A million billion deaths

[Virgil]

Hell will be full of death. You will die a million billion times in Hell
throughout your career as a pitchforkee and a burn victim. And there will
be a million billion souls in Hell. There will be human souls, animal
souls, demons, and alien souls. It will be extra crowded and will stink
like shit all the time. And you won't ever get used to the smell. And I
will be laughing at your olfactory torment and deriving great power from the
overpowering stink.

--

[Yap]

Zachy, why do you need to post in the name of another person?

You have been brainwashed sufficiently to state that there is a hell,
for you?
The beauty of a human society and a natural world does not include
something as ugly as you described.

[Don Martin]

Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote to an annoyance:

<dipshittery snipped>

> Zachy, why do you need to post in the name of another person?

In his own person, he is utterly empty of anything worth reading and
everyone knows it; he hopes to snare a chance eyeball by flying under false
colors.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Smiler]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:29:16 +0000, Don Martin wrote:

> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote to an annoyance:
>
> <dipshittery snipped>
>
>> Zachy, why do you need to post in the name of another person?
>
> In his own person, he is utterly empty of anything worth reading and
> everyone knows it; he hopes to snare a chance eyeball by flying under
> false colors.

The bug spray put paid to his flying.
BZZZZZZ
Zzz
zz
z
splat!

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Don Martin]

Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:29:16 +0000, Don Martin wrote:
>
>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote to an annoyance:
>>
>> <dipshittery snipped>
>>
>>> Zachy, why do you need to post in the name of another person?
>>
>> In his own person, he is utterly empty of anything worth reading and
>> everyone knows it; he hopes to snare a chance eyeball by flying under
>> false colors.
>
> The bug spray put paid to his flying.
> BZZZZZZ
> Zzz
> zz
> z
> splat!

Another determined anti-gay done in by a dose of Black Fag.

[Perseus]

It's not so. The mind of believers were brain washed to submit at the whim of the rulers. Then god was made at the image or portrait of harsh, capricious and cruel rulers.

God was not made to please people. People was supposed to please god, that is, to please their rulers.

Perseus

[Smiler]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:22:56 -0700, Perseus wrote:

> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 2:33:38 AM UTC+1, Smiler wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:29:16 +0000, Don Martin wrote:
>> > Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote to an annoyance:
>> > <dipshittery snipped>
>> >
>> >> Zachy, why do you need to post in the name of another person?
>> > In his own person, he is utterly empty of anything worth reading and
>> > everyone knows it; he hopes to snare a chance eyeball by flying under
>> > false colors.
>>
>> The bug spray put paid to his flying.
>>
>> BZZZZZZ
>>
>> Zzz
>>
>> zz
>>
>> z
>>
>> splat!
>>
>>

>> All gods are tailored to order. They're made to exactly fit the
>> prejudices of their believers.
>
> It's not so. The mind of believers were brain washed to submit at the
> whim of the rulers. Then god was made at the image or portrait of harsh,
> capricious and cruel rulers.
>
> God was not made to please people. People was supposed to please god,
> that is, to please their rulers.
>

Then you'd see believers disagreeing with their god(s), as they do with
their rulers.
As I've never heard of _any_ believer _ever_ disagreeing with their
god(s), I can only assume that their god(s) are their own inventions and,
hence, made by them to exactly fit their prejudices.

[Bill Hernstead]

"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.08.13....@JoeKing.com...

Sometimes I disagree with Jesus Christ. For example, He loves Rush when I
can't stand Geddy Lee.

[Yap]

On Aug 12, 5:22 pm, Perseus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 2:33:38 AM UTC+1, Smiler wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:29:16 +0000, Don Martin wrote:
>

> > > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote to an annoyance:

>
> > > <dipshittery snipped>
>
> > >> Zachy, why do you need to post in the name of another person?
>
> > > In his own person, he is utterly empty of anything worth reading and
>
> > > everyone knows it; he hopes to snare a chance eyeball by flying under
>
> > > false colors.
>
> > The bug spray put paid to his flying.
>
> > BZZZZZZ
>
> >        Zzz
>
> >           zz
>
> >             z
>
> >              splat!
>
> > --
>
> > Smiler,
>
> > The godless one. a.a.# 2279
>
> > All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
> > exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
>
> It's not so.  The mind of believers were brain washed to submit at the whim of the rulers. Then god was made at the image or portrait of harsh, capricious and cruel rulers.
>
> God was not made to please people.  People was supposed to please god, that is, to please their rulers.
>
> Perseus

But people make religious rule to govern themselves and have not
adhered to them at all.
Essentially, they are the tactics to control other people and suckers
are all the losers.
They will never benefits from man-made promises....the hell, heaven,
soul, eternal lives and their loving pixie are just meaningless and
unattainable terms.

But suckers don't care, do they?

[Yap]

On Aug 13, 8:49 am, "Bill Hernstead"
<billhernst...@brokenarrownet.net> wrote:
> "Smiler" <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message

>
> news:pan.2012.08.13....@JoeKing.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:22:56 -0700, Perseus wrote:
>
> >> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 2:33:38 AM UTC+1, Smiler wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:29:16 +0000, Don Martin wrote:

> >>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote to an annoyance:

But, assuming Jesus was a dead human in ancient times, he does nothing
whatsoever.
Why would you presume he has a piece of your life?

Just because the molesting priest says so?

[Alex W.]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:31:34 +0100, Smiler wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:22:56 -0700, Perseus wrote:


>>
>> God was not made to please people. People was supposed to please god,
>> that is, to please their rulers.

If god was made in the image and to the design of his people,
then god was made to please people. Note: "please" does not
simply mean to make happy but also to deliver a satisfactory
result.

>>
>
> Then you'd see believers disagreeing with their god(s), as they do with
> their rulers.
> As I've never heard of _any_ believer _ever_ disagreeing with their
> god(s), I can only assume that their god(s) are their own inventions and,
> hence, made by them to exactly fit their prejudices.

Believers disagree with their god all the time. They have a
special word for it: theology. If a god happens to have issued a
divine commandment on an issue that conflicts with current needs,
lifestyle or politics (both secular and priestly), the
theologians go to work and wrestle with Him until He gives in and
issues a phrasing and interpretaiton of His Divine Will that --
what miracle and proof of god's benevolence -- happens to match
current needs, lifestyle and politics.

[SkyEyes]

Why send the animals to hell? They aren't at fault for what they do.
And if animals go to hell, I'll be fine with it. At least I can be
with my pets.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Broil JAB]

SkyEye said:
If animals go to Hell, I'll be fine with it. At least I can be with my
pets.
---EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

BroilJAB said:
Notice how SkyEye is a cat-herding animal lover. And yet, SkyEye
advocates her pets going to Hell. What kind of pet-owner are you, we
ask?
That is some sadistic shit.

[Perseus]

There is point here for analysis. Who are the believers? That that are so well tamed, that do not show any criticizing of their god.

Of cause, being more or less subservient to their rulers, they enjoy some of the privileges of the rulers. Then the rulers, as well as their gods, just teach a doctrine that upholds the status quo of determined by rulers.

That is when in a democracy, a particular ruler does not look specially favorable to their god, and former rulers, they are protesting. For they do not accept the knew ruler that do not favored their side.

In this sense, the god's doctrine is favorable to their social status quo. That why among Christians, they utterly ignored some writing phrases, like "not any rich man can enter in heaven's kingdom." You see? They use some holy book, but disregard or reject anything that do not pleases rulers.
There are also some other phrase like, "no man should divorce his wife". But they took some prohibitions from Deuteronomy about gays, even if Jesus did not say any word about it.

Then, they pick up the phrases that suits better to their own social interest and ignore the rest. In this sense, you are right, that a religious doctrine is meant to please the interest of the rulers and their followers.
In the Roman Empire, a charge of utmost importance was "Pontifex maximus", and was considered the chief priest of Rome. At least on ceremonial occasions. The pontifex maximus was at the same time the most important politician of Rome. It changed from a senator to other, as the tides of political favor came and went.

Perseus


Perseus

[Smiler]

Theologians can bend any passage in the supposed 'holy' writ to fit the
argument 'du jour'. They read between the lines to see what isn't there,
except in their imagination. That's what we call 'Lieing for their god'.
But they would claim that it isn't a disageement with their god, only a
matter of interpretation. IOW, previous interpreters got it wrong and it
is they that they're disagreeing with, not their god.

[Syd M]

Praise HIM

[Smiler]

> There is point here for analysis. Who are the believers? That that are
> so well tamed, that do not show any criticizing of their god.

Indeed. That rather proves my point, as they're never completely tamed by
their rulers, only their god. In recent times, one has only to look at
Egypt, Libya and Tunisia to see that. Changes of government/ruler forced
by the people, but none are changing their god. According to your theory,
a change of rulers would also neccessitate a change of god.

[Syd M]

No.

[Samuel Harrigon]

On Aug 13, 6:46 pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:26:11 -0700, Perseus wrote:
> > On Monday, August 13, 2012 1:31:34 AM UTC+1, Smiler wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:22:56 -0700, Perseus wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, August 12, 2012 2:33:38 AM UTC+1, Smiler wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:29:16 +0000, Don Martin wrote:

> >> >> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote to an annoyance:

A change of God is never required. God is always right there by your
side, always waiting for your praise and your prayers. Jesus loves you
and He lives and manifests Himself in the spirit of this People
praising Him.
"When two or more are gathered in my name, there am I also in their
midst." -Matthew 18:20
That is God saying He is with you, right there, in your prayer session
and in your heart.
God bless you, Smiler.

Rev. Samuel Harrigon
Good Old Gospel Ship Church

[Perseus]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:46:58 AM UTC+1, Smiler wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:26:11 -0700, Perseus wrote:
>

------------ snipped ------------

>
> > There is point here for analysis. Who are the believers? That that are
>
> > so well tamed, that do not show any criticizing of their god.
>
>
>
> Indeed. That rather proves my point, as they're never completely tamed by
> their rulers, only their god. In recent times, one has only to look at
> Egypt, Libya and Tunisia to see that. Changes of government/ruler forced
> by the people, but none are changing their god. According to your theory,
> a change of rulers would also neccessitate a change of god.

This argument would be valid, if it were not more than one ruler.
In this case, there had been, like in post places, two sort of rulers. On a side the military rulers, on the other the religious rulers. Both are sometimes confronted, at least in secret.

The reason for those rebellions were due mostly to an unrelated fact: overpopulation. These nations has been growing very fast in times in which industry was being done mostly by machines. Then, there was not any sense in producing manually any of these shits that are done with automatic machines. So, the those nations were living mostly of tourism, and tourism was not growing at 2.5% a year like the population. Then,all those youths were alienated because they needed a job, to marry and make more children, like their parents deed. In a time like this, with the present global crisis, and higher prices of oil, the perspectives for those young people were of not getting a job, and not have an opportunity to keep breeding like rabbits. So, frustrated they decided to topple the government. But what they really need is a civil war and reduce the population by a 30% or more. They, they would start again to breed like rabbits. There would be a lot of opportunities for those that survived.

Perseus