Can you imagine

[Eris]

With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
they had not concentrated on each others genitals?

[rappoccio]

LOL!

[Dev]

Good fucking point. All the suffering in the world and they choose
being opposed to gay rights and women's liberation as two of their
biggest signature issues.

[Dag Yo]

Great way to say it.

[trog69]

Nitty-gritty perfection!

[Trance Gemini]

Good points to both.

[Brock]

Of course, this statement minimizes many things that were accomplished
through the efforts of Christians.

Regards,

Brock

[random]

Can you give an example to good things that was accomplished uniquely
from Christianity, when "Christianity" includes at least a large
majority of the believers?

[rappoccio]

Yeah, all of that intellectual repression for over a thousand years
should be given credit too.

[Neil Kelsey]

Hey! We should be thankful they let the earth revolve around the sun.
We might all be flying off into space right now if it didn't. Thank
you, Jesus and Christians! You're swollen...er, swell!

[Brock Organ]

I'm simply responding to the mis characterization:

> > > With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> > > religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> > > they had not concentrated on each others genitals?

By noting:

[Brock Organ]

While noting that the actions of Stalin and Mao do not reflect on the
nature of atheism ... ?

Its still a double standard. ;0

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 2:08 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  On Mar 27, 9:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  > > With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> >  > > religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> >  > > they had not concentrated on each others genitals?
>
> >  > Of course, this statement minimizes many things that were accomplished
> >  > through the efforts of Christians.
>
> >  > Regards,
>
> >  > Brock
>
> >  Yeah, all of that intellectual repression for over a thousand years
> >  should be given credit too.
>
> While noting that the actions of Stalin and Mao do not reflect on the
> nature of atheism ... ?

There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
have Marxist Christians.

Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 10:08 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brock-

Communism and fascism are both forms of totalitarianism. They just
replace the infallible Deity with the infallible Leader. They both
require the citizens give body and "soul" to the state. It is a form
of worship. Do you know where this is going yet? As Orwell said,
totalitariamism is another form of theocracy. I'm an atheist, and I
want nothing to do with totalitarianism in any form. I don't know any
atheists who do. From my experience, it is theists who have an
unquenchable drive to subjugate and be subjugated. No thanks.

[Trance Gemini]

Well said. I agree completely with these comments.

[Brock Organ]

By such a standard, the same kinds of offenses do not apply to
Christianity because the perpetrators acted as <insert label here> and
not as Christians. :)

Its still a double standard.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Communism and fascism are both forms of totalitarianism. They just
> replace the infallible Deity with the infallible Leader. They both
> require the citizens give body and "soul" to the state. It is a form
> of worship. Do you know where this is going yet?

I knew where it was going right from the beginning.

Its still a double standard. :)

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 27, 7:24 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you give an example to good things that was accomplished uniquely
> from Christianity,

How about the banning of infanticide in the Roman empire?

> when "Christianity" includes at least a large
> majority of the believers?

A large majority of the believers were in the Roman empire.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 4:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not the case, Brock. Hitler based his anti-semitism on the Biblical
interpretations of Martin Luther and indicates that in his writings.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

But if one maintains

"Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists"

its valid to note:

"Hitler acted as a National Socialist not as a Christian"

Yep, its still a double standard.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 4:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your missing the point.

Stalin and Mao acted as Communists because atheism is not a belief
system but a lack of belief in god(s). Therefore it's impossible for
them to act based on atheism. It was incidental to the fact that they
were Communists (which is why you can have Marxist Christians).

Hitler's National Socialist beliefs were based on existing Biblical
interpretations specifically those of Martin Luther who was anti-
semitic. Christianity is a belief system with many interpretations
associated with it and therefore it's not only possibly to base a
political philosophy on it but it has been done in the case National
Socialism and Marxist Christianity (a blend between Christian and
Marxist beliefs).

That is a fundamental difference.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

Ok, then by your premises it seems equally valid to note that Hitler
acted as a National Socialist and not as a Christian. Therefore its
impossible for him to act based on Christianity.

Its still a double standard.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 5:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

No it's not.

You are choosing to ignore the key point which is that Christianity is
a belief system and therefore National Socialism, also a belief system
can be based on it.

Atheism is not a belief system, therefore you cannot base any belief
system on it.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 1:20 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >  Communism and fascism are both forms of totalitarianism. They just
> >  replace the infallible Deity with the infallible Leader. They both
> >  require the citizens give body and "soul" to the state. It is a form
> >  of worship. Do you know where this is going yet?
>
> I knew where it was going right from the beginning.
>
> Its still a double standard. :)

Then you either disagree that totalitarian states are the same as
theocracies or you don't understand what that means. Which is it? If
it's the former, would you care to support your assertion? HOW is it a
double standard to an atheist who is not a communist? How is communism
an atheist state when it requires the equivalent of worship from it's
citizens? Please answer with your usual vapid remarks ended with a
dorky smiley face.

[Brock Organ]

I'm not ignoring the point. Rather, I'm pointing out that your
special treatment for atheism is a double standard.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 1:20 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Communism and fascism are both forms of totalitarianism. They just
> > > replace the infallible Deity with the infallible Leader. They both
> > > require the citizens give body and "soul" to the state. It is a form
> > > of worship. Do you know where this is going yet?
> >
> > I knew where it was going right from the beginning.
> >
> > Its still a double standard. :)
>
> Then you either disagree that totalitarian states are the same as
> theocracies or you don't understand what that means. Which is it?

I prefer category 3:

Its still a double standard.

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

I'm channelling Christopher Hitchens.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 5:43 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your conclusion that this "special treatment for atheism is a double
standard" shows that you are ignoring the point.

If you weren't ignoring the point you would either refute it and show
how it's incorrect or you would agree that I'm right and you're wrong.

Not to do one or the other is ignoring the point that atheism is not a
belief system and for that reason a political philosophy cannot be
based on it. Whereas Christianity is a belief system and political
philosophies can and have been based on it. For example, National
Socialism and Marxist Christianity.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Trance Gemini]

;-)

[Brock Organ]

I'm not ignoring your point. I disagree with your "special treatment
for atheism" premise. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 5:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are ignoring my point because you haven't refuted my point and
shown how or why it's incorrect.

Making declarations that you disagree without providing your position
and/or substantiating it is the same as ignoring the point.

So, you continue to ignore the point that atheism is not a

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 2:44 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your little strategy on how to argue with unbelievers is only making
you appear as a flirtatious retard. Coyness is barely tolerable in
women that I might find attractive; it's achingly embarrassing coming
from some Christian male over the internet. Why don't you post on
Lavalife if you want to play footsy?

[rappoccio]

;)

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 1:08 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  On Mar 27, 9:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  > > With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> >  > > religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> >  > > they had not concentrated on each others genitals?
>
> >  > Of course, this statement minimizes many things that were accomplished
> >  > through the efforts of Christians.
>
> >  > Regards,
>
> >  > Brock
>
> >  Yeah, all of that intellectual repression for over a thousand years
> >  should be given credit too.
>
> While noting that the actions of Stalin and Mao do not reflect on the
> nature of atheism ... ?

They reflect on the nature of dogma, which is bad in any case. Stalin
and Mao didn't murder anyone on the basis of compassion and reason. So
they're actually more in your court than ours. Dogma is dogma, and all
dogma is bad (which is a statement based on reason).

> Its still a double standard. ;0

I agree that Christians apply a double standard to their ideas of what
is justified.

> Regards,
>
> Brock

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 3:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Except for when they did, because they based their heinous actions ON
CHRISTIANITY, not on a statement of "I don't believe you".

You're still stuck with all those atrocities, past, present, and
future.

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 3:20 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >  Communism and fascism are both forms of totalitarianism. They just
> >  replace the infallible Deity with the infallible Leader. They both
> >  require the citizens give body and "soul" to the state. It is a form
> >  of worship. Do you know where this is going yet?
>
> I knew where it was going right from the beginning.
>
> Its still a double standard. :)

There is indeed a double standard that Christians use when using
reason.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 3:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Only if you didn't read her post and instead repeat yourself over and
over. Falling back to your old quote mining strategy, I see. What was
all that about Jesus obeying the spirit of the law instead of the
letter? Yeah, you're attempting to take one sentence out of context
and claim that it shows your case for something OTHER than the train-
wreck scam that it is.

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 4:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Except that you're wrong, and Nazism is EXPLICITLY BASED on
Christianity, whereas Communism is based on state-based dogma, and not
atheism. So you're still stuck.

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 4:43 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Keep repeating it, you might convince yourself it's true.

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 4:44 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Way to not bother answering the question, showing your true form: A
mindless automaton incapable of honesty.

[rappoccio]

Don't bother, Kitty. Brock's brain is permanently mush. Actually, I
take that back. He's not stupid. He's being deliberately obtuse
because he's a dishonest asshole. That's even worse. He should know
better than to be such a fucking idiot.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 5:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Brocky. Let me give you a little tip on Game strategy.

If two people play the same game (like in Chess or Checkers) the best
you'll get is a Draw unless one or the other makes a mistake.

It's not a winnable strategy.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 6:13 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't bother, Kitty. Brock's brain is permanently mush. Actually, I
> take that back. He's not stupid. He's being deliberately obtuse
> because he's a dishonest asshole. That's even worse. He should know
> better than to be such a fucking idiot.

He thinks he's playing some brilliant game, unfortunately it's nothing
but a cutesy game with a cutesy strategy reminiscent of the type of
thing a 10 year old would do.

Unfortunately he appears to be too deluded or far gone to actually
come up with something interesting or original, or even realize how
lame this one is.

I mean if he wants to play games make it a good one and I might be
interested in playing.

[Trance Gemini]

Now it occurred to me that you may not understand this comment.

Let me explain.

I responded to your unsubstantiated comment with a substantiated
comment.

You responded with an unsubstantiated comment.

I responded to your unsubstantiated comment with a substantiated
comment.

You responded with an unsubstantiated comment.

I responded to your unsubstantiated comment with a substantiated
comment.

You see? In this scenario I am scoring wins and you are losing.

The same scenario has been played out with every other atheist you
have debated with on this site since you started your
"experiment" (little game).

We've been winning and you've been losing.

Now, in your somewhat deluded mind you are responding like with like.
This isn't in fact happening, but you have convinced yourself that
this is so.

Even if you were in fact doing this, you can't win your little game
because as I said the best you can get is a draw.

The only way you won't get a draw is if you set a trap, your opponent
walks into the trap, and then you have a 50/50 chance of winning.

Not very good odds, is it?

So you've put yourself in a no-win situation (or at least high odds of
no-win).

But I hope you're enjoying yourself anyway ;-)

[Neil Kelsey]

By "channelling" I mean "plaguerizing."

> ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Mar 27, 4:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 4:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 27, 2:08 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 27, 9:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> > > > > > > > religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> > > > > > > > they had not concentrated on each others genitals?
>
> > > > > > > Of course, this statement minimizes many things that were accomplished
> > > > > > > through the efforts of Christians.
>
> > > > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > > > Brock
>
> > > > > > Yeah, all of that intellectual repression for over a thousand years
> > > > > > should be given credit too.
>
> > > > > While noting that the actions of Stalin and Mao do not reflect on the
> > > > > nature of atheism ... ?
>

> > > > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > > > have Marxist Christians.
>
> > > > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
>
> > > By such a standard, the same kinds of offenses do not apply to
> > > Christianity because the perpetrators acted as <insert label here> and
> > > not as Christians. :)
>

> > > Its still a double standard.
>

> > Not the case, Brock. Hitler based his anti-semitism on the Biblical
> > interpretations of Martin Luther and indicates that in his writings.
>
> But if one maintains
>
> "Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists"
>
> its valid to note:
>
> "Hitler acted as a National Socialist not as a Christian"
>
> Yep, its still a double standard.

The latter does not follow from the former. The basis for Stalin's
actions have no relevance to the basis of Hitler's actions. There is
no link between the two. One standard does not necessarily apply to
the other. They are to be judged independently.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Trance Gemini]

Hey it's for a good cause!

[zen cycle]

Where did anyone get the idea they could have rational discourse with brock. Just plonk him like i did and be done with it

> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:44 -0700
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine
> From: rapp...@gmail.com
> To: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 8:00 pm, zen cycle <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where did anyone get the idea they could have rational discourse with brock. Just plonk him like i did and be done with it

I just thought I'd play with him for a while. You know like a kitty
cat with a mouse ;-)

>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:44 -0700
> > Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine

> > From: rappoc...@gmail.com

> _________________________________________________________________
> In a rush?  Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_...

[random]

On Mar 27, 11:31 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:24 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you give an example to good things that was accomplished uniquely
> > from Christianity,
>
> How about the banning of infanticide in the Roman empire?
>

That is a good example.

> > when "Christianity" includes at least a large
> > majority of the believers?
>
> A large majority of the believers were in the Roman empire.

[Drafterman]

Depends on when, wouldn't it?

> > A large majority of the believers were in the Roman empire.- Hide quoted text -

[zen cycle]

> Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine

> From: trance...@gmail.com

>
> On Mar 27, 8:00 pm, zen cycle <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Where did anyone get the idea they could have rational discourse with brock. Just plonk him like i did and be done with it
>
> I just thought I'd play with him for a while. You know like a kitty
> cat with a mouse ;-)

Kitty by Presidents of the United States of America

(abridged)

Little bag of bones been out all night
Can you hear him, scratchin' at the screen door

He needs some pettin' and lovin' on his head
He needs some pettin' and lovin' on his rain-soaked hide
He's circlin' around my ankle
He needs some pettin' and lovin' on his hide
Hey Kitty won't you come inside

Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it
Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it
Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it
Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it

Pussy purrin' and lookin' so satisfied
I'm Lost in his little yellow round eye
Lost in his little yellow round eye
Pussy purrin' and lookin' so satisfied

Kitty rear up and scratch me through my jeans
Fuck you, Kitty you're gonna to spend the night outside

Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it
Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it
Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it
Kitty at my foot and I wanna touch it

Touch it, I want to touch it
I wanna touch it, I wanna touch it
I wanna touch it, wanna touch it
I wanna touch it

http://www.actionext.com/names_p/presidents_of_the_united_states_of_america_the_lyrics/kitty.html

This is actually a really good album with some interesting and listenable songs. You should get it.

---

Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> have Marxist Christians.

Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).
You can't justly base your opinion on the "weakest link" else all
Windows would suck (based upon WinME, called the "worst" by many).
And, as you probably know, more recent versions (e.g. Win XP) are much
more stable and have better features. Also, I would not quite compare
tomsrtbt (very old) with the latest Ubuntu even though they do have
common roots.

> Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.

But (most?) communism is officially atheistic. I have a choice, and I
do not choose atheism because that would be a lie (for me). If you
haven't been called to God yet, you will be. If you don't want to be,
then you'll get what you want too.

[Trance Gemini]

HaHa. Love it. I'll look for it on YouTube.

On the kitty cat theme: http://kittyhundal.blogspot.com/2008/02/its-mine.html

On Mar 27, 8:24 pm, zen cycle <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine

> > From: trancegemi...@gmail.com

> http://www.actionext.com/names_p/presidents_of_the_united_states_of_a...

>
> This is actually a really good album with some interesting and listenable songs. You should get it.
>

> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more.http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause

[Drafterman]

On Mar 27, 8:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > have Marxist Christians.
>
> Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).

How do you know they don't represent Christ?

> You can't justly base your opinion on the "weakest link" else all
> Windows would suck (based upon WinME, called the "worst" by many).

And because it was bad, it was discontinued. Is there a plan to
discontinue Christianity in the works here?

> And, as you probably know, more recent versions (e.g. Win XP) are much
> more stable and have better features. Also, I would not quite compare
> tomsrtbt (very old) with the latest Ubuntu even though they do have
> common roots.
>
> > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
>
> But (most?) communism is officially atheistic.

Irrelevant. Since atheism has no doctrine or dogma then Communist
leaders cannot be accused of following such in the comission of their
acts.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 26, 8:54 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Good fucking point. All the suffering in the world and they choose
> being opposed to gay rights and women's liberation as two of their
> biggest signature issues.

Gay rights to what? Adultery? No one has that right (although they
have the freedom), and they sure get what they want. Some people just
don't like being "told" what to do. But if you are never told that
something is wrong, you will suffer, be angry, be unhappy because you
don't know why such and such doesn't work out like you want. Other
than the whole "don't commit adultery", we are all free and should let
others be free and be free from discrimination, even be free to
disagree and not believe. (Governments should not oppress people.)

Women's lib? Again, what does that mean, equal pay? (Yes, women should
get paid the same as men.) As long as something doesn't contradict the
Bible (and hence the Ten Commandments), there should be no
disagreements with the Church.

[Simpleton]

On Mar 27, 5:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > have Marxist Christians.
>
> Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).

Why should we believe you?

> > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
>
> But (most?) communism is officially atheistic.

Officially most drunk drivers causing fatal accidents on Friday nights
in cities like Los Angeles and Miami are Christians.

Do you need someone to spell out how specious your reasoning is, or do
you get it?

> I have a choice

Doesn't look like it, since pastor inculcation in your case is rather
deep-seated, and you demonstrate a strong antipathy towards thinking
for yourself.

> , and I
> do not choose atheism because that would be a lie (for me). If you
> haven't been called to God yet, you will be. If you don't want to be,
> then you'll get what you want too.

If you want to believe in a three-in-one god, born of a virgin he
impregnated himself, and killed himself to spare his own creation from
his own wrath... what am I saying, you believe it.

[Eris]

What is the historical basis for national socialism hating Jews?
Sounds Christian.

On Mar 27, 4:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 4:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 27, 2:08 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 27, 9:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> > > > > > > > religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> > > > > > > > they had not concentrated on each others genitals?
>
> > > > > > > Of course, this statement minimizes many things that were accomplished
> > > > > > > through the efforts of Christians.
>
> > > > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > > > Brock
>
> > > > > > Yeah, all of that intellectual repression for over a thousand years
> > > > > > should be given credit too.
>
> > > > > While noting that the actions of Stalin and Mao do not reflect on the
> > > > > nature of atheism ... ?
>

> > > > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > > > have Marxist Christians.
>

> > > > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
>

> > > By such a standard, the same kinds of offenses do not apply to
> > > Christianity because the perpetrators acted as <insert label here> and
> > > not as Christians. :)
>
> > > Its still a double standard.
>
> > Not the case, Brock. Hitler based his anti-semitism on the Biblical
> > interpretations of Martin Luther and indicates that in his writings.
>
> But if one maintains
>
> "Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists"
>
> its valid to note:
>
> "Hitler acted as a National Socialist not as a Christian"
>
> Yep, its still a double standard.
>

> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 8:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > have Marxist Christians.
>
> Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).

Really? So how do you define a "true" Christian versus one that
doesn't represent Christ?

> You can't justly base your opinion on the "weakest link" else all
> Windows would suck (based upon WinME, called the "worst" by many).

If you want to say that WinME sucks and the other versions of Windows
don't suck then you have to specify exactly what was different with
WinME that made it suck and show that property doesn't exist in other
versions of Windows.

> And, as you probably know, more recent versions (e.g. Win XP) are much
> more stable and have better features. Also, I would not quite compare
> tomsrtbt (very old) with the latest Ubuntu even though they do have
> common roots.

Again, if you wish to make those statements you have to be specific.

If we were on a Tech NG I'd be well within my rights to challenge all
of those unsubstantiated statements and ask you to substantiate them.

Since we're not, and this is just an analogy,I don't need you to
substantiate your Windows claims.

However, I've shown you using your own analogy why you have to support
your statement: "Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent
Christ (e.g. KKK)."

Why shouldn't I, or others, consider all of you batshit-crazy because
you all believe in a Sky Daddy that watches your every move and keeps
you all from becoming serial killers.

Don't get wrong, if that delusional belief is the only thing stopping
you guys from being serial killers, mass murderers, and other types of
criminals, please continue to believe. We have enough sociopaths and
psychopaths running loose in this world, no need to add more.

However, what makes you and your beliefs different or better than the
extremists in your midst?

>
> > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
>
> But (most?) communism is officially atheistic.

No, Communism is not officially atheistic, if it was, you could not
have Marxist Christian organizations and parties.

Certain parties and organizations took an antitheist position. USSR
and China were two.

Neil explained it quite well. Read his post.

>I have a choice, and I
> do not choose atheism because that would be a lie (for me).

And what does that have to do with this thread or this debate about
Communism not being atheist? I don't proselytize nor do I try to
convert. Believe whatever you want.

>If you
> haven't been called to God yet, you will be. If you don't want to be,
> then you'll get what you want too.

I see. And what exactly does that mean? It always feels like a very
ugly implied threat when you guys say that type of thing? Why is that?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Depends on when, wouldn't it?

http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html

[Observer]

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 5:53 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > > have Marxist Christians.
>
> > Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).
>
> Really? So how do you define a "true" Christian versus one that
> doesn't represent Christ?

It`s pathetic and bathetic how quickly these ``loving`` Christians
toss their brethren overboard when they disagree with their
interpretation of Christianity.

[Drafterman]

Yes, I did some research too after I posted.

On Mar 27, 8:55 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[Drago]

Does this mean that a person needs to be "told" that murder is wrong?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 26, 8:54 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Good fucking point. All the suffering in the world and they choose
> > being opposed to gay rights and women's liberation as two of their
> > biggest signature issues.
>
> Gay rights to what? Adultery? No one has that right (although they
> have the freedom), and they sure get what they want.

In a secular courtroom, although ``want`` is hardly the right word.

> Some people just
> don't like being "told" what to do.

While some people live to tell others what to do.

> But if you are never told that
> something is wrong, you will suffer, be angry, be unhappy because you
> don't know why such and such doesn't work out like you want.

A lot of people that like to tell others that something is wrong are
completely full of shit, especially the religious ones. A lot of us
don`t need to be harangued by self-appointed representatives of an
irate Creator of the Universe in order to be civilized. A lot of us
can figure out the natural causes for why things might have gone wrong
all by ourselves, or by talking with rational (not religious) people.

> Other
> than the whole "don't commit adultery", we are all free and should let
> others be free and be free from discrimination, even be free to
> disagree and not believe. (Governments should not oppress people.)

Would you advocate bringing back stoning as a punishment for adultery?

> Women's lib? Again, what does that mean, equal pay? (Yes, women should
> get paid the same as men.) As long as something doesn't contradict the
> Bible (and hence the Ten Commandments), there should be no
> disagreements with the Church.

So then you DO think adulterers should be stoned or that slavery
should be permitted, just to name a couple of activities that are
supported in the Bible.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 27, 9:03 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:53 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 8:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > > > have Marxist Christians.
>
> > > Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).
>
> > Really? So how do you define a "true" Christian versus one that
> > doesn't represent Christ?
>
> It`s pathetic and bathetic how quickly these ``loving`` Christians
> toss their brethren overboard when they disagree with their
> interpretation of Christianity.

Very unloving and christian of them isn't it!

[deej]

No. The reason Christian anger towards Nazism is so strong is because
the ideals of this party stand in diametric contradiction to Christian
truths. Hitler's actions were not based on Christianity! His actions
demonstrate that his public profession of faith was an obviously
ungenuine, politically expedient facade. His clear misrepresentation
of Christian values is, I think, completely valid justification for
Christian anger towards him.

Yes Neil, 'love' is a key principle in the Christian faith. But that
does mean Christians are soft or placid people. We aren't afraid to
stand up for what we believe is right, and condemn what we know to be
wrong!

> > ugly implied threat when you guys say that type of thing? Why is that?- Hide quoted text -

[Observer]

On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mar 26, 8:54 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Good fucking point. All the suffering in the world and they choose
> > being opposed to gay rights and women's liberation as two of their
> > biggest signature issues.
>
> Gay rights to what?

Observer

Rights to the pursuit of happiness .

The right to be free of filthy attacks by neoNazi christians ( is
there any other kind) In addition to targeting Jews and African
Americans, neo-Nazi groups are known to harass and attack Asian
Americans, Latinos, Arab Americans, Native Americans, homosexuals,
Catholics and people with different political or religious opinions.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Neo-Nazi



Adultery?
Observer

What right have you ,You Nazi bastard, to proclaim what is acceptable
victimless human behavior. Zeig Heil!

No one has that right (although they
> have the freedom), and they sure get what they want. Some people just
> don't like being "told" what to do.

Observer
And you are just the ignorant mother fucker to tell them aren't you
Zeig Heil! .

That fictive stupid fucking monster you worship created homosexual
behavior in animals.

Homosexuality in animals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Bonobo displays the highest rate of homosexual activity in any
animal, being a fully bisexual species.
The Bonobo displays the highest rate of homosexual activity in any
animal, being a fully bisexual species.[1][2]

Homosexual (as well as bisexual) behavior is widespread in the animal
kingdom. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even
within the same species and the motivations for and implications of
their behaviors have yet to be fully understood as most species have
yet to be studied.[3] A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows
that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in
close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well
documented for 500 of them.[4][5]

Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial because some assert
it points to the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others
counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to use animal
behavior to justify what is or is not immoral.

So fuck off. I have not known many gays nor have I had close friends
who were so disposed , but what could discern was that they are just
decent humans and worthy of our respect.

But if you are never told that
> something is wrong, you will suffer, be angry, be unhappy because you
> don't know why such and such doesn't work out like you want.

Observer
Fuck your hideous superstitious psychosis. Zeig Heil!

Other
> than the whole "don't commit adultery", we are all free and should let
> others be free and be free from discrimination, even be free to
> disagree and not believe. (Governments should not oppress people.)

Adultery ia also none of your fucking business.

>
> Women's lib? Again, what does that mean, equal pay? (Yes, women should
> get paid the same as men.) As long as something doesn't contradict the
> Bible (and hence the Ten Commandments), there should be no
> disagreements with the Church.

Zeig Heil!

Psychonomist

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 6:30 pm, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No. The reason Christian anger towards Nazism is so strong is because
> the ideals of this party stand in diametric contradiction to Christian
> truths. Hitler's actions were not based on Christianity! His actions
> demonstrate that his public profession of faith was an obviously
> ungenuine, politically expedient facade. His clear misrepresentation
> of Christian values is, I think, completely valid justification for
> Christian anger towards him.
>
> Yes Neil, 'love' is a key principle in the Christian faith. But that
> does mean Christians are soft or placid people. We aren't afraid to
> stand up for what we believe is right, and condemn what we know to be
> wrong!

Uh huh. Go to Wikipedia and search ``Christianity and fascism.`` Or
how`about if I give you a couple of quotes?

``The very first diplomatic accord undertaken by Hitler`s government
was consummated on July 8, 1933, a few months after the seizure of
power, and took the form of a treaty with the Vatican. In return for
the unchallenged control of the education of Catholic children in
Germany, the dropping of Nazi propaganda afainst the abuses inflicted
in Catholic schools and orphanages, and the consession of other
privileges to the church, the Holy See instructed the Catholic Center
Party to disband, and brusquely ordered Catholics to abstain from any
political activity on any any subject that the regime chose to define
as off-limits. At the first meeting of his cabinet after this
capitulation was signed, Hitler announced that these new circumstances
would be ``especially significant in the struggle against
international Jewry.`` He was not wrong about this. In fact, he could
have been excused for disbelieving his own luck. The twenty-three
million Catholics living in the Third Reich, many of whom had shown
great individual courage in resisting the rise of Nazism, had been
gutted and gelded as a political force. Their own Holy Father had in
effect told them to render everything unto the worst Caesar in human
history. From then on, parish records were made available to the Nazi
state in order to establish who was and who was not ``racially pure``
enough to survive endless persecution under the Nurembourd Laws.``

And next....

``Not the least appalling consquence of this moral surrender was the
parallel moral collapse of the German Protestants, who sought to
preempt a special status for Catholics by publishing their own
accomodation with the fuhrer.``

Or

``We now know Pacelli as Pope Pius XII, who succeeded to the office
after the death of his former superior in February 1939. Four days
after his election by the College of Cardinals, His Holiness composed
the following letter to Berling:

``To the Illustrious Herr Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer and Chancellor of the
German Reich! Here at the beginning of Our Pontificate We wish to
assure you that We remain devoted to the spiritual welfare of the
German people entrusted to your leadership...During the many years We
spent in Germany, We did all in Our power to establish harmonious
relations between Church and State. Now that the responsibilities of
Our pastoral function have increased Our opportunities, how much more
ardently do We pray to reach that goal. May the prosperity of the
German people and their progress in every domain come, with God`s
help, to fruition!``

I love this next quote:

``To begin with a slightly inexpensive observation, it is interesting
to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are
no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists.``

And another...

``Fascism...Arising out of the misery and humiliation of the First
World War, fascist movements were in favor of the traditional values
against Bolshevism, and upheld nationalism and piety. It is probably
not a coincidence that they arose first and most excitedly in Catholic
countries, and it is certainly not a coincidence that the Catholic
Church was generally sympathetic to fascism as an idea. Not only did
the church regard Communism as a lethal foe, but it also saw its old
Jewish enemy in the most senior ranks of Lenin`s party. Benito
Mussolini had barely seized power in Italy before the Vatican made an
official treaty with him, known as the Lateran Pact of 1929.``

Those are from Christopher Hitchen`s book, god is not Great. And
they`consist of facts you can check for yourself. Seems like
Christians did a lot of sitting down for what they believed was right,
IF they believed the fascists were wrong in the first place.

I don`t know how you can make the claim that Christians bravely stand
up to wrongs and oppression, because it`s mostly been the case that
the Christians have had the power and will to oppress others in the
first place, and THEY are the ones that people have needed to be brave
against.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Mar 27, 9:30 pm, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No. The reason Christian anger towards Nazism is so strong is because
> the ideals of this party stand in diametric contradiction to Christian
> truths.

What Christian truths?

> Hitler's actions were not based on Christianity!

Not according to him:

"I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as
a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a
Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how
the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out
of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His
fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was
driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

Prove that your interpretation of Christianity is more valid than his.

> His actions
> demonstrate that his public profession of faith was an obviously
> ungenuine, politically expedient facade.

Prove it.

> His clear misrepresentation
> of Christian values is, I think, completely valid justification for
> Christian anger towards him.

How did he misrepresent Christian values?

>
> Yes Neil, 'love' is a key principle in the Christian faith. But that
> does mean Christians are soft or placid people. We aren't afraid to
> stand up for what we believe is right, and condemn what we know to be
> wrong!

Just like Hitler did.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 7:30 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > > have Marxist Christians.
>
> > Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).
>
> How do you know they don't represent Christ?

Sermon on the Mount. They don't "love their neighbor as themselves".

> > You can't justly base your opinion on the "weakest link" else all
> > Windows would suck (based upon WinME, called the "worst" by many).
>
> And because it was bad, it was discontinued. Is there a plan to
> discontinue Christianity in the works here?

It survived this long, so Darwin must've been right: survival of the
fittest.

> > And, as you probably know, more recent versions (e.g. Win XP) are much
> > more stable and have better features. Also, I would not quite compare
> > tomsrtbt (very old) with the latest Ubuntu even though they do have
> > common roots.
>
> > > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
>
> > But (most?) communism is officially atheistic.
>
> Irrelevant. Since atheism has no doctrine or dogma then Communist
> leaders cannot be accused of following such in the comission of their
> acts.

Your lack of doctrine _is_ your doctrine. However, you cannot be held
guilty for someone else's actions, only your own. (And it would be
nice if you understood that and stopped blaming all Christians for
some of the wackos out there.)

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 9:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:30 pm, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No. The reason Christian anger towards Nazism is so strong is because
> > the ideals of this party stand in diametric contradiction to Christian
> > truths.
>
> What Christian truths?

Read the Bible.

> > Hitler's actions were not based on Christianity!
>
> Not according to him:
>
> "I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as
> a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
> only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
>

> Prove that your interpretation of Christianity is more valid than his.

Christ says, "Hate not your neighbor." And all Christians (including
Christ, of course) revere the Old Testament (ahem, from the Jews) as
inspired Scripture. So how can you hate yourself or anyone else
without being insane?

> > His actions
> > demonstrate that his public profession of faith was an obviously
> > ungenuine, politically expedient facade.
>
> Prove it.

He killed himself. So did Judas. Is not Judas regarded as a bad man?
You may want to call him a bad example too, but there were other good
Christians (all the other apostles) who outnumbered him in their own
good deeds. And none of them offed themselves either. :-P

> > His clear misrepresentation
> > of Christian values is, I think, completely valid justification for
> > Christian anger towards him.
>
> How did he misrepresent Christian values?

Because Christians shouldn't hate Jews (or anyone). It's explicit.
Only if you deny that can you accuse us.

> > Yes Neil, 'love' is a key principle in the Christian faith. But that
> > does mean Christians are soft or placid people. We aren't afraid to
> > stand up for what we believe is right, and condemn what we know to be
> > wrong!
>
> Just like Hitler did.

He who kills himself is no saint. It is a sin against the fifth
commandment. And he was guilty for spreading lies and hatred and anger
against other people. Why destroy that which God created in His image?
Killing is evil.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 8:11 pm, Drago <joelga...@witty.com> wrote:
>
> Does this mean that a person needs to be "told" that murder is wrong?

If it's not already obvious, yes. The conscience definitely needs to
be informed. Same as any other knowledge, you can only learn by being
taught.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 8:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Other
> > than the whole "don't commit adultery", we are all free and should let
> > others be free and be free from discrimination, even be free to
> > disagree and not believe. (Governments should not oppress people.)
>
> Would you advocate bringing back stoning as a punishment for adultery?

Do you think adultery is wrong? Do you think death is unpleasant? Well
then, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

And for the millionth time, Christ desires mercy, not sacrifice. They
tried to get Him to stone the adulterous woman _just to test Him and
find a reason to bring against Him_!! And He did not do it. Now, if I
believe He is God, why would I contradict Him? I won't.

It explicitly says, "Do not desire the death of your fellow man, even
too much anger is bad." So why would I go against that?

> > Women's lib? Again, what does that mean, equal pay? (Yes, women should
> > get paid the same as men.) As long as something doesn't contradict the
> > Bible (and hence the Ten Commandments), there should be no
> > disagreements with the Church.
>
> So then you DO think adulterers should be stoned or that slavery
> should be permitted, just to name a couple of activities that are
> supported in the Bible.

The Bible did not ever suggest slavery was a good thing. In fact it
says, "As you were once slaves in Egypt, treat any slave you find
fairly and mercifully."

Once again, death is bad (only resulted from the devil's mischief),
but sin is worse (kills grace in the soul, cuts us off from God). And
"the wages of sin is death". And we are all guilty, and we will all
die. And Christ died for us for our benefit to help us overcome evil.
So, do I desire adultery? No. Do I desire death? No. Is God just in
His punishments? Yes. Does He expect us to go around stoning people?
No. How would that be forgiving, merciful, loving??

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 9:09 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Adultery?
> Observer
>
> What right have you ,You Nazi bastard, to proclaim what is acceptable
> victimless human behavior. Zeig Heil!

If it cuts you off from God, angers Him, hurts others, and serves no
purpose other than selfish gratification and objectification of
people, it is bad. Ask any women you know if they like porn. Most (if
not all) will say "No!" It's because it victimizes women, and they
know it.

> That fictive stupid fucking monster you worship created homosexual
> behavior in animals.

1). Prove it.
2). Then why aren't you homosexual? If there's nothing wrong with it,
why don't you do it?
3). What purpose does it serve? Sex cannot be separated from its
reproductive properties. Unless perversion of mind pleases you.
4). Do you want to hump a sheep? Then why do you care what senseless
animals do? They also eat their own feces (e.g. Quackers the duck on
Conan) and vomit. It doesn't make them wise, though. If you want to
live in a tree eating bananas, go ahead. But I think you know better
than to pretend we're all chimps.

> So fuck off.

Make me.

> I have not known many gays nor have I had close friends
> who were so disposed , but what could discern was that they are just
> decent humans and worthy of our respect.

All humans are worthy of respect, and in no way is discrimination to
be tolerated. But adultery is bad, and it kills the life of grace in
the soul. If you're already "dead", you stop feeling the wounds of
sin. But if you are alive, you know it's bad because only God can show
you (and has).

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 4:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Except that you're wrong, and Nazism is EXPLICITLY BASED on
> Christianity, whereas Communism is based on state-based dogma, and not
> atheism. So you're still stuck.

Christ never said kill or oppress anybody. In fact, they killed Him.
And yet He still forgave us. And He supported the Ten Commandments and
all of the law and prophets in the Old Testament because "if they knew
the Father, they would have also accepted Me." If you want to delude
yourself (and you obviously do), fine. But it's false to anybody with
any eyes or ears who knows Christ.

Try reading the Sermon on the Mount sometime or the "greatest
commandment" or Luke 6.

An example: many viruses are "explicitly based" upon assembly, but it
doesn't make assembly evil, it's just misused by some. In good hands,
assembly can do much good (e.g. FASM or MenuetOS). In the wrong hands,
it can destroy.

Stop calling people evil and instead realize that their evil actions
are inherently bad, not them.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 7:32 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But (most?) communism is officially atheistic.
>
> Officially most drunk drivers causing fatal accidents on Friday nights
> in cities like Los Angeles and Miami are Christians.

Getting drunk is a serious sin and forbidden. It welcomes all kinds of
misuse.

> > I have a choice
>
> Doesn't look like it, since pastor inculcation in your case is rather
> deep-seated, and you demonstrate a strong antipathy towards thinking
> for yourself.

Prove it. (Actually, in fact, I fell away for many years. And then I
was drawn back, "left the 99 to find the 1").

> > , and I
> > do not choose atheism because that would be a lie (for me). If you
> > haven't been called to God yet, you will be. If you don't want to be,
> > then you'll get what you want too.
>
> If you want to believe in a three-in-one god, born of a virgin he
> impregnated himself, and killed himself to spare his own creation from
> his own wrath... what am I saying, you believe it.

If you want to believe that a big explosion of chaos created order in
the universe, that man can hump a sheep, Satanism is okay, murder is
okay, adultery is okay, lying under oath is okay, man descended from
chimps, etc... well, then you're depriving yourself of inviolable
human rights. Because if you deny God and man's nature being from God,
you deny the goodness. And if something is no good, it will be
destroyed. And anybody denying their own sinfulness is more
destructive and self-deluded than they let on.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> By "channelling" I mean "plaguerizing."
>

No, it's probably considered "fair use" under copyright law. I mean,
despite what some people would have you believe, you are allowed to
quote small amounts from books without being harassed by the
government.

[Simpleton]

On Mar 27, 9:01 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 7:32 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 5:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But (most?) communism is officially atheistic.
>
> > Officially most drunk drivers causing fatal accidents on Friday nights
> > in cities like Los Angeles and Miami are Christians.
>
> Getting drunk is a serious sin and forbidden. It welcomes all kinds of
> misuse.
>

So you have no problems with the official stats that show Christians
to be the worst offenders of drunk driving?

OK, next category.

Officially most criminals in federal prisons are Christians.

Let me know if you agree, and then I can go on to the next one.

> > > I have a choice
>
> > Doesn't look like it, since pastor inculcation in your case is rather
> > deep-seated, and you demonstrate a strong antipathy towards thinking
> > for yourself.
>
> Prove it. (Actually, in fact, I fell away for many years. And then I
> was drawn back, "left the 99 to find the 1").
>

Why should I? It is not as if Christians prove anything they claim
about that god thingy.

> > > , and I
> > > do not choose atheism because that would be a lie (for me). If you
> > > haven't been called to God yet, you will be. If you don't want to be,
> > > then you'll get what you want too.
>
> > If you want to believe in a three-in-one god, born of a virgin he
> > impregnated himself, and killed himself to spare his own creation from
> > his own wrath... what am I saying, you believe it.
>
> If you want to believe that a big explosion of chaos created order in
> the universe, that man can hump a sheep, Satanism is okay, murder is
> okay, adultery is okay, lying under oath is okay, man descended from
> chimps, etc... well, then you're depriving yourself of inviolable
> human rights.

Hey, that is evidence of your pastoral inculcation.

> Because if you deny God and man's nature being from God,
> you deny the goodness. And if something is no good, it will be
> destroyed.

...and that is more of that evidence.

> And anybody denying their own sinfulness is more
> destructive and self-deluded than they let on.

In your case, I won't even go that far into crazy talk.

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mar 27, 11:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:01 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Getting drunk is a serious sin and forbidden. It welcomes all kinds of
> > misuse.
>
> So you have no problems with the official stats that show Christians
> to be the worst offenders of drunk driving?

Did you just hear what I said? Being drunk is bad. If someone does so,
it is at their own peril. Whether they profess Christianity in truth
or not is irrelevant because Christ says, "Do not!" Christ did not
come for the righteous but for sinners. There's forgiveness for a
reason: God wills it, and they need it!!

> Officially most criminals in federal prisons are Christians.

Christians from before or after they were arrested? Do they attend
Church services every Sunday? Do they obey the Commandments? Because
that is important. If you don't know these things, you can't judge
(and you and I certainly can't). Read the Ten Commandments again, and
tell me if they agree with modern day law. Ask yourself, "If I obey
these, will the government justly hate me?" (Unlikely.)

> > > > I have a choice
>
> > > Doesn't look like it, since pastor inculcation in your case is rather
> > > deep-seated, and you demonstrate a strong antipathy towards thinking
> > > for yourself.
>
> > Prove it. (Actually, in fact, I fell away for many years. And then I
> > was drawn back, "left the 99 to find the 1").
>
> Why should I? It is not as if Christians prove anything they claim
> about that god thingy.

Why should you prove anything? Because that's what almighty science
demands! If you can't prove it, it must be a crock. Go ahead, I'm
waiting. Fire up that crucible! Split those atoms!

> > > If you want to believe in a three-in-one god, born of a virgin he
> > > impregnated himself, and killed himself to spare his own creation from
> > > his own wrath... what am I saying, you believe it.
>
> > If you want to believe that a big explosion of chaos created order in
> > the universe, that man can hump a sheep, Satanism is okay, murder is
> > okay, adultery is okay, lying under oath is okay, man descended from
> > chimps, etc... well, then you're depriving yourself of inviolable
> > human rights.
>
> Hey, that is evidence of your pastoral inculcation.

Nope, just evidence that you can be atheist and full of it.

> > Because if you deny God and man's nature being from God,
> > you deny the goodness. And if something is no good, it will be
> > destroyed.
>
> ...and that is more of that evidence.

I think this group's behavior speaks for itself. Not a good place to
spend your vacation, that's for sure.

> > And anybody denying their own sinfulness is more
> > destructive and self-deluded than they let on.
>
> In your case, I won't even go that far into crazy talk.

I am telling you, in as strong words as I can muster, from the
fullness of my faith, which was not always active (or even passive),
that God exists. Now, surely, I have no huge arguments that have
swayed you so far, but my persistence should tell you something. No,
it is not just indoctrination, I did not come to believe easily. In
fact, you could say faith is a minor miracle in itself because man is
so hideously fallen.

Haven't you read what St. Paul said about his conversion and how
unworthy he was? This is not something that comes lightly. But it's
very very serious, and very very important. Don't you think I pray
that it was more obvious? But grace has to work by nature, so
sometimes it's slower than we'd like. Read Job: did God immediately
answer him or did He wait a bit (i.e. prudence) and then respond? So
shall He do for us all. Don't be so confident that you forget the
possibility that you (a mere man) could be wrong, for we all make
mistakes, even for simple things (e.g. simple arithmatic). If we can
err on even something so trivial, it is indeed possible that we are
wrong on something such as hugely important as this. And once God
convinces you, there is no turning back.

[Simpleton]

On Mar 27, 9:33 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 11:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 9:01 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Getting drunk is a serious sin and forbidden. It welcomes all kinds of
> > > misuse.
>
> > So you have no problems with the official stats that show Christians
> > to be the worst offenders of drunk driving?
>
> Did you just hear what I said?

No. But I did read what you wrote.

> Being drunk is bad. If someone does so,
> it is at their own peril. Whether they profess Christianity in truth
> or not is irrelevant because Christ says, "Do not!" Christ did not
> come for the righteous but for sinners. There's forgiveness for a
> reason: God wills it, and they need it!!
>

Your gibberish notwithstanding, I reiterate: Officially most drunk
drivers are Christians.

> > Officially most criminals in federal prisons are Christians.
>
> Christians from before or after they were arrested?

Before, after, during.

> Do they attend
> Church services every Sunday?

Some do, some do not. Depends on the prison they are holed up in.

> Do they obey the Commandments?

Makes no difference. They are Christians, and most criminals in the
US federal prisons are Christians.

> Because
> that is important. If you don't know these things, you can't judge
> (and you and I certainly can't). Read the Ten Commandments again, and
> tell me if they agree with modern day law. Ask yourself, "If I obey
> these, will the government justly hate me?" (Unlikely.)
>

That is irrelevant. Most criminals are Christians.

> > > > > I have a choice
>
> > > > Doesn't look like it, since pastor inculcation in your case is rather
> > > > deep-seated, and you demonstrate a strong antipathy towards thinking
> > > > for yourself.
>
> > > Prove it. (Actually, in fact, I fell away for many years. And then I
> > > was drawn back, "left the 99 to find the 1").
>
> > Why should I? It is not as if Christians prove anything they claim
> > about that god thingy.
>
> Why should you prove anything?

That's true.

> Because that's what almighty science
> demands! If you can't prove it, it must be a crock. Go ahead, I'm
> waiting. Fire up that crucible! Split those atoms!
>

Are you coming apart because you realize that your whole god thingy is
a crock?

> > > > If you want to believe in a three-in-one god, born of a virgin he
> > > > impregnated himself, and killed himself to spare his own creation from
> > > > his own wrath... what am I saying, you believe it.
>
> > > If you want to believe that a big explosion of chaos created order in
> > > the universe, that man can hump a sheep, Satanism is okay, murder is
> > > okay, adultery is okay, lying under oath is okay, man descended from
> > > chimps, etc... well, then you're depriving yourself of inviolable
> > > human rights.
>
> > Hey, that is evidence of your pastoral inculcation.
>
> Nope, just evidence that you can be atheist and full of it.
>

Cannot be, them's your words.

> > > Because if you deny God and man's nature being from God,
> > > you deny the goodness. And if something is no good, it will be
> > > destroyed.
>
> > ...and that is more of that evidence.
>
> I think this group's behavior speaks for itself. Not a good place to
> spend your vacation, that's for sure.
>

Irrelevant,

> > > And anybody denying their own sinfulness is more
> > > destructive and self-deluded than they let on.
>
> > In your case, I won't even go that far into crazy talk.
>
> I am telling you, in as strong words as I can muster, from the
> fullness of my faith, which was not always active (or even passive),
> that God exists.

You have no credibility. If you want to build some, then instead of
words, muster some action. Get this god of yours to show up.

> Now, surely, I have no huge arguments that have
> swayed you so far, but my persistence should tell you something.

That is correct, and I said so earlier. Your pastoral inculcation is
rather overpowering on your ability to think for yourself.

Too bad you have no credibility.

> No,
> it is not just indoctrination, I did not come to believe easily.

Perhaps, but repeated pastoral inculcation seems to have done the
trick.

> In
> fact, you could say faith is a minor miracle in itself because man is
> so hideously fallen.
>

I cannot, I am not that gullible.

> Haven't you read what St. Paul said about his conversion and how
> unworthy he was? This is not something that comes lightly. But it's
> very very serious, and very very important. Don't you think I pray
> that it was more obvious? But grace has to work by nature, so
> sometimes it's slower than we'd like. Read Job: did God immediately
> answer him or did He wait a bit (i.e. prudence) and then respond? So
> shall He do for us all. Don't be so confident that you forget the
> possibility that you (a mere man) could be wrong, for we all make
> mistakes, even for simple things (e.g. simple arithmatic). If we can
> err on even something so trivial, it is indeed possible that we are
> wrong on something such as hugely important as this. And once God
> convinces you, there is no turning back.

Bah humbug. If you have evidence that God exists, please provide it.
You already know that your praying for me to get that evidence is
going to be a total failure, so much so that you spent a lot of last
week arguing emptily over it.

Now, if you had some credibility, I might have had reason to listen,
but you have none.

[Observer]

On Mar 27, 8:50 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 9:09 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Adultery?
> > Observer
>
> > What right have you ,You Nazi bastard, to proclaim what is acceptable
> > victimless human behavior. Zeig Heil!
>
> If it cuts you off from God, angers Him,

Observer
You are way too stupid to come up with an argument that justifies
belief if the fictive sadomasochistic described in the bible is a
god.

In fact you are so intellectually maladroit that you can not even
justify belief in your filthy fucking book of perverted myths.

So com on you Nazi piece of shit show us your reasons to believe is
such perverted filth.

hurts others,

Observer
If it hurts others then I suggest you are doing in wrong.

\and serves no

> purpose other than selfish gratification and objectification of
> people, it is bad.

Observer
Ok fuck head give us the scientific studies that substantiate your
arguments.

Bad because a fucking Nazi says its bad ?

Ha Ha Ha ha

Ask any women you know if they like porn. Most (if
> not all) will say "No!" It's because it victimizes women, and they
> know it.

Observer
Your naivete is as profound as the filth of your superstition.

>
> > That fictive stupid fucking monster you worship created homosexual
> > behavior in animals.
>
> 1). Prove it.

Remember I said fictive . But if you believe this fucking monster is
real then it follows in your perverse reasoning that it created all
of nature.

As for me I think the idea of any god is the product of psychosis ,
but this filth that you proclaim is the most reprehensible of all
imaginary monsters ever conceived by humankind.

> 2). Then why aren't you homosexual?

Observer
It is simply not among my favorite activities, but then neither is oil
painting , playing a musical instrument, being a solider, or
practicing medicine.

If there's nothing wrong with it,
> why don't you do it?

You are remarkably stupid to take such an irrational approach. You
must have learned that from an other undereducated, perverted double
digit IQ serving some where in the priest craft.

There is an amazing new product on the marked ,though christians by
right of self abuse tend to avoid any serious contact with it.. It is
called education and contains critical thought , scientific data , the
application of scientific method and the surrender of
stupidity( Superstition)

> 3). What purpose does it serve? Sex cannot be separated from its
> reproductive properties.

Observer

Wow ! You really are a fucking moron.

Unless perversion of mind pleases you.

The perversion of your mind and of other Nazis is what here needs
addressing. Sieg Heil

> 4). Do you want to hump a sheep?

Observer
No thanks I will leave it to you to see if you can make the ewe turn
before you both go over the cliff. Oh is that what it is you had a
bad experience with one?

Then why do you care what senseless
> animals do?

Observer

Only a fucking idiotic christian would call animals senseless.

The further you go the more we discover a complete shit head your
superstitious filth has created. All though in all fairness I am sure
that you received more than your fair share of stupidity directly from
your parents.

They also eat their own feces (e.g. Quackers the duck on
> Conan) and vomit. It doesn't make them wise, though. If you want to
> live in a tree eating bananas, go ahead. But I think you know better
> than to pretend we're all chimps.

Well I guess that according to you ,
your dumb ass fucking god botched the job by making them in such a way
that displeases you.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

>
> > So fuck off.
>
> Make me.

Observer

Ha Ha Ha ha ha

It seems that you are already content with the idea that your
fictive , inept monster god already did that.

Is that your best shot at a simplistic equivalent of naner naner
naner ?

Oh my how you terrify me . It's almost like experiencing the village
idiot with a mind that he might slobber on you.

Ha Ha Ha ha

>
> > I have not known many gays nor have I had close friends
> > who were so disposed , but what could discern was that they are just
> > decent humans and worthy of our respect.
>
> All humans are worthy of respect, and in no way is discrimination to
> be tolerated. But adultery is bad, and it kills the life of grace in
> the soul.

Observer
Ok moron supply scientiffically verifiable substantiating data for
grace and then for soul . More superstitious trash that you chose to
regurgitate to avoid the pain of thinking.

If you're already "dead", you stop feeling the wounds of
> sin. But if you are alive, you know it's bad because only God can show
> you (and has).

How utterly sophomoric . I am seriously beginning to pity your mental
deformity and over all maladroitness.

"If you're already dead"

Ha Ha Ha ha ha

Your problem is that you are to stupid to understand that though you
will never meet Thanatos , what will befall you is complete equanimity
with all creatures ever to have lived. In as much as you will have
achieved nothingness.


Hail thanatos the great equalizer.


Psychonomist

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 8:30 pm, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No. The reason Christian anger towards Nazism is so strong is because
> the ideals of this party stand in diametric contradiction to Christian
> truths. Hitler's actions were not based on Christianity! His actions
> demonstrate that his public profession of faith was an obviously
> ungenuine, politically expedient facade. His clear misrepresentation
> of Christian values is, I think, completely valid justification for
> Christian anger towards him.
>
> Yes Neil, 'love' is a key principle in the Christian faith. But that
> does mean Christians are soft or placid people. We aren't afraid to
> stand up for what we believe is right, and condemn what we know to be
> wrong!

And how does that exclude Hitler thinking that paying back the Jews
for (what he imagined as) their past wrongs?

[rappoccio]

On Mar 27, 10:56 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 4:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Except that you're wrong, and Nazism is EXPLICITLY BASED on
> > Christianity, whereas Communism is based on state-based dogma, and not
> > atheism. So you're still stuck.
>
> Christ never said kill or oppress anybody.

So you think that there is no justified war?

Well at least that would be consistent. But I doubt that's the case.

> In fact, they killed Him.
> And yet He still forgave us. And He supported the Ten Commandments and
> all of the law and prophets in the Old Testament because "if they knew
> the Father, they would have also accepted Me." If you want to delude
> yourself (and you obviously do), fine. But it's false to anybody with
> any eyes or ears who knows Christ.

I don't really care if you consider it false, it's historical fact:
Fascism was (in part) explicitly based on Christianity. Communism was,
on the other hand, based explicitly on state dogma.

Both are dogmatic assertions. Both are bad.

> Try reading the Sermon on the Mount sometime or the "greatest
> commandment" or Luke 6.
>
> An example: many viruses are "explicitly based" upon assembly, but it
> doesn't make assembly evil, it's just misused by some. In good hands,
> assembly can do much good (e.g. FASM or MenuetOS). In the wrong hands,
> it can destroy.
>
> Stop calling people evil and instead realize that their evil actions
> are inherently bad, not them.

Should I instead focus on your CURRENT batch of horrendous crap that
Christianity is doing? Like restricting abortion rights, stem cell
research, contraceptive use, and rights of women? Or how about the
full-frontal assault on high-school-level biology? Or maybe the
continual unilateral support of Israel instead of making a frank
assessment of the wrongs committed on both sides of the Middle East
conflicts? Or the fact that George Bush stated explicitly that he
thought God wanted him to invade Iraq? And need I even MENTION the sex
abuse scandals?

I don't need to go back more than a decade to find the destructive
influences of religion.

[4praise]

I think you're confusing Christianity with Freud. Christians have
actually "accomplished" (with God's help) most of the things that we
take for granted in the west.

On Mar 26, 5:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> they had not concentrated on each others genitals?

[Dag Yo]

> > That fictive stupid fucking monster you worship created homosexual
> > behavior in animals.
>
> 1). Prove it.

It's an observable fact that some (non-human) animals are
homosexuals. I assume thats what you're asking because we certainly
can't prove that your absurd god even exists much less that it has the
power to create any animals.

> 2). Then why aren't you homosexual? If there's nothing wrong with it,
> why don't you do it?
> 3). What purpose does it serve? Sex cannot be separated from its
> reproductive properties. Unless perversion of mind pleases you.
> 4). Do you want to hump a sheep? Then why do you care what senseless
> animals do? They also eat their own feces (e.g. Quackers the duck on
> Conan) and vomit. It doesn't make them wise, though. If you want to
> live in a tree eating bananas, go ahead. But I think you know better
> than to pretend we're all chimps.

These aren't even arguments you twit. Hell these aren't even
contradictions. Perhaps you'd like to keep your eye out for some sort
of non-sequitur internet group since this is supposed to be a debate
group.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 27, 11:30 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 7:30 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 8:26 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > > > have Marxist Christians.
>
> > > Some people are flat out crazy and do not represent Christ (e.g. KKK).
>
> > How do you know they don't represent Christ?
>
> Sermon on the Mount. They don't "love their neighbor as themselves".

And how do you know they don't?

>
> > > You can't justly base your opinion on the "weakest link" else all
> > > Windows would suck (based upon WinME, called the "worst" by many).
>
> > And because it was bad, it was discontinued. Is there a plan to
> > discontinue Christianity in the works here?
>
> It survived this long, so Darwin must've been right: survival of the
> fittest.

The words are there. They're English. It appears to be a well
constructed sentence. Yet it makes no sense.

>
> > > And, as you probably know, more recent versions (e.g. Win XP) are much
> > > more stable and have better features. Also, I would not quite compare
> > > tomsrtbt (very old) with the latest Ubuntu even though they do have
> > > common roots.
>
> > > > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
>
> > > But (most?) communism is officially atheistic.
>
> > Irrelevant. Since atheism has no doctrine or dogma then Communist
> > leaders cannot be accused of following such in the comission of their
> > acts.
>
> Your lack of doctrine _is_ your doctrine.

No it isn't.

> However, you cannot be held
> guilty for someone else's actions, only your own. (And it would be
> nice if you understood that and stopped blaming all Christians for
> some of the wackos out there.)

No, I blame Christianity for the Christian wackos out there. You have
a gifted talent for misrepresentation.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 27, 11:36 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 9:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 9:30 pm, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No. The reason Christian anger towards Nazism is so strong is because
> > > the ideals of this party stand in diametric contradiction to Christian
> > > truths.
>
> > What Christian truths?
>
> Read the Bible.

That won't solve anything for many reasons:

A) Not everything in the Bible is held as a truth by all Christians.
B) If I went through the trouble of reading all of the Bible and come
away with a slightly different interpretaion than one you approve of,
you'll just claim I need Bible study.

So why not just save me some time and tell me what Christian truths
Nazism is in opposition to?

>
> > > Hitler's actions were not based on Christianity!
>
> > Not according to him:
>
> > "I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as
> > a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
> > only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
>
> > Prove that your interpretation of Christianity is more valid than his.
>
> Christ says, "Hate not your neighbor." And all Christians (including
> Christ, of course) revere the Old Testament (ahem, from the Jews) as
> inspired Scripture. So how can you hate yourself or anyone else
> without being insane?

A person doesn't have to be insane to hate. We don't know that he
hated them. He just wanted to kill them all.

>
> > > His actions
> > > demonstrate that his public profession of faith was an obviously
> > > ungenuine, politically expedient facade.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> He killed himself. So did Judas. Is not Judas regarded as a bad man?

No. At least you shouldn't consider him a bad man. His actions were a
crucial part in establishing your faith. You should be thankful for
the sacrifice he made for you. So, how does Hitler killing himself
mean he was ungenuine?

> You may want to call him a bad example too, but there were other good
> Christians (all the other apostles) who outnumbered him in their own
> good deeds. And none of them offed themselves either.   :-P

So? We're not talking about them.

>
> > > His clear misrepresentation
> > > of Christian values is, I think, completely valid justification for
> > > Christian anger towards him.
>
> > How did he misrepresent Christian values?
>
> Because Christians shouldn't hate Jews (or anyone). It's explicit.
> Only if you deny that can you accuse us.

Did Hitler hate Jews?

>
> > > Yes Neil, 'love' is a key principle in the Christian faith. But that
> > > does mean Christians are soft or placid people. We aren't afraid to
> > > stand up for what we believe is right, and condemn what we know to be
> > > wrong!
>
> > Just like Hitler did.
>
> He who kills himself is no saint. It is a sin against the fifth
> commandment. And he was guilty for spreading lies and hatred and anger
> against other people. Why destroy that which God created in His image?
> Killing is evil.

So? There is no perfect Christian. Hitler was just less perfect than
normal.

[zencycle]

From: "deej" <buddweise...@hotmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine

> Yes Neil, 'love' is a key principle in the Christian faith. But that
> does mean Christians are soft or placid people. We aren't afraid to
> stand up for what we believe is right, and condemn what we know to be
> wrong!
>

And murder or imprison those who get in the way

[zencycle]

From: "Rugxulo" <rug...@gmail.com>

Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine

>

>> And because it was bad, it was discontinued. Is there a plan to
>> discontinue Christianity in the works here?
>
> It survived this long, so Darwin must've been right: survival of the
> fittest.
>

"never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - anonymous

[zencycle]

From: "Rugxulo" <rug...@gmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine

>
>>

>> Would you advocate bringing back stoning as a punishment for adultery?
>
> Do you think adultery is wrong? Do you think death is unpleasant? Well
> then, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
>

Good answer.....NOT

[zencycle]

From: "Rugxulo" <rug...@gmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine

> Getting drunk is a serious sin and forbidden. It welcomes all kinds of
> misuse.

Funny, Trappist beer was first brewed by Cistercian monks, and continues as
a commercial enterprise to this day by Trappist abbeys in belgium and
france. I guess the Trappists are all going to hell.

> If you want to believe that a big explosion of chaos created order in
> the universe,

We do.

> that man can hump a sheep,

Not my bag, and I would consider bestiality a rather disturbing fetish. I'm
glad there are laws against animal cruelty.

> Satanism is okay,

We're atheists, remember? There is no satan.

> murder is
> okay,

Did we ever say it was? The bible condones murder, not us.

>adultery is okay

IF your definition of adultery is having sex with another without the
consent of your spouse, it's not ok.

> lying under oath is okay,

Who said it was?

> man descended from
> chimps,

Evolution states otherwise. If your going to comment of scientific points,
at least get your facts straight.

> well, then you're depriving yourself of inviolable
> human rights.

Completely incorrect, an assertion only sustainable by zealots such as
yourself with no tolerance for anyone but like minded sheep.

> Because if you deny God and man's nature being from God,
> you deny the goodness.

No, we deny that 'goodness' is an exclusive property of your god. You have
yet to prove otherwise, and circular reasoning of using the bible to prove
god doesn't work with us. You should have learned that by now.

[cathyb]

On Mar 28, 11:19 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Rugxulo" <rugx...@gmail.com>

> Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine
>
> > Getting drunk is a serious sin and forbidden. It welcomes all kinds of
> > misuse.
>
> Funny, Trappist beer was first brewed by Cistercian monks, and continues as
> a commercial enterprise to this day by Trappist abbeys in belgium and
> france. I guess the Trappists are all going to hell.

And the Big J turned water into wine (rather than introducing germ
theory and antibiotics to a population sorely in need of them) to keep
the party from pooping at a post-wedding bash in Cana.

One has to wonder about his priorities, but he certainly didn't try
and tell everyone that drinking too much is bad for you; he
essentially just opened another keg.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 28, 9:27 am, cathyb <cathybees...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:19 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: "Rugxulo" <rugx...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [AvC] Re: Can you imagine
>
> > > Getting drunk is a serious sin and forbidden. It welcomes all kinds of
> > > misuse.
>
> > Funny, Trappist beer was first brewed by Cistercian monks, and continues as
> > a commercial enterprise to this day by Trappist abbeys in belgium and
> > france. I guess the Trappists are all going to hell.
>
> And the Big J turned water into wine (rather than introducing germ
> theory and antibiotics to a population sorely in need of them) to keep
> the party from pooping at a post-wedding bash in Cana.
>
> One has to wonder about his priorities, but he certainly didn't try
> and tell everyone that drinking too much is bad for you; he
> essentially just opened another keg.

Maybe it was Craig Christ in disguise?

> > god doesn't work with us. You should have learned that by now.- Hide quoted text -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 27, 9:33 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 11:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

> > So you have no problems with the official stats that show Christians
> > to be the worst offenders of drunk driving?

"Do as they preach, not as they do". Here, Jesus recommends Pharisees'
preachings but not their doings. Did he have no problems with his own
stats that showed most Pharisees to be offenders of norms/ laws they
preached?

> Did you just hear what I said? Being drunk is bad. If someone does so,
> it is at their own peril. Whether they profess Christianity in truth
> or not is irrelevant because Christ says, "Do not!" Christ did not
> come for the righteous but for sinners.

For whom did MLK come?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 8:02 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By "channelling" I mean "plaguerizing."
>
> No, it's probably considered "fair use" under copyright law.

By "plaguerizing" I mean "joking." Thanks for the legal advice though.
Really. If I ever need a delusional lawyer, I'll be sure to look you
up.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Mar 27, 7:43 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 27, 8:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Other
> > > than the whole "don't commit adultery", we are all free and should let
> > > others be free and be free from discrimination, even be free to
> > > disagree and not believe. (Governments should not oppress people.)
>
> > Would you advocate bringing back stoning as a punishment for adultery?
>
> Do you think adultery is wrong? Do you think death is unpleasant? Well
> then, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

So, you are implying that "adulterers" deserve death.

> And for the millionth time, Christ desires mercy, not sacrifice. They
> tried to get Him to stone the adulterous woman _just to test Him and
> find a reason to bring against Him_!! And He did not do it. Now, if I
> believe He is God, why would I contradict Him? I won't.

So, you are implying that you are too Christlike to administer the
death sentence.

> It explicitly says, "Do not desire the death of your fellow man, even
> too much anger is bad." So why would I go against that?

So, you are implying that others shall administer the death sentence.

> > > Women's lib? Again, what does that mean, equal pay? (Yes, women should
> > > get paid the same as men.) As long as something doesn't contradict the
> > > Bible (and hence the Ten Commandments), there should be no
> > > disagreements with the Church.
>
> > So then you DO think adulterers should be stoned or that slavery
> > should be permitted, just to name a couple of activities that are
> > supported in the Bible.
>
> The Bible did not ever suggest slavery was a good thing. In fact it
> says, "As you were once slaves in Egypt, treat any slave you find
> fairly and mercifully."

Is that so? Then why does the Bible contain the following tidbits
about slavery and selling people into slavery?

What the Bible says about Slavery:

Exodus 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant....

Exodus 21:7
If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die
under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he
continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Exodus 22:3
If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Leviticus 22:11
If the priest buy any soul with his money....

Leviticus 25:39
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold
unto thee....

Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be
of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen
and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that
are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your
possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your
bondmen for ever.

Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
Christ.

Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not
with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing
God.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters
worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not
blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please
them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but
shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our
Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the
good and gentle, but also to the froward.

> Once again, death is bad (only resulted from the devil's mischief),
> but sin is worse (kills grace in the soul, cuts us off from God).

I think fucking out of wedlock is preferable to death, but that's
probably just me.

Can I ask you a couple of questions? Are you a virgin? Have you ever
had sex? Do you prefer your own sex? Were you married but your wife
screwed around on you? Did your parents break up over an affair?

> And
> "the wages of sin is death".

And the wages of not sinning is death too. Any way you look at it,
you're going to die. Might as well spend your life being a rigid prig
with a Messianic Complex, that's my philosophy.

> And we are all guilty, and we will all
> die.

I disagree that we are all guilty. I think the idea of sin is a sin,
and I don't know how you lunatics reconcile Christ's alleged message
to love everyone while you automatically assume everyone is guilty of
some amporphous moral offence. Seems to me to be a recipe for hatred,
and the results seem to bear that out.

> And Christ died for us for our benefit to help us overcome evil.

Christ did not die for me. I think the whole fable of Christs's death
is repulsive as well as ineffectual. First of all, what kind of
"sacrifice" is it when Jesus and God KNEW that it wasn't reall death,
that Jesus was going to live forever? Unimpressive. And God's act of
sacrifice showed God to be a coward. If he had sacrificed himself,
then that's an improvement. But why do you lunatics demand death in
the first place? What kind of bloodthirsty savages are you that the
only thing that you think will redeem you is the sacrificial death of
your beloved leader? Your whole blood cult is deranged beyond
description.

> So, do I desire adultery? No. Do I desire death? No. Is God just in
> His punishments? Yes. Does He expect us to go around stoning people?
> No. How would that be forgiving, merciful, loving??

Do I ask questions and answer them myself? I do now. Do I make it look
like you are asking me questions? I'm scared to try, because if I
succeed I might frighten myself, since the last thing I'd want is to
think like you. Oh yeah, you have to prove God exists before any of
your strawman arguments have any validity.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 5:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 27, 5:43 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Mar 27, 5:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 27, 4:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 4:19 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2:08 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 9:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they had not concentrated on each others genitals?
> >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, this statement minimizes many things that were accomplished
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > through the efforts of Christians.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brock
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, all of that intellectual repression for over a thousand years
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should be given credit too.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > While noting that the actions of Stalin and Mao do not reflect on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > nature of atheism ... ?

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no equivalence between Communism and atheism since you can
> > > > > > > > > > > have Marxist Christians.
> >

> > > > > > > > > > > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists.
> >

> > > > > > > > > > By such a standard, the same kinds of offenses do not apply to
> > > > > > > > > > Christianity because the perpetrators acted as <insert label here> and
> > > > > > > > > > not as Christians. :)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Its still a double standard.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Not the case, Brock. Hitler based his anti-semitism on the Biblical
> > > > > > > > > interpretations of Martin Luther and indicates that in his writings.
> >
> > > > > > > > But if one maintains

> >
> > > > > > > > "Stalin and Mao acted as Communists not as atheists"
> >

> > > > > > > > its valid to note:
> >
> > > > > > > > "Hitler acted as a National Socialist not as a Christian"
> >
> > > > > > > > Yep, its still a double standard.
> >
> > > > > > > Your missing the point.
> >
> > > > > > > Stalin and Mao acted as Communists because atheism is not a belief
> > > > > > > system but a lack of belief in god(s). Therefore it's impossible for
> > > > > > > them to act based on atheism.
> >
> > > > > > Ok, then by your premises it seems equally valid to note that Hitler
> > > > > > acted as a National Socialist and not as a Christian. Therefore its
> > > > > > impossible for him to act based on Christianity.
> >
> > > > > No it's not.
> >
> > > > > You are choosing to ignore the key point which is that Christianity is
> > > > > a belief system and therefore National Socialism, also a belief system
> > > > > can be based on it.
> >
> > > > > Atheism is not a belief system, therefore you cannot base any belief
> > > > > system on it.
> >
> > > > I'm not ignoring the point. Rather, I'm pointing out that your
> > > > special treatment for atheism is a double standard.
> >
> > > Your conclusion that this "special treatment for atheism is a double
> > > standard" shows that you are ignoring the point.
> >
> > > If you weren't ignoring the point you would either refute it and show
> > > how it's incorrect or you would agree that I'm right and you're wrong.
> >
> > I'm not ignoring your point. I disagree with your "special treatment
> > for atheism" premise. :)
>
> You are ignoring my point because you haven't refuted my point and
> shown how or why it's incorrect.
>
> Making declarations that you disagree without providing your position
> and/or substantiating it is the same as ignoring the point.
>
> So, you continue to ignore the point that atheism is not a
>
>
> belief system and for that reason a political philosophy cannot be
> based on it. Whereas Christianity is a belief system and political
> philosophies can and have been based on it. For example, National
> Socialism and Marxist Christianity.

I'm not ignoring your point. I disagree with your "special treatment
for atheism" premise. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2:44 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 27, 1:20 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Communism and fascism are both forms of totalitarianism. They just
> > > > > replace the infallible Deity with the infallible Leader. They both
> > > > > require the citizens give body and "soul" to the state. It is a form
> > > > > of worship. Do you know where this is going yet?
> >
> > > > I knew where it was going right from the beginning.
> >
> > > > Its still a double standard. :)
> >
> > > Then you either disagree that totalitarian states are the same as
> > > theocracies or you don't understand what that means. Which is it?
> >
> > I prefer category 3:

> >
> > Its still a double standard.
> >

> > Regards,
> >
> > Brock
>
> Your little strategy on how to argue with unbelievers is only making
> you appear as a flirtatious retard. Coyness is barely tolerable in
> women that I might find attractive; it's achingly embarrassing coming
> from some Christian male over the internet. Why don't you post on
> Lavalife if you want to play footsy?

My point is that I disagree with the "special treatment for atheism" premise. :)

Regards,

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM, rappoccio <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 1:08 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 27, 9:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > With all of the incredible resources available to the Christian
> > > > > religion throughout the centuries what they could have accomplished if
> > > > > they had not concentrated on each others genitals?
> >
> > > > Of course, this statement minimizes many things that were accomplished
> > > > through the efforts of Christians.
> >
> > > > Regards,
> >
> > > > Brock
> >
> > > Yeah, all of that intellectual repression for over a thousand years
> > > should be given credit too.
> >
> > While noting that the actions of Stalin and Mao do not reflect on the
> > nature of atheism ... ?
>

> They reflect on the nature of dogma, which is bad in any case. Stalin
> and Mao didn't murder anyone on the basis of compassion and reason. So
> they're actually more in your court than ours. Dogma is dogma, and all
> dogma is bad (which is a statement based on reason).

You left out your special treatment clause. Noteworthily, "All dogma
is bad" is a dogmatic statement which provides its own counter
example.

Of course, your statement doesn't really address the nature of the
double standard in ascribing Hitler's atrocities to Christianity, but
not ascribing Stalin and Mao's atrocities to atheism.

It is still a double standard.

Regards,

Brock

>
>
> > Its still a double standard. ;0
>
> I agree that Christians apply a double standard to their ideas of what
> is justified.

Then you don't agree with my point: