre of the Cathars saying
>>>"Kill them all, the Lord will care for his own? For which he was
>>>canonised as a protector of the faith?
>>>
>>>> The religion itself does not
>>>>demand that they act in such ways.
>>>
>>>Sometimes it does. Other times the emotional strength of the ideology
>>>makes people do things the religion doesn't say they should.
>>>
>>>But Christianity in the shape of the writings of numarous Christians
>>>like Martin Luther, Chrysostom etc is directly responsible for much
>>>evil. Like 1900 years of Xhristian anti-Semitism culminating in the
>>>holocaust.
>>>
>>>Do you seriously imagine people hated Jews as Christ-killers for any
>>>other reason than they were Christians who believed the Jews were
>>>responsible for killing Christ?
>>>
>>>But thank you for demonstrating just how in denial so many Christians
>>>are.
>
>So on your planet none of those were Christian?
>
>Even the founder of Protestantism and the early Catholic church
>fathers?
>
>Why are you in denial about your religion's bloody history?
>
>>I'll tell you like another previous poster. Get a bible and point
>>nout where Jesus teaches anything that you've listed in your little
>>diatribe to be the way to live.
>
>What "little diatribe", in-denial liar?
>
>> You list off all these folks that you
>>say were Christians but they are just individuals.
>
>That was Christianity, liar.
>
>> If you want to
>>claim that they were acting upon their faith and what they were taught
>>in as far as what the Bible teaches in regards to Jesus then you
>>should have no problem showing where their ideology is taken from the
>>bible.
>
>More dishonesty. Why do you imagine that Christians in earlier
>generations had to be your kind of Christian?
>
>Perhaps YOU would like to point out where Jesus tells you to lie,
>where Jesus tells today's Christians to be bigoted and discriminate
>against people who don't believe exactly as they do, etc?
>
>> If you can't then the religion of Christianity itself is not
>>at fault but rather those that falsely claim to be following that
>>faith are the true culprits.
>
>Did Martin Luther and Chrysostom "falsely claim to be Christian" on
>your planet? Or the crusaders, the conquistadors, the Confederate
>slave owners, the Catholics and Protestants who slaughtered each other
>during the Reformation? Or Pope Innocent III who ordered "kill them
>all, God will take care of his own" and then got canonised for
>exterminating a heretical split-off.
>
>Please tell me you're joking.
>
>>So show us where Jesus taught any of the crap you listed or you got no
>>argument.
>
>It doesn't matter what you imagine Jesus "taught". What matters is
>that they did it because of their religion.
>
>Sometimes directly because of the combination of the Bible blaming
>the Jews for the crucifixion and the sins of the fathers being passed
>down.
>
>Sometimes because of the emotional strength of the belief.
>
>Can't you read for comprehension or are you just in denial?


You apparently are the one that has a comprehension problem. This all
started out with you all arguing that Christianity is a religion that
promotes all kinds of evil ****. I keep asking you to show me where
Jesus taugh any of it and you just keep rattling off names of people
that you believe in your pointy little head to be perfect followers of
those teachings.
You keep trying to run in circles now claiming stupidly that it
doesn't matter what Jesus taught it's about what some other asshole
taught. Well if it ain't what is written in the good book then they
ARE NOT TEACHING the preachings of Jesus.
The Bible speaks of False Prophets as I stated but like in all of your
other posts, you want to ignore what is actually written and go by
what individuals claim and do. Apparently any fool can do anything
and just say "hey I'm a Christian" and that gives you the greenlight
to say that it must be because of their religion?
You argue that the religion itself is what creates all of the violence
and evil in the world as opposed to the actions of human beings but
you can't show one iota of proof that the religion itself as written
intends any such ends.
I suppose you also believe that Buddhism is responsible for the
Japanese Kamikazis performing their suicide dives into ships at Pearl
Harbor. Most all of them were Buddhists so I guess that means that
Buddhism is a bloodthirsty crazy philosophy yes? Your logic.
I guess(as I told another poster) that it's OK for me to say that
atheism is a major cause of death and destruction in the word because
of the history that includes Pol Pot and Stalin who believed as you do
that there is no God, right.

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:50:42 -0600, Starkiller
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:50:50 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:37:53 -0600, Starkiller
>><NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:17:48 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Raymond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had
>>>>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>>>>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>>>>
>>>>>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>>>>>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>>>>
>>>>"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
>>>>the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
>>>>fighting for the work of the Lord."
>>>>
>>>>"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
>>>>fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
>>>>a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
>>>>men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
>>>>sufferer but as a fighter."
>>>>
>>>>Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a
>>>>Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of
>>>>God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best.
>>>
>>>Hitler used the belief system held by most Germans to manipulate the
>>>masses. A lot of folks that didn't believe in **** with their heart
>>>had no problem using the beliefs of others in manipulative ways.
>>>Hitler could have professed being a "Christian" all he wanted but to
>>>commit genocide against "The Chosen" is something no true Christian
>>>would even consider. Hitler pretty much made up his own religion, a
>>>combination of Catholicism and Paganism, but he did so without
>>>establishing any official church or religion. He kind of pushed it
>>>out there over time. The quote above is an example of how he
>>>bastardized Christianity by using the words "God" and "Christian"
>>>mixed in with his messages of hate.
>>
>>Where did anyone say that Hitler started a church or religion? Seems
>>he used religion in much the same way as our current crop of
>>candidates. Bottom line - you have no idea about the man's religious
>>beliefs.
>
> See the part where I said he made up **** without establishing an
>official church or religion. And I wasn;'t talking about what he
>himself believed in on a spiritual level. I was stating how he used
>the beliefs of those he needed in order to gain their favor.
>There are all kinds of folks that believe that they are good
>Christians, for example, but they don;t know their asses from holes in
>the ground. Just look at the idiots that, even though it says nothing
>of the sort in the Bible, believe they should hate the Jews because
>they are the ones who crucified Jesus. So old Adolpoh may very well
>have been a "Christian" in name but as far as what he preached(like
>the words above) he was just plain wrong.

Thanks - you've hit the nail on the head. Religion has been utilized
to rationalize evil acts time and time again. That's the result of
religion moving from a private belief to a public "ism". You've got
all the current candidates trying to one-up the others on how serious
is their belief in God and their religion. It's sickening.

>>>>>> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no
>>>>>> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.
>>>>>> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't
>>>>>> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or
>>>>>> history book.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a
>>>>>tutorial in reality.
>>>>
>>>>So you're going to rewrite history to rationalize your ignorance?
>>>>Figures!
>>>>
>>>>>> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man
>>>>>> himself . G-d that is.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.
>>>>
>>>>Anti-God hysteria. The burden of proof is on the believers - not on
>>>>the non-believers. Now prove to us all that there is a God. Hint -
>>>>Kant couldn't and you can't.
>>>
>>>Only if the believers are trying to force their beliefs on you.
>>>People are entitled to their beliefs and are not obliged to provide
>>>any proof to anyone. After all it IS called "faith".
>>
>>Of course folks can hold to their own beliefs. But as soon as these
>>same folks take those beliefs and equate them with reality or fact
>>that's where the trouble begins. George Bush and his 'faith-based'
>>initiatives are a prime example. Freedom of religion implicitly gives
>>us freedom FROM religion in the public sector.
>
>NO, all it says in the constitution is the state will not impede your
>freedom to practice the religion of your choosing and the state will
>not establish any official church, such as "The Church Of England".
>That's ALL it says.

The Constitution also includes its defining (or redefining depending
upon one's frame of reference) by the Supremes. This includes keeping
religion and religious icons out of the public domain. The GOD that's
referenced in public documents and buildings is not the God of
religion(s) but a generic entity - read Jefferson.

>>>>>> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem
>>>>>> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Absolute exploitative insanity.
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me - it's in the Bible and isn't everything in the Bible God's
>>>>honest truth?
>>>>
>>>>>> Also see:
>>>>>> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Arab propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, right. And the Holocaust was Jewish propaganda foisted off by
>>>>the Rothschilds as truth. And the Inquisition was just a pop quiz. And
>>>>the Crusades a cruise on Holland-America. And pogroms were cheerleader
>>>>props. PS - you and the Muslims have the exact same God.
>>>>
>>>>>> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was
>>>>>> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long
>>>>>> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power
>>>>>> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>
>>>>>> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never
>>>>>> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where
>>>>>> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's
>>>>>> Christianity
>>>>>> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,
>>>>>no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.
>>>>
>>>>Of course - your point is?
>>>>
>>>>>> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never
>>>>>> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another
>>>>>> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of
>>>>>> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in
>>>>>> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not
>>>>>> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might
>>>>>> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,
>>>>>> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion
>>>>>> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,
>>>>>> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus
>>>>>> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.
>>>>>> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the
>>>>>> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a
>>>>>> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object
>>>>>> of the love will be eaten up...
>>>>>
>>>>>You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers
>>>>>in the atheist religion.
>>>>
>>>>Atheism is a religion? Beep - wrong. Nobody's out there signing up
>>>>converts.
>>>
>>>Then what do you call all those little arguments presented by "The
>>>American Atheists" and others that get very heated in their
>>>presentations? What do you call it when atheists post all their
>>>little messages to groups like alt.Christianity and others calling the
>>>"believers" every name in the book while trying to convince them that
>>>there is no God?
>>
>>Atheism is defined as no belief in a higher being. And yet you seek to
>>equate this with some sort of organized religion of non-believers.
>>Doesn't cut it.
>
>Then why pursue arguments about it as though it is. You folks keep
>screaming that there positively is no spiritual life or god but you
>can't prove it anymore than you can prove that there definitely isn't
>any life on any other planet in the universe. So your notions are
>based on your own "faith" whether you want to concede it or not.
>But I will come to a middle ground and say that a lot of atheists
>BEHAVE as though they are preaching a religious faith.
>I've told a couple of the more adamant posters here over the years
>that they are "religious" in their non religious beliefs.

The odds are that there is life outside our own solar system. The odds
that there is a God out there controlling things or even cresting
things are slim and none. Like I said before - folks can believe
anything they wish - just keep it out of our politics and out of my
face.

>>>If it were a minister doing the same thing you'd call it "preaching".
>>
>>....or a used car salesman.
>
>Well, I have met a few preachers in my time that were indeed used car
>salesmen before they got their "calling".
>
>In fact this discussion could almost end right here because in a
>nutshell, Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Khomeini et al could be described
>as consummate salesmen. They marketed their ideas and got enough
>sales under their belt to "buy the company" metaphorically speaking.

Yup.

>>>When M M O'hare used to have her little cable show where they asked
>>>for donations and such they sat and basically talked in the same
>>>manner as religious types do on their little discussion programs.
>>>Neither side has any upper hand on the other. Both are based
>>>essentially on "faith" There is no proof of the existence of God
>>>which is not evidence that one does not exists. And there is no proof
>>>that there absolutely is not a God out there somewhere simply watching
>>>which, also, is not evidence that there is one.
>>>Both sides can claim that it is up to the other to prove them wrong.
>>
>>That's not quite right. When positing the existence of anything, the
>>burden of proof is up to those seeking to prove that same existence.
>>Nobody's ever proven God to be anything except a human search to make
>>the unknowable known. There is no physical or factual proof of God's
>>existence. Period. I could say that garlic keeps vampires away because
>>there aren't any vampires around. Your argument doesn't hold up.
>
>See the statement I made about life existing on other planets.

It probably does exist but this has nothing to do with our discussion.
You're equating the corporeal with the 'divine'. It's faulty logic and
a poor analogy.

>There are some things that by the nature of their definition that are
>simply too far out there to either prove or disprove.

Again - the burden of proof is on the believers when they make their
beliefs fact. Beliefs and faith are many times wonderful things - but
don't equate the two with fact.

>And just an FYI, I don;t care whether you believe in Jesus or the Sun
>god or nothing at all. I just think it's foolish to blame everything
>and anything that any fool has done while claiming to be of a
>particular belief to be rooted in the religion itself rather than the
>****ed up mentality of those that wish to use it as an excuse.
>That's all anyone that has ever declared a crusade or jihad has ever
>done. They weren't following their faith. They were using it and
>manipulating it to suit their own desires.

Nobody's equated every evil to religious fervor - just many of the
massacres in history. For folks to kill and/or die in the name of
religion is just plain ludicrous. For folks to study and train to be
Christian soldiers (or suicide bombers, or whatever) and to spread
their mesage in any way they can flies in the face of Christian
teaching. See "Jesus Camp" for a prime example along with an excellent
film about the genesis of a suicide bomber (the title escapes me at
present). On top of that it's the religious faithful who seek to
control a woman's right to choose - and to choose what they wish to do
with their bodies. It's not up to some zealot or government agency or
anyone else - it's a personal decision. Keep God out of it - she's
neutral. (vbg)

>A simple modern day example of that would be something like: It says
>in the book of Deuteronomy I believe that it is a sin in the eyes of
>God for a man to lay with a man, a woman with a woman etc. But it
>doesn't say that MAN should be the one to punish them for that sin.
>(As my grandma always said "what you do is between you and your god)
>But look how many morons are out there in today's world preaching that
>it is a sin and WE have to deal with it and fight it and in the past
>abused and killed(legally) those that were seen as being guilty of
>those sins.
>Christians are supposed to pray for them that they may have a change
>in their heart and come to know god etc etc. but there are a lot of
>morons that preach different.
>The problems with Christianity today are not due to what the Bible
>actually teaches but are due to what zealots and egomaniacs twist
>those teachings into.
>Just like what the moolahs do in the middle east in regards to Islam.
>Their greatest accomplishment has been convincing their followers that
>a martyr is someone who will die in the name of their religion by
>suicide and murder rather than someone that is willing to die rather
>than give up their faith. A subtle nuance in words but it makes the
>difference between being devout and being a murdering lunatic.
>
>Personally I don't go to church. I see no point in someone
>interpreting an interpretation of a translation of a translation of a
>translation as being the true word of anything.

All very well said.

>I don't want to think that we are simply machines that wear out until
>we're done and that's it but I also can't bring myself to imagine any
>gold lined streets with a grey haired bearded god sitting on a throne
>where we will all serve and worship them for all eternity either.
>Wouldn't that be a bitch? Work your entire life doing what you think
>you're supposed to believing you'll be rewarded with eternal
>spiritually life only to be hit with an eternal 9 to 5 job. That's
>heaven? LOL

Nope - it's the Twilight Zone.

WB Yeats

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:55:27 -0600, Starkiller
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:09:21 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:50:42 -0600, Starkiller
>><NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Where did anyone say that Hitler started a church or religion? Seems
>>>>he used religion in much the same way as our current crop of
>>>>candidates. Bottom line - you have no idea about the man's religious
>>>>beliefs.
>>>
>>> See the part where I said he made up **** without establishing an
>>>official church or religion. And I wasn;'t talking about what he
>>>himself believed in on a spiritual level. I was stating how he used
>>>the beliefs of those he needed in order to gain their favor.
>>
>>And how does that make him atheist?
>>
>>Why was he never excommunicated?
>>
>>Why did he remain in good faith a member of the Catholic church?
>>
>>He was a leader who was Christian, whose followers were also, and who
>>accepted his religious motivation and justification.
>>
>>Were the Crusaders Christians? Martin Luther and the other Church
>>fathers both Catholic and Protestant whose writings fostered 1900
>>years of Christian anti-Semitism that became enshrined in Western
>>Europan Christian culture.
>>
>>Pope Innocent III who ordered the massacre of the Cathars at Beziers
>>and said "Kill them all, God will care for his own"?
>>
>>The Protestants and Catholics who slaughtered each other duringthe
>>Reformation?
>>
>>The thirty years war?

Couldn't answer this?

Or are you just in denial about your own religion's bloody past?

>>>There are all kinds of folks that believe that they are good
>>>Christians, for example, but they don;t know their asses from holes in
>>>the ground.
>>
>>Just like you. If you were you weren't be in denial about ?Christians
>>who did Bad Things.
>
>Have you not read the posts? I guess you have since you snipped out
>where I listeed all kinds of crap perpetrated by "professed
>Christians" Guess it didn;t suit your silly little argumen did it
>TROLL.

So were those I listed Christians or just "professed Christians"?

And what "silly little argument", LIAR?

Why are so many many Christians so dishionest?

Do you seriously imagine that lying about my being atroll, somehow
absolvesyou from answeing?

 

[Rev. Karl E. Taylor]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Raymond wrote:
>
>> On Jan 19, 7:26�pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist
>>> Stalin had
>>> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>
>>
>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>
> Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
> people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>
Hitler, Catholic.
Stalin, Russian Orthodox.
Bush family, US Christian.

Now, you were saying?
>>
>> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no
>> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.
>> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't
>> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or
>> history book.
>
> Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a
> tutorial in reality.
>
>>
>> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man
>> himself . G-d that is.
>
> Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.
>
Hmmm, the obligatory projection, a RoyBoy special
>>
>> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem
>> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm
>
> Absolute exploitative insanity.
>
Projection.
>>
>> Also see:
>> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
>
> Arab propaganda.
>
Ignornace.
>>
>> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was
>> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long
>> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power
>> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>
>> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never
>> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where
>> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's
>> Christianity
>> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.
>
> Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,
> no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.
>
Same with Bush. What's your point?

Other then the fact that you like to overlook the obvious. The people
are swayed by their CHURCH!

How do you think the empty hat got to 1600 twice?
>>
>> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never
>> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another
>> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of
>> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in
>> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not
>> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might
>> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,
>> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion
>> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,
>> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus
>> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.
>> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the
>> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a
>> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object
>> of the love will be eaten up...
>
> You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers
> in the atheist religion.
>
For the last time dickless.

Atheists don't have a religion. An atheist is someone that is not a
practitioner of any form of theism. Theism by and large are what twats
call religion.
>>
>> Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.
>>
>> "If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a
>> Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior."
>>
>> Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ,
>> the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity.
>> --- Albert Einstein
>>
>> ". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not
>> believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And
>> if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such
>> an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."
>> --- Bertrand Russell
>
> Russel the moron.
>
You misspelled Roy Jose Lorr.
>>
>> Let us prey
>
> Amen.
>
Bite me.

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHk8g0f+wl0F6+jvgRAoaUAJ9RW0CTAnkKtZMVFuREEpkRkA0uqgCeJs0v
sCXQ1m1AhNkyxVF04yuQ9lE=
=Wbsd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Liz]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:32:30 -0600, Starkiller
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:


[---]
>Read the new freaking testament for crying out loud if you want to
>know. Just a few aspects are that you don't go around trying to
>dominate and force anyone into your faith for starters. You don;t
>commit genocide.


Could you give me a reference for the "don't commit genocide"
verse(s)? Many people reference the genocide committed by God and the
Hebrews in the OT, and it would be nice it see that such action was
countermanded in the NT.


Liz #658 BAAWA

 

[Starkiller]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:16:20 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>> Raymond wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist
>>>> Stalin had
>>>> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>
>>>
>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>
>> Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>> people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>>
>Hitler, Catholic.
>Stalin, Russian Orthodox.
>Bush family, US Christian.
>
>Now, you were saying?
>>>
>>> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no
>>> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.
>>> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't
>>> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or
>>> history book.
>>
>> Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a
>> tutorial in reality.
>>
>>>
>>> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man
>>> himself . G-d that is.
>>
>> Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.
>>
>Hmmm, the obligatory projection, a RoyBoy special
>>>
>>> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem
>>> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm
>>
>> Absolute exploitative insanity.
>>
>Projection.
>>>
>>> Also see:
>>> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
>>
>> Arab propaganda.
>>
>Ignornace.
>>>
>>> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was
>>> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long
>>> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power
>>> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>
>>> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never
>>> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where
>>> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's
>>> Christianity
>>> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.
>>
>> Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,
>> no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.
>>
>Same with Bush. What's your point?
>
>Other then the fact that you like to overlook the obvious. The people
>are swayed by their CHURCH!
>
>How do you think the empty hat got to 1600 twice?
>>>
>>> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never
>>> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another
>>> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of
>>> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in
>>> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not
>>> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might
>>> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,
>>> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion
>>> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,
>>> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus
>>> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.
>>> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the
>>> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a
>>> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object
>>> of the love will be eaten up...
>>
>> You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers
>> in the atheist religion.
>>
>For the last time dickless.
>
>Atheists don't have a religion. An atheist is someone that is not a
>practitioner of any form of theism. Theism by and large are what twats
>call religion.

From your response it seems that you are every bit as adamant about it
as any evangelical is regarding their religion. Argue semantics all
day if you like but your behavior is very similar when confronted by
someone that doesn't subscribe to your belief, or non belief as the
case may be.
Same reason a lot of folks refer to the "Religion of Global Warming".
Not that it is a real religion but the behavior of the "believers"
resemble that of someone devoutly religious.
One of the definitions given of religion as a noun is : a cause,
principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith -
Webster's.
It doesn't necessarily equate solely to a belief in a God or deity.



>>>
>>> Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.
>>>
>>> "If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a
>>> Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior."
>>>
>>> Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ,
>>> the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity.
>>> --- Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> ". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not
>>> believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And
>>> if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such
>>> an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."
>>> --- Bertrand Russell
>>
>> Russel the moron.
>>
>You misspelled Roy Jose Lorr.
>>>
>>> Let us prey
>>
>> Amen.
>>
>Bite me.

 

[Karl Johanson]

"Starkiller" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote

> Show us where anything that Hitler did was referenced in the Bible as
> a teaching of Christ?

The Bible says that every leader of every nation is there, because of
god's will. It further says that people should follow them. If you
believe the Christian Bible, you believe Hitler executed god's will. If
you believe the Christian Bible, you believe that the Germans were under
god's orders to do what their leader told them to do, as it was god's
will.

Fortunately, god is fictitious. I wish Hitler and most of his followers
had known that.

Karl Johanson

 

[Karl Johanson]

"Starkiller" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I'll tell you like another previous poster. Get a bible and point
> nout where Jesus teaches anything that you've listed in your little
> diatribe to be the way to live. You list off all these folks that you
> say were Christians but they are just individuals. If you want to
> claim that they were acting upon their faith and what they were taught
> in as far as what the Bible teaches in regards to Jesus then you
> should have no problem showing where their ideology is taken from the
> bible. If you can't then the religion of Christianity itself is not
> at fault but rather those that falsely claim to be following that
> faith are the true culprits.
> So show us where Jesus taught any of the crap you listed or you got no
> argument.

The Bible is clear that Hitler and every other evil leader, are there
because god wants them in power . It also says that people are supposed
to follow those leaders.

The god of the Bible is evil or fictitious.

Karl Johanson

Romans 13: "Submission to the Authorities 1Everyone must submit himself
to
the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which
God
has established. The authorities that exist have been established by
God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
what
God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
themselves.
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do
wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do
what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do
you
good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for
nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on
the
wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not
only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. "

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:40:06 -0500, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:32:30 -0600, Starkiller
><NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>[---]
>>Read the new freaking testament for crying out loud if you want to
>>know. Just a few aspects are that you don't go around trying to
>>dominate and force anyone into your faith for starters. You don;t
>>commit genocide.

What "faith" was he lying about?

But of course by his logic he shouldn't use a computer or drive a car
because the NT doesn't tell him to.

Can't they think before saying something silly?

>Could you give me a reference for the "don't commit genocide"
>verse(s)? Many people reference the genocide committed by God and the
>Hebrews in the OT, and it would be nice it see that such action was
>countermanded in the NT.

Why does he imagine the New Testament decides what a Christian is, for
any but the most extreme literalists?

It never did for two millennia. It has always meant somebody who is a
member of a religion that worships Jesus Christ as its god.

>Liz #658 BAAWA

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Karl Johanson wrote:

> "Starkiller" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>Show us where anything that Hitler did was referenced in the Bible as
>>a teaching of Christ?
>
>
> The Bible says that every leader of every nation is there, because of
> god's will. It further says that people should follow them. If you
> believe the Christian Bible, you believe Hitler executed god's will. If
> you believe the Christian Bible, you believe that the Germans were under
> god's orders to do what their leader told them to do, as it was god's
> will.

Free will for humans, not determinism, is God's will.

>
> Fortunately, god is fictitious. I wish Hitler and most of his followers
> had known that.

They believed precisely that.

 

[Karl Johanson]

"Starkiller" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:35:34 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Raymond wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist
>>>>>Stalin had
>>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin
>>>>>Laden.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than
>>>> Atheist
>>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>>
>>> Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>>> people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>>
>>Hitler and Bush are clearly Christian. But the point is moot
>>regardless.
>>According to Christianity, God wanted Hitler, Bush and Stalin in
>>power.
>>Further, according to Christianity, god wanted people to obey them.
>>
>>Romans 13: "Submission to the Authorities 1Everyone must submit
>>himself
>>to
>>the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which
>>God
>>has established. The authorities that exist have been established by
>>God.
>>2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling
>>against
>>what
>>God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
>>themselves.
>>3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who
>>do
>>wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then
>>do
>>what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do
>>you
>>good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword
>>for
>>nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on
>>the
>>wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities,
>>not
>>only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. "
>>
>>Whether or not any given evil leader is Christian isn't the point. The
>>point is that Christianity requires that people obey the orders of
>>evil
>>leaders.
>>
>>Just say "no".
>>
>>Karl Johanson
>>
>
> And how many times have you all cited "Give unto Caeser that which is
> due Caeser" when you talk about conservatives being against taxes?

Me? Not even once.

> And it still doesn't say that Christians should go out and commit
> genocide and inquisitions. Your cites above basically just say that
> you should obey the law of the land.

And part of Hitler's law was to slaughter millions of people, all
endorsed by the Bible.

> Are you saying that it shouldn;t
> be that way?

You're ****in A rightios I'm saying people shouldn't have followed
Hitler's laws! The fact that some collection of superstitiousstories
told Christians to do that, doesn't excuse those who followed Hitler.

Karl Johanson

 

[Karl Johanson]

"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>
>> "Starkiller" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Show us where anything that Hitler did was referenced in the Bible as
>>>a teaching of Christ?
>>
>>
>> The Bible says that every leader of every nation is there, because of
>> god's will. It further says that people should follow them. If you
>> believe the Christian Bible, you believe Hitler executed god's will.
>> If you believe the Christian Bible, you believe that the Germans were
>> under god's orders to do what their leader told them to do, as it was
>> god's will.
>
> Free will for humans, not determinism, is God's will.

I didn't say it was determinism. I said the Bible orders Christians to
follow every national leader. Lots of Christians did that, when Hitler
was in power.

Karl Johanson

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Raymond wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had
>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>
>>>
>>>And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>>>Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>
>>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>
>
> "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
> the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
> fighting for the work of the Lord."
>
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
> sufferer but as a fighter."
>
> Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a
> Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of
> God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best.

You make my point. Politics has people saying all sorts of untruths. As
I said.

>
>
>>>Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no
>>>troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.
>>>Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't
>>>understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or
>>>history book.
>>
>>Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a
>>tutorial in reality.
>
>
> So you're going to rewrite history to rationalize your ignorance?
> Figures!

Ignorance is taking necessarily biased accounts of history at face value.

>
>
>>>And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man
>>>himself . G-d that is.
>>
>>Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.
>
>
> Anti-God hysteria. The burden of proof is on the believers - not on
> the non-believers. Now prove to us all that there is a God. Hint -
> Kant couldn't and you can't.

God needs no proof but since you insist: your existence is proof enough.

>
>
>>>SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem
>>>http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm
>>
>>Absolute exploitative insanity.
>
>
> Excuse me - it's in the Bible and isn't everything in the Bible God's
> honest truth?

To what in the Bible do you refer? If all you're going to do is
regurgitate garbage from that Jew hating web site you'll be engaging in
a conceptually irrelevant act.

>
>
>>>Also see:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
>>
>>Arab propaganda.
>
>
> Yeah, right. And the Holocaust was Jewish propaganda foisted off by
> the Rothschilds as truth. And the Inquisition was just a pop quiz. And
> the Crusades a cruise on Holland-America. And pogroms were cheerleader
> props.

Denial suits you.


PS - you and the Muslims have the exact same God.

Bull.

>
>
>>>Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was
>>>a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long
>>>as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power
>>>without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>
>>>So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never
>>>questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where
>>>it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's
>>>Christianity
>>>--- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.
>>
>>Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,
>>no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.
>
>
> Of course - your point is?

Read what you wrote above.

>
>
>>>A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never
>>>tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another
>>>religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of
>>>a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in
>>>another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not
>>>successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might
>>>of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,
>>>the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion
>>>demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,
>>>because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus
>>>intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.
>>>The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the
>>>conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a
>>>child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object
>>>of the love will be eaten up...
>>
>>You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers
>>in the atheist religion.
>
>
> Atheism is a religion? Beep - wrong. Nobody's out there signing up
> converts.

Bull. Atheism evangelizes. Or have you no idea of your fundamentalist,
evangelical devotion to your own religion.

>
>
>>> Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.
>>>
>>>"If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a
>>>Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior."
>>>
>>>Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ,
>>>the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity.
>>>--- Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not
>>>believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And
>>>if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such
>>>an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."
>>>--- Bertrand Russell
>>
>>Russel the moron.
>
>
> Yup - Roy's the perfect ignorant Xtian - his mind's made up. Everyone
> who doesn't believe in his brand of Xtianity is a moron. This includes
> Russell, Kant, Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, and a cast of thousands.
> Pretty good company. If there ever was a Jesus, (there's no proof of
> his existence except for a footnote in an archaic text that refers to
> a Christos) he'd be much more at home with those folks than with a
> bunch of narrow-minded bigots.

Typical atheist zealot's rant.

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Liz wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:32:30 -0600, Starkiller
> <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [---]
>
>>Read the new freaking testament for crying out loud if you want to
>>know. Just a few aspects are that you don't go around trying to
>>dominate and force anyone into your faith for starters. You don;t
>>commit genocide.
>
>
>
> Could you give me a reference for the "don't commit genocide"
> verse(s)? Many people reference the genocide committed by God and the
> Hebrews in the OT, and it would be nice it see that such action was
> countermanded in the NT.

Show where "genocide" is ordered in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronom). I suggest you learn the meaning of the term "genocide".

 

[Starkiller]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:40:06 -0500, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:32:30 -0600, Starkiller
><NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>[---]
>>Read the new freaking testament for crying out loud if you want to
>>know. Just a few aspects are that you don't go around trying to
>>dominate and force anyone into your faith for starters. You don;t
>>commit genocide.
>
>
>Could you give me a reference for the "don't commit genocide"
>verse(s)? Many people reference the genocide committed by God and the
>Hebrews in the OT, and it would be nice it see that such action was
>countermanded in the NT.
>
>
>Liz #658 BAAWA

Well, genocide specifically isn't mentioned of course but it
definitely is not implied to be acceptable as killing in general is
not very acceptable: I could see an argument if anywhere Jesus said
that it was acceptable to kill for vengance or gain. For that matter
he never even said that it was acceptable even for self defense.
Here are a couple of "quotes":

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for
tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak
as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
(Mat.5:33-41)

Which, IMHO, shows the nature of what the religion of Christianity
ought to be. Of course, not being perfect as described in the Bible,
most folks aren't that good at being "perfect Christians".

"Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold,
one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his
sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all
who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I
cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than
twelve legions of angels?. But how then should the scriptures be
fulfilled, that it must be so?"... "But Jesus said, "No more of this!"
And he touched his ear and healed him." (Mat.26:50-54, Lk.22:51)...
The weapons Jesus left us are prayer and forgiveness, and love and
service, trusting always in the Lord... never the sword, Jesus will
bring the sword.

Praying forgiveness for those who crucified him, "And Jesus said,
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Lk.23:34).
Love and service and prayer and forgiveness were the weapons of
Jesus, and love and service and prayer and forgiveness should always
be the weapons of a Christian.
______________________________

Now. I don't even consider myself to even be a mediocre example of a
Christian. Hell I may not even qualify to call myself Christian in
terms of what the "Church" says a Christian is at all.
But I do know that for the first deades, maybe centuries after Christ
most of the Christians in the world were treated like dirt because of
their non violent philosophy. A shitload were simply slaughtered.
There have been a couple of responders that, for lack of any proof of
their claims that Christianity is a "bloody" religion in it's
teachings, want to throw out all kinds of examples and ask "Are they
not Christians?"
My answer is that they may be Christians but they do or did a very
piss poor job of it according to what Jesus preached. I'm far from
being fit to be any kind of true judge as far as what God considers
Christian or not or even if it is a consideration. But it doesn't
take a rocket scientist to simply read what Jesus said and then look
at how a lot of professed Christians do to figure out that they ain't
doing it right.

But that's why Christian ministers always talk about how people cannot
be perfect and all God expects is for people to aspire to be like
Christ. Even though they can never attain the same level of
perfection.
What I see as time goes by is fewer and fewer folks aspiring to
anything other than a bigger check and a flatscreen HD TV.
And those "aspiring" Christians are aspiring less and less in terms of
being like Jesus..
I'm sure there can be tons of pages of threads written about how the
Church keeps "adapting" and letting more and more slide in efforts to
boost membership and donations and such but that's a whole different
thread that someone else will have to start.
Like I said I'm really really not very religious. I just know what
the particular religion in question is supposed to be about.

Hope what I did quote can be of some help. I'm sure you can find a
lot more similar if you do the right searches.

PS In a way I guess I can kinda understand the controversy as far as
the atheists are concerned. There are indeed a lot of folks claiming
that they are doing the "Christian" thing while doing exactly the
opposite of what Jesus preached according to the Bible.
Anyone not very familiar with the New Testament could very well get
the impression that the religion itself teaches the wrong ideals by
the way a lot of the "believers" behave.

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Mike wrote:

>
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>>>". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not
>>>believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And
>>>if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such
>>>an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."
>>>--- Bertrand Russell
>>
>>Russel the moron.
>
>
> I take it then that you disagree with Russell and you believe that God
> DOES, in fact, have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those
> who doubt his existence?

He's sympathetic to your low self esteem.

>
>
>>>Let us prey
>
>
> Preying is for xians, mantis' and other insects.

Then you do prey.

 

[Roy Jose Lorr]

Karl Johanson wrote:

> "Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote
>

god wanted people to obey them.

God wanted people to know them for what they are, examples of idolatry.

 

[Rev. Karl E. Taylor]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Starkiller wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:16:20 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
> <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>> Raymond wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist
>>>>> Stalin had
>>>>> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>>
>>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>> Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>>> people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>>>
>> Hitler, Catholic.
>> Stalin, Russian Orthodox.
>> Bush family, US Christian.
>>
>> Now, you were saying?
>>>> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no
>>>> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.
>>>> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't
>>>> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or
>>>> history book.
>>> Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a
>>> tutorial in reality.
>>>
>>>> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man
>>>> himself . G-d that is.
>>> Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.
>>>
>> Hmmm, the obligatory projection, a RoyBoy special
>>>> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem
>>>> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm
>>> Absolute exploitative insanity.
>>>
>> Projection.
>>>> Also see:
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
>>> Arab propaganda.
>>>
>> Ignornace.
>>>> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was
>>>> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long
>>>> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power
>>>> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>
>>>> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never
>>>> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where
>>>> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's
>>>> Christianity
>>>> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.
>>> Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,
>>> no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.
>>>
>> Same with Bush. What's your point?
>>
>> Other then the fact that you like to overlook the obvious. The people
>> are swayed by their CHURCH!
>>
>> How do you think the empty hat got to 1600 twice?
>>>> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never
>>>> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another
>>>> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of
>>>> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in
>>>> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not
>>>> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might
>>>> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,
>>>> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion
>>>> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,
>>>> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus
>>>> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.
>>>> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the
>>>> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a
>>>> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object
>>>> of the love will be eaten up...
>>> You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers
>>> in the atheist religion.
>>>
>> For the last time dickless.
>>
>> Atheists don't have a religion. An atheist is someone that is not a
>> practitioner of any form of theism. Theism by and large are what twats
>> call religion.
>
> From your response it seems that you are every bit as adamant about it
> as any evangelical is regarding their religion. Argue semantics all
> day if you like but your behavior is very similar when confronted by
> someone that doesn't subscribe to your belief, or non belief as the
> case may be.
> Same reason a lot of folks refer to the "Religion of Global Warming".
> Not that it is a real religion but the behavior of the "believers"
> resemble that of someone devoutly religious.
> One of the definitions given of religion as a noun is : a cause,
> principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith -
> Webster's.
> It doesn't necessarily equate solely to a belief in a God or deity.
>
And did you ever consider for one moment that I am sick, tired,
frustrated and fed up with having the mindless drivel that is religion
shoved into my face damn near 20 hours a day, 7 days a week?

If not, too bad. You missed out on one of the prime reasons that
atheists are angry. If it ain't the Catholics its the JW's. Not the
JW's, it's the Mormons. No Mormons to be had, well ****, Muslims fill
the bill nicely. Can't find your local lunatic Muslim, a couple of
nasty Hindu's will do nicely. And when all that fails, there are always
two or three THOUSAND Protestants of differing names that will gladly
annoy you for hours on end about why every one is wrong but them.

TV, newspapers, radio, bus ads, tracts on park benches, bibles in hotel
rooms, mindless little zombies at the capital building.

Yeah, by your way of thinking, I have absolutely no right to be pissed off.

Fortunately, the world does not revolve around your way of thinking.
You don't like what I have to say, fine. I'm not holding a gun to your
head and demanding you read it.

I have every right in the world to be angry at the inbreed little morons
that want to force me, by law or by force, to be just like them. When
pushed, I push back.

If you have no problem with these dropout's from the critical thinking
class, fine. That's your problem, not mine.

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHk99Pf+wl0F6+jvgRAg3/AJ9vVsKHq/JqVJWIJxDvww2ko/LqiQCgl7cf
DB8ad/QPytoUCJeCJEYvbx4=
=JMal
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:55:02 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Starkiller wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:16:20 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
>> <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>> Raymond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist
>>>>>> Stalin had
>>>>>> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist
>>>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush
>>>> Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How
>>>> people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.
>>>>
>>> Hitler, Catholic.
>>> Stalin, Russian Orthodox.
>>> Bush family, US Christian.
>>>
>>> Now, you were saying?
>>>>> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no
>>>>> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.
>>>>> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't
>>>>> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or
>>>>> history book.
>>>> Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a
>>>> tutorial in reality.
>>>>
>>>>> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man
>>>>> himself . G-d that is.
>>>> Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.
>>>>
>>> Hmmm, the obligatory projection, a RoyBoy special
>>>>> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem
>>>>> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm
>>>> Absolute exploitative insanity.
>>>>
>>> Projection.
>>>>> Also see:
>>>>> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
>>>> Arab propaganda.
>>>>
>>> Ignornace.
>>>>> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was
>>>>> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long
>>>>> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power
>>>>> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>
>>>>> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never
>>>>> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where
>>>>> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's
>>>>> Christianity
>>>>> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.
>>>> Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,
>>>> no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.
>>>>
>>> Same with Bush. What's your point?
>>>
>>> Other then the fact that you like to overlook the obvious. The people
>>> are swayed by their CHURCH!
>>>
>>> How do you think the empty hat got to 1600 twice?
>>>>> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never
>>>>> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another
>>>>> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of
>>>>> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in
>>>>> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not
>>>>> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might
>>>>> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,
>>>>> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion
>>>>> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,
>>>>> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus
>>>>> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.
>>>>> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the
>>>>> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a
>>>>> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object
>>>>> of the love will be eaten up...
>>>> You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers
>>>> in the atheist religion.
>>>>
>>> For the last time dickless.
>>>
>>> Atheists don't have a religion. An atheist is someone that is not a
>>> practitioner of any form of theism. Theism by and large are what twats
>>> call religion.
>>
>> From your response it seems that you are every bit as adamant about it
>> as any evangelical is regarding their religion. Argue semantics all
>> day if you like but your behavior is very similar when confronted by
>> someone that doesn't subscribe to your belief, or non belief as the
>> case may be.
>> Same reason a lot of folks refer to the "Religion of Global Warming".
>> Not that it is a real religion but the behavior of the "believers"
>> resemble that of someone devoutly religious.
>> One of the definitions given of religion as a noun is : a cause,
>> principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith -
>> Webster's.
>> It doesn't necessarily equate solely to a belief in a God or deity.
>>
>And did you ever consider for one moment that I am sick, tired,
>frustrated and fed up with having the mindless drivel that is religion
>shoved into my face damn near 20 hours a day, 7 days a week?

On his planet that makes this reaction a religion. But then he is a
dishonest theist who redefined words so broadly they become
meaningless.

Making it impossible to hold the discussion they start. It's like
using the Monty Python English/Hungarian phrase book. Their insistence
on using their jargon meanings of every day words means we're both
talking past each other.

And they blame us for not using their inside-the-religion
redefinitions in the real world.

>If not, too bad. You missed out on one of the prime reasons that
>atheists are angry. If it ain't the Catholics its the JW's. Not the
>JW's, it's the Mormons. No Mormons to be had, well ****, Muslims fill
>the bill nicely. Can't find your local lunatic Muslim, a couple of
>nasty Hindu's will do nicely. And when all that fails, there are always
>two or three THOUSAND Protestants of differing names that will gladly
>annoy you for hours on end about why every one is wrong but them.

They're in denial about it.

>TV, newspapers, radio, bus ads, tracts on park benches, bibles in hotel
>rooms, mindless little zombies at the capital building.
>
>Yeah, by your way of thinking, I have absolutely no right to be pissed off.

In their minds we haven't.

But they haven't the common sense or courtesy to understand that
everybody else has just as much freedom of speech and of religious
conscience as they do.

Which includes our telling them where to shove it when they wipe it in
our faces, to call them liars when they lie about us, and to treat
them like idiots when they are.

>Fortunately, the world does not revolve around your way of thinking.
>You don't like what I have to say, fine. I'm not holding a gun to your
>head and demanding you read it.

In their minds it does.

They stupidly imagine their god is real for everybody outside their
religion, and rationalise positions we don't have as though it were.
And nastily insist that these are accurate when we correct them.

>I have every right in the world to be angry at the inbreed little morons
>that want to force me, by law or by force, to be just like them. When
>pushed, I push back.

For some reason they ignore their own actions and pretend that the
reaction is unprovoked.

>If you have no problem with these dropout's from the critical thinking
>class, fine. That's your problem, not mine.