Adolf Hiler, Lapsed Catholic
Private
Atheists (Soviets) which sucked in the whole world, was really just a
Catholic mis-hap in disguise . I'm blaming the current Balkan War on
Grape-Nuts and Lipton Iced Tea
maff91
>Well isnt that interesting a war between neo-pagan occultists ( Nazi's) and
Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.htm
>Atheists (Soviets) which sucked in the whole world, was really just a
Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
from it.
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
been due to its enemies."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
b hendrickson
>Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
>from it.
>http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
>http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
>http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
I don't currently have the time to search all of those documents for the
'proof' you are looking for, but after reading the Gospels a few times
through I don't see much evidence that Jesus was a 'commie'. You seem to use
the word very loosely... it has so many bad connontations nowadays that it's
hard to understand what you're talking about.
Would Jesus advocate controlling the media with an iron hand? No.
Would Jesus advocate falsifying history? No.
Would Jesus do away with all money and personal possessions? No. Was He
for helping the poor? Yes.
Would Jesus kill all those who did not agree with Him? You betch... but
when He does it, it will be justifiable. (Whoa - I'm getting a psychic
premonition of a thread starting here...)
>"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
>Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
>quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
>sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
>of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
>Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
>and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
>not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
> influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
>until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
>been due to its enemies."
> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
I'm not very keen on defending the actions of ungodly 'Christians'. They
are Christians, as Mr. Russell pointed out, geographically... but not much
else. Rest assurred that the Christ they believed in would condemn their
actions.
>"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
> essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
> possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
> Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
No, it is 1) Marxism's atheistic tennants, 2) its view that Mankind can
improve itself, and 3) its economic doctrines that make them incompatible
with each other. Sorry, but Russell isn't infailable.
>"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
> medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
> embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
> critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
Absolutely right. None of these, however, has a place in correct
Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its truths,
and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
-bh
erikc
"b hendrickson" <lo...@execpc.com> wrote:
-- origin: alt.atheism:
>|This is all silly:
>|
>|>Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
>|>from it.
>|>http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
>|>http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
>|>http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
>|
>|
>|I don't currently have the time to search all of those documents for the
>|'proof' you are looking for, but after reading the Gospels a few times
>|through I don't see much evidence that Jesus was a 'commie'. You seem to use
>|the word very loosely... it has so many bad connontations nowadays that it's
>|hard to understand what you're talking about.
But you have the time to sit down and post your theistic drivel to a
newsgroup (alt.atheism) that doesn;t buy into it. Then trim your
headers, moron.
[===]
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
ICQ 26776011 | -- Bardic Motto
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
---- Noam Chomsky
maff91
wrote:
>This is all silly:
>
>>Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
>>from it.
>>http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
>>http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
>>http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
>
>
>I don't currently have the time to search all of those documents for the
>'proof' you are looking for, but after reading the Gospels a few times
So why don't you come back when you have done the research?
>through I don't see much evidence that Jesus was a 'commie'. You seem to use
>the word very loosely... it has so many bad connontations nowadays that it's
>hard to understand what you're talking about.
> Would Jesus advocate controlling the media with an iron hand? No.
> Would Jesus advocate falsifying history? No.
> Would Jesus do away with all money and personal possessions? No. Was He
>for helping the poor? Yes.
> Would Jesus kill all those who did not agree with Him? You betch... but
>when He does it, it will be justifiable. (Whoa - I'm getting a psychic
>premonition of a thread starting here...)
Doesn't the Bible condone genocide and slavery?
>
>>"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
>>Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
>>quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
>>sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
>>of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
>>Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
>>and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
>>not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
>> influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
>>until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
>>been due to its enemies."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> I'm not very keen on defending the actions of ungodly 'Christians'. They
>are Christians, as Mr. Russell pointed out, geographically... but not much
>else. Rest assurred that the Christ they believed in would condemn their
>actions.
Are you saying there no Christians?
>
>
>>"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
>> essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
>> possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
>> Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> No, it is 1) Marxism's atheistic tennants, 2) its view that Mankind can
Nope. Have you read the Communist Manifesto?
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Have you heard of liberation theology where Marxist priests were
fighting governments in central and south America?
http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/journal/vol2no2/v2n2_The_Future_of_Liberation_Theology.html
>improve itself, and 3) its economic doctrines that make them incompatible
Why?
>with each other. Sorry, but Russell isn't infailable.
Russell was infallible compared to your invisible sky daddy.
>
>>"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
>> medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
>> embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
>> critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> Absolutely right. None of these, however, has a place in correct
>Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its truths,
>and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
History disagrees with you.
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525
http://www.mindspring.com/~israel/NEWS2.HTML
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/>
Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
Murder of Hypatia and the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria
http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457374591
Crusades, Inquisition
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Middle_Ages/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Renaissance/>
Persecution of Galileo
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Astronomers/Galilei__Galileo__1564_1642_/>
Murder of Giodarno Bruno
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
Criminal activities by various Popes
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tmanc.htm <- this is good.
http://www.omen.com.au/~staffy/cook.html
http://www.sru.edu/depts/artsci/ges/lamerica/treaty.htm
http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/Whacked/IntranetCurr/SocialStudies/AmazonAdventure/tordesillas.htm
The Age of Enlightenment
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
http://tlc.ai.org/enlight.htm
Salem Witch trials
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Colonial_America/Salem_Witch_Trials/>
Witch burnings
http://www.silvermoon.net/catala/burning/times.htm
http://www.celticcrow.com/basics/burning.html
>
>-bh
>
starousedlik
<snip>
>
> And there you have it. Lets hear it for the vatican. Responsible for
> two cousins marrying and producing one of the world's most deadly
> maniacs. Yay.
I notice you ignored the fact that Hitler was committed to an asylum, and
was released by a feel-good psychiatrist who saied Hitler was 'cured' of
his delusions.
BTW, if you're going to blame the RCC for Hitler, then don't forget to
note the Prot wonder children such as Jim Jones.
Finger pointing can do wonders for one's small ego, but accomplishes
nothing in eccumenical relations - grow up.
--
Christos Voskrese!
P.A.A.
anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
maff91 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:48:25 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> >Well isnt that interesting a war between neo-pagan occultists ( Nazi's) and
>
> Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
> http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
> http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
> http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
> http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
> http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.htm
>
> >Atheists (Soviets) which sucked in the whole world, was really just a
>
> Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
> from it.
> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
> http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
>
> "The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
> Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
> quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
> sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
> of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
> Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
> and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
> not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
> influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
> until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
> been due to its enemies."
> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
> "The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
> essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
> possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
> Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
> "The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
> medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
> embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
> critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
Bill Nourse
FvsF wrote:
>
> Hello everyone. I just thought I'd share with anyone that cares, a
> story I've found regarding everybody's favorite bad boy, A. Hitler.
>
> This is a story taken from a book called, "Pope Pourri", by John
> Dollison.
>
> I've included part of the intro to the book, so that you see John is a
> devout catholic! At least that is the impression he projects.
>
> You decide:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intro by John Dollison
>
> Let's face it: While this stuff is interesting, it's too trivial for
> the church to devote much attention to (it is trivia, after all)-and
> even if your priest wanted to teach you some Catholic Church trivia,
> when Would he find the time? At best, most of us, even the most devout
> Catholics, see our priest once a week during Mass, when he has plenty
> of other things on his mind.
>
> That's why I wrote this book: I wanted to talk about some of the
> interesting and unusual facts about the church that it doesn't have
> time to tell you itself Did you know, for example, that there have
> been thirteen popes named Innocent? (Not all of them lived up to the
> title.) Or that seventeen popes have been assassinated? (Most were
> murdered by other popes.)
>
> Controversial Subjects
>
> This book is not a history book by any stretch of the imagination, but
> it does deal with topics in Catholic Church history that many
> well-meaning Catholics believe are best left forgotten. "Sure," they
> argue, "many popes, saints, and other Christians have said and done
> things that in the twentieth century would be considered immoral ...
> and even un-Christian. Even so, it is disrespectful, not to mention
> bad for the church, to write about these topics."
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> I take the same approach to Catholic Church history as I take to
> American history: just as knowing about slavery makes us better
> Americans, so does knowing about Catholic controversies make us better
> Catholics. Talking about the mistakes Of Our past (and our present)
> even in jest, as this book does-makes our faith stronger by bringing
> us closer to God.
>
> Enough said. I had a great time working on this book. If you have half
> as Much fun reading it as I did writing it, your money will have been
> well spent.
>
> John Dollison
> Berkeley, California
> June 28, 1994
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ADOLF HITLER, LAPSED CATHOLIC
>
> Did you know Hitler was baptized a Catholic? As an adult, he set out
> to destroy the Catholic Church ... but as a boy, he sang in the choir.
> Here are some things you probably never knew about him.
>
> He literally owed his life to the Vatican. Hitler's parents were
> second cousins, at least on paper. His father, Alois Schicklgruber,
> was an illegitimate child who in 1876 falsely testified to church
> officials that his father was Johann Georg Hitler (originally spelled
> "Hiedler"), a family friend. This created problems in 1884 when Alois
> tried to marry Klara Pozl, a Hitler relative. Church law forbade
> marriages between cousins, and the Vatican itself had to grant a
> special dispensation before the couple could wed. It did so in January
> of 1885; the Hiders were married a few days later. Klara gave birth to
> Adolf in 1889.
>
> He went to Catholic school. Hitler's family lived across the street
> from the Benedictine monastery in Lambach, Austria, and eight-year-old
> Adolf started school there in 1897. According to biographer Robert
> Payne in his book The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, he loved it.
> "Adolf ... was immediately fascinated by the new world of church
> ritual, tile black-robed monks, the abbot ruling his flock with all
> the authority of an earthly king.... In his spare time he took singing
> lessons so he could sing in the choir."
>
> He encountered his first swastikas at church. The Lambach monastery
> had several swastikas on its grounds, including one that was clearly
> visible from the Hitler family apartment. The symbol (which originally
> symbolized good luck) was part of the coat of arms of Abbot Theodorich
> von Hagen, who ran the monastery in the 1850s. Payne and other
> historians speculate that these swastikas were the inspiration for the
> Nazi symbol years later.
>
> Historical Note: Why did von Hagen decorate the monastery with
> swastikas? Some historians believe he did it as a pun on his last
> name: The German word for swastika, Hakenkreuz ("hooked cross"), is
> only one letter different from "Hagen's cross," Hagenkreuz.
>
> He wanted to become a priest ... at least at first. Frau Helene
> Hanfstangel, the wife of one of Hitler's cronies, recalled Hitler
> telling her that "as a small boy it was his most ardent wish to become
> a priest. He often borrowed the large kitchen apron of his maid,
> climbed on a kitchen chair and delivered long and fervent sermons."
> Payne notes that "for two years Adolf contemplated the possibility of
> one day joining the community of monks, eventually rising to the
> position of abbot, with supreme authority over all the monks."
>
> What caused Hitler to lose his interest in religious life? Historians
> point to a childhood run-in with a parish priest as the possible
> answer. "One day, when [Hitler] was about nine years old, a priest
> caught him smoking a cigarette. This was a serious matter, and for a
> while he was in danger of receiving exemplary punishment. The danger
> passed, for the priest quickly forgave him, and he resumed his
> schooling as though nothing had happened." Even so, Hitter never
> forgot the incident (and for that matter never took up smoking); Payne
> and others point to it as the possible beginning of his break from the
> Catholic Church.
>
> By the time he was confirmed at the age of fourteen in 1904, Hitler's
> alienation was nearly complete ... at least according to eyewitness
> accounts of the confirmation ceremony. "None was so sulky and surly as
> Adolf Hitler," Emmanuel Lugert, a family friend and Hitler's sponsor,
> later recalled. "I had almost to drag the words Out of him. .. . It
> was almost as though the whole business, the whole confirmation was
> repugnant to him, as though he only went through it with the
> greatest reluctance." (What did Hitter do after the ceremony? No
> kidding , he ran home to play cowboys and Indians with his friends.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And there you have it. Lets hear it for the vatican. Responsible for
> two cousins marrying and producing one of the world's most deadly
> maniacs. Yay.
>
> "Here is the bible position of women briefly summed up:
> The bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into
> the world. She was to play the role of a dependant on
> man's bounty for all her materail wants, and for all the
> imformation she might desire."
> -----Elizabeth Cody Stanton
--
Charles W. ("Bill") Nourse, Ed.D., CPP
Memphis, Tennessee USA
http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/~nourse
"Establish yourself in God and then you will be helpful to others."
-- St. Seraphim of Sarov
M. Hobratschk
b hendrickson wrote in message <7hfv61$k...@newsops.execpc.com>...
> Would Jesus advocate controlling the media with an iron hand? No.
> Would Jesus advocate falsifying history? No.
> Would Jesus do away with all money and personal possessions? No.
BZZZT! Wrong-o feller. Jesus (Check out Luke, Chapter 12)
>for helping the poor? Yes.
> Would Jesus kill all those who did not agree with Him? You betch... but
>when He does it, it will be justifiable.
So, disagreeing withsomeone's religious views is justifiable? It's okay for
me to come shoot you? I think not.
(Whoa - I'm getting a psychic
>premonition of a thread starting here...)
>
>>"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
>>Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
>>quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
>>sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
>>of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
>>Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
>>and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
>>not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
>> influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
>>until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
>>been due to its enemies."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> I'm not very keen on defending the actions of ungodly 'Christians'. They
>are Christians, as Mr. Russell pointed out, geographically... but not much
>else. Rest assurred that the Christ they believed in would condemn their
>actions.
>
>
>>"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
>> essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
>> possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
>> Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> No, it is 1) Marxism's atheistic tennants, 2) its view that Mankind can
>improve itself, and 3) its economic doctrines that make them incompatible
>with each other. Sorry, but Russell isn't infailable.
>
>>"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
>> medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
>> embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
>> critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> Absolutely right. None of these, however, has a place in correct
>Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its
truths,
>and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
>
>-bh
>
>
Julie Kale
> Would Jesus advocate controlling the media with an iron hand? No.
Christians would.
> Would Jesus advocate falsifying history? No.
Christians would.
> Would Jesus do away with all money and personal possessions? No.
That's debatable.
Was He
>for helping the poor? Yes.
So are the christians, but god forbit those poor should ever want anything
more.
> Would Jesus kill all those who did not agree with Him? You betch... but
>when He does it, it will be justifiable. (Whoa - I'm getting a psychic
>premonition of a thread starting here...)
Of course. Murder is always justifiable to the christian.
Tell me christian, what did the babies in Samual 1 do to deserve the
horrible deaths they died? What about the babies in the first ten chapters
of Joshua? What about the babies who surely must have drowned terribley in
that world wide flood? What about David's child, who didn't do a damn thing
to deserve death?
Where is the justice in these deaths, christian?
> I'm not very keen on defending the actions of ungodly 'Christians'. They
>are Christians, as Mr. Russell pointed out, geographically... but not much
>else. Rest assurred that the Christ they believed in would condemn their
>actions.
You seem to be an expert on christ.
> Absolutely right. None of these, however, has a place in correct
>Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its
truths,
>and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
Yes it does. The OT is full of commandments which specifically state that
the unbeliever should not be allowed to live. We are 'aboninamtions.' didn't
ya know? LOL.
--
~Julie Kale~
You know how to whistle.
Just put your lips together, baby....and blow...
maff91
wrote:
>Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
>anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
But most Jews didn't accept the church fabricated stories about Jesus.
So they paid a heavy price with the connivance of church sanctioned
theology.
>
>maff91 wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:48:25 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well isnt that interesting a war between neo-pagan occultists ( Nazi's) and
>>
>> Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
>> http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
>> http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
>> http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
>> http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
>> http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.htm
>>
>> >Atheists (Soviets) which sucked in the whole world, was really just a
>>
>> Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
>> from it.
>> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
>> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
>> http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
>>
>> "The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
>> Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
>> quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
>> sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
>> of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
>> Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
>> and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
>> not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
>> influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
>> until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
>> been due to its enemies."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>>
>> "The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
>> essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
>> possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
>> Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>>
>> "The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
>> medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
>> embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
>> critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
>> [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
>> 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
>> height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>>
P.A.A.
FvsF wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:02:17 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
> >anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
>
> So you deny that catholics have blamed the jews for the supposed death
> of the supposed person of christ for centuries?
Please enlighten me as to whom else had Jesus arrested? Was it not the
Jews?
>
> Well I can tell you from personal experience that you're idiot, not to
> mention wrong.
I see... resorting to ad-hominem personal attacks. Is this the way you
gain credibility in discussion?
>
> Doh!
>
> "Both (the northern and southern christians) read the same
> bible and pray to the same god, and each invokes his aid
> against the other."
> -----Abraham Lincoln
P.A.A.
they are fabricated?
maff91 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:02:17 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
> >anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
>
maff91
wrote:
>Which stories about Jesus are fabricated and what proof do you have that
>they are fabricated?
Try
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/index.html
P.A.A.
fabricatetd.
JRRF
starousedlik <starou...@nospam.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
starousedlik-1...@oats-a-15.munhall.nb.net...
> In article <373e0d50...@news.supernews.com>, Fv...@FvsF.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > And there you have it. Lets hear it for the vatican. Responsible for
> > two cousins marrying and producing one of the world's most deadly
> > maniacs. Yay.
>
FvsF
<Paul_...@bmc.com> proposed this prose:
>
>
>FvsF wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:02:17 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
>> >anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
>>
>> So you deny that catholics have blamed the jews for the supposed death
>> of the supposed person of christ for centuries?
>Please enlighten me as to whom else had Jesus arrested? Was it not the
>Jews?
No, please enlighten ME! What does one's ethnicity have to do with
ones politics?
The original post by maff91 asserted that "Jesus and the early
Christians were commies. You just can't get away from it." and you
popped up with your nonsensical statement.
>> Well I can tell you from personal experience that you're idiot, not to
>> mention wrong.
>I see... resorting to ad-hominem personal attacks. Is this the way you
>gain credibility in discussion?
Just trying to blend in. And there is NOTHING I could do, post, infer,
or anything to change your 'mind' about anything. So why bother? I'm
here to have fun, aren't you? You could care less about anything I
post if it isn't from a catholic source, and even when it is, the
catholics tip toe around it.
And, HYPOCRITE, YOU are the one that threw the first Duh!, which you
so conveniently overlooked with your goofy 'ad-hominem personal
attack', comment. How freakin' typical.
Hee.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death."
------------------Einstein, Albert
maff91
wrote:
>There is no proof. I could just as easily say that atheism is
>fabricatetd.
Atheism is merely lack of theism.
The proof is listed below. If it was true then why the need for
murder, torture and violation of human rights to spread your religion?
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525
http://www.mindspring.com/~israel/NEWS2.HTML
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/>
Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
Murder of Hypatia and the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria
http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457374591
Crusades, Inquisition
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Middle_Ages/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Renaissance/>
Persecution of Galileo
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Astronomers/Galilei__Galileo__1564_1642_/>
Murder of Giodarno Bruno
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
Criminal activities by various Popes
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tmanc.htm <- this is good.
http://www.omen.com.au/~staffy/cook.html
http://www.sru.edu/depts/artsci/ges/lamerica/treaty.htm
http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/Whacked/IntranetCurr/SocialStudies/AmazonAdventure/tordesillas.htm
The Age of Enlightenment
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
http://tlc.ai.org/enlight.htm
Salem Witch trials
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Colonial_America/Salem_Witch_Trials/>
Witch burnings
http://www.silvermoon.net/catala/burning/times.htm
http://www.celticcrow.com/basics/burning.html
>
>maff91 wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 May 1999 12:49:46 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Which stories about Jesus are fabricated and what proof do you have that
>> >they are fabricated?
>>
>> Try
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
>> http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/index.html
>>
>> >
>> >maff91 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:02:17 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
>> >> >anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
>> >>
>> >> But most Jews didn't accept the church fabricated stories about Jesus.
>> >> So they paid a heavy price with the connivance of church sanctioned
>> >> theology.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >maff91 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:48:25 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Well isnt that interesting a war between neo-pagan occultists ( Nazi's) and
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
>> >> >> http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
>> >> >> http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
>> >> >> http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
>> >> >> http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
>> >> >> http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Atheists (Soviets) which sucked in the whole world, was really just a
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
>> >> >> from it.
Private
news:375d5715....@news2.newscene.com...
>
> But most Jews didn't accept the church fabricated stories about Jesus.
> So they paid a heavy price with the connivance of church sanctioned
> theology.
2 Samuel 22:44 "Thou didst deliver me from strife with the peoples; thou
didst keep me as the head of the nations; people whom I had not known served
me. "
Psalm 18:43 Thou didst deliver me from strife with the peoples; thou didst
make me the head of the nations; people whom I had not known served me.
Psalm 81:11"But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would have none
of me. "
Jeremiah 4:22 " For my people are foolish, they know me not; they are stupid
children, they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil, but
how to do good they know not."
Jeremiah 15:1 Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood
before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of
my sight, and let them go!"
Jeremiah 23:5"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise
up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely,
and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6In his days Judah
will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which
he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'
Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make
a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like
the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to
bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I
was their husband, says the LORD.
Hosea 1:9 And the LORD said, "Call his name Not my people, for you are not
my people and I am not your
God."
John 2:23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, *many people
saw the miraculous signs he was doing and * believed in his name
John 4:22 "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for
salvation is from the Jews. "
John 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my
teaching, you are really my disciples.
John 10:32 And in that place many believed in Jesus.
John 12:42 Yet at the same time *many even among the leaders believed in
him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for
fear they would be put out of the synagogue;
Luke 1:46And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47and my spirit
rejoices in God my Savior, ................
54He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, 55as he
spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever."
Luke 1:68"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed
his people, 69and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of
his servant David, 70as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of
old, 71that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all
who hate us; 72to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember
his holy covenant, 73the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, 74to
grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve
him without fear,
75in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life.
Acts 4:4 But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew
to about five thousand.
Acts 5:14 Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and
were added to their number.
Acts 6:7And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples
multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great *many of the priests were
obedient to the faith.
Acts 14:1At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish
synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and
Gentiles believed.
Acts 17:12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent
Greek women and many Greek men
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in
the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were
baptized.
Acts 19:17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus,
they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in
high honor.
Acts 21:20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul:
"You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them
are zealous for the law.
Romans 3:1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of
circumcision?2Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with
the oracles of God. 3What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness
nullify the faithfulness of God?4By no means! Let God be true though every
man be false, as it is written, "That thou mayest be justified in thy words,
and prevail when thou art judged."
Romans 9:24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from
the Gentiles?
25As indeed he says in Hose'a, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my
people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'my beloved.'" 26"And in
the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will
be called 'sons of the living God.'" 27And Isaiah cries out concerning
Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
only a remnant of them will be saved; 28for the Lord will execute his
sentence upon the earth with rigor and dispatch." 29And as Isaiah predicted,
"If the Lord of hosts had not left us children, we would have fared like
Sodom and been made like Gomor'rah." 30What shall we say, then? That
Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is,
righteousness through faith; 31but that Israel who pursued the righteousness
which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32Why? Because
they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They
have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33as it is written, "Behold, I am
laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make
them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."
Romans11
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an
Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.2God
has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the
scripture says of Eli'jah, how he pleads with God against Israel?3"Lord,
they have killed thy prophets, they have demolished thy altars, and I alone
am left, and they seek my life." 4But what is God's reply to him? "I have
kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al."5So
too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6But if it is
by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no
longer be grace. 7What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The
elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8as it is written, "God gave
them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not
hear, down to this very day9And David says, "Let their table become a snare
and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them; 10let their eyes be
darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever."
11So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their
trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel
jealous.12Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their
failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full
inclusion mean! 13Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am
an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14in order to make my
fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15For if their rejection
means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but
life from the dead? 16If the dough offered as first fruits is holy, so is
the whole lump; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17But if some
of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted
in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, 18do not boast over
the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root,
but the root that supports you.
19You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you
stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.
21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who
have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his
kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. 23And even the others, if they
do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power
to graft them in again. 24For if you have been cut from what is by nature a
wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive
tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their
own olive tree. 25Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to
understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel,
until the full number of the Gentiles come in, 26and so ALL ISRAEL WILL BE
SAVED; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish
ungodliness from Jacob"; 27"and this will be my covenant with them when I
take away their sins." 28As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for
your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their
forefathers. 29For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
Paul Wenthold
>
> Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
> anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
>
Apparently "duh" is the extent of your reading comprehension.
I don't see anywhere where maff has suggested that Jesus
or the apostles were anti-semitic, unless you are suggesting
that Jesus was alive 1700 years ago.
paul
(leaving in maff's response for all to read)
Bill Nourse
>
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 15:04:31 GMT, Bill Nourse <nou...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >But who is Adolf "Hiler?"
> >
> >FvsF wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello everyone. I just thought I'd share with anyone that cares, a
> >> story I've found regarding everybody's favorite bad boy, A. Hitler.
> >>
> >> This is a story taken from a book called, "Pope Pourri", by John
> >> Dollison.
> >>
> >> I've included part of the intro to the book, so that you see John is a
> >> devout catholic! At least that is the impression he projects.
>
> you? Or is this your first attempt at catholic apologetics?
Whenever I note a troll posting here who can't spell and doesn't
proofread before he posts, I consider the source and conclude that his
education has been sadly neglected in other areas as well.
Some posts are not worth a serious effort at apologetics.
>
> "Both (the northern and southern christians) read the same
> bible and pray to the same god, and each invokes his aid
> against the other."
> -----Abraham Lincoln
--
Colin R. Day
> FvsF wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:02:17 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
> > >anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
> >
> > So you deny that catholics have blamed the jews for the supposed death
> > of the supposed person of christ for centuries?
> Please enlighten me as to whom else had Jesus arrested? Was it not the
> Jews?
No, the Romans.
>
> >
> > Well I can tell you from personal experience that you're idiot, not to
> > mention wrong.
> I see... resorting to ad-hominem personal attacks. Is this the way you
> gain credibility in discussion?
> >
> > Doh!
> >
> > "Both (the northern and southern christians) read the same
> > bible and pray to the same god, and each invokes his aid
> > against the other."
> > -----Abraham Lincoln
--
Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
EAC Cheerleader RAH! RAH! RAH! Go, team, go! (of course, there
is no EAC team)
Private
HEY maff91 !
What are the death tolls of The Russian Revolution and the reign of Stalin ?
And what is the total of the Cultural Revolution in China ? Do you have any
links for us ? And give us the links of the millions killed in all of the
Communist revolutions of this century if you could we'd appreciate it . Has
it reached a 100,000,000 yet or has it passed that already ,we'll have to
wait a few months for the final death toll of the century of course .
You speak of the "sky daddy " as if you thought that God is a fairy tale,
but you know better than that in your heart . I'm sure youre not posting in
children's newsgroups telling them that Santa and the Easter Bunny and Tooth
Fairy dont exist , for no one zealously campaigns againt a thing that he
doesnt believe exists truly . A man will only fight against what he knows to
be ,unless of course he is shadowboxing ,even then he is preparing for what
he knows he will fight .
If you think yourself so wise and that we are so foolish please show me how
the following words of Thomas Aquinas are false .
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain,
and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now
whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in
motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion;
whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else
than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing
can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a
state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood,
which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes
it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in
actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different
respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot;
but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that
in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and
moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion
must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be
itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another,
and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then
there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing
that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the
first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the
hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by
no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of
sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known
(neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the
efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity,
because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause
of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate
cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take
away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first
cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any
intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an
ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is
plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause,
to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We
find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are
found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible
to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for
that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if
everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been
nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing
in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by
something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in
existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to
exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd.
Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist
something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing
either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to
go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by
another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore
we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own
necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others
their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among
beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But
"more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they
resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing
is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is
hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best,
something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for
those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is
written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in
that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot
things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the
cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call
God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things
which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is
evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as
to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but
designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence
cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with
knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are
directed to their end; and this being we call God.
(Summa Theologica I ,q2,a3 )
maff91
>
>HEY maff91 !
>What are the death tolls of The Russian Revolution and the reign of Stalin ?
"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
been due to its enemies."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
Communism and Christianity
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/journal/vol2no2/v2n2_The_Future_of_Liberation_Theology.html
Russian revolution
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Russia/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/20th_Century/Military_History/Russian_Revolution/>
>And what is the total of the Cultural Revolution in China ? Do you have any
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/China/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/20th_Century/Cultural_Revolution_1966___1976/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/China/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/20th_Century/Mao_Zedong__1893_1976_/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/China/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/20th_Century/>
<http://asterius.com/china/china4.asp#PRC>
>links for us ? And give us the links of the millions killed in all of the
>Communist revolutions of this century if you could we'd appreciate it . Has
>it reached a 100,000,000 yet or has it passed that already ,we'll have to
>wait a few months for the final death toll of the century of course .
You need to ask in NGs which deal with Communism/ Marxism or the
specific countries concerned for more details.
>
> You speak of the "sky daddy " as if you thought that God is a fairy tale,
>but you know better than that in your heart . I'm sure youre not posting in
>children's newsgroups telling them that Santa and the Easter Bunny and Tooth
>Fairy dont exist , for no one zealously campaigns againt a thing that he
>doesnt believe exists truly . A man will only fight against what he knows to
>be ,unless of course he is shadowboxing ,even then he is preparing for what
>he knows he will fight .
>
>If you think yourself so wise and that we are so foolish please show me how
>the following words of Thomas Aquinas are false .
>
>
>I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Proof is only used in Math. You need to support your arguments with
empirical evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/index.html
>
Not good enough. We'll await for your evidence.
Famous dead non-theists
http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
Atheist celebrities
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/atheistcelebs/
Ed. Stoebenau
<snip Aquinas>
Aristotelian causal schemes have been known to be wrong for centuries.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
Jeff/addesign
>On Sat, 15 May 1999 07:16:54 +0000, "Colin R. Day"
><cd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>"P.A.A." wrote:
>>
>>> FvsF wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:02:17 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. They could hardly be
>>> > >anti-Semites, since they were semitic themselves! Duh!
>>> >
>>> > So you deny that catholics have blamed the jews for the supposed death
>>> > of the supposed person of christ for centuries?
>>> Please enlighten me as to whom else had Jesus arrested? Was it not the
>>> Jews?
>>
>>No, the Romans.
>I've heard it both ways by different groups. I also seem to recall
>that it's been with in the last century that the pope let the jews off
>the catholic 'hook' as far as blame goes.
>Or am I getting my memories mixed up?
It was the Romans, but it's convenient to blame THE Jews, meaning all
Jews in Palestine at the time, and also all Jews who came later. This
has been going on for 18 or 19 centuries.
It works this way. Either the Jews deny their own Messiah, and thereby
can be held partially responsible for the crucifixion (although it's
hard to see the crucifixion as a problem, since Jesus had to "die "
for our sins, ergo, no Christianity without the cross);
OR
The Jews are right in rejecting the deity of Jesus, thereby making a
lie of Christianity.
Either way, Christians felt justified in villefying and persecuting
the very people that birthed their saviour, for almost two millennia.
It's religion. It doesn't have to make sense.
Andy
> This is all silly:
>
> >Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
> >from it.
> >http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
> >http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
>
>
> 'proof' you are looking for, but after reading the Gospels a few times
> the word very loosely... it has so many bad connontations nowadays that it's
> hard to understand what you're talking about.
> for helping the poor? Yes.
> when He does it, it will be justifiable. (Whoa - I'm getting a psychic
> premonition of a thread starting here...)
>
> >Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
> >quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
> >sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
> >of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
> >Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
> >and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
> >not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
> > influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
> >until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
> >been due to its enemies."
> > [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> > 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> > height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> are Christians, as Mr. Russell pointed out, geographically... but not much
> else. Rest assurred that the Christ they believed in would condemn their
> actions.
>
>
> > essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
> > possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
> > Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
> > [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> > 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> > height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> improve itself, and 3) its economic doctrines that make them incompatible
> with each other. Sorry, but Russell isn't infailable.
>
> > medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
> > embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
> > critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
> > [Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
> > 1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
> > height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>
>
> Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its truths,
> and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
>
Superbly written bh.
This poster doubts you will receive anything back
of substance from Maff. He cuts n pastes URLs and not much
else, but I will wait and see.
Andy
FvsF
du...@freemail.com.au (Andy) proposed this prose:
<snipper of blindingly boring poop>
>> Absolutely right. None of these, however, has a place in correct
>> Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its truths,
>> and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
>>
>> -bh
>
>Superbly written bh.
>
>This poster doubts you will receive anything back
>of substance from Maff. He cuts n pastes URLs and not much
>else, but I will wait and see.
>Andy
And neither of you consider the threat of eternal torment after death,
if one doesn't buy your system of belief, not a form of 'savagely
persecuting'? You can't see that as the ultimate threat?
Go on, you're joking, right?
As Thomas Paine said:
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the
worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live
in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue
us into eternity"
KRISHNA vs CHRIST
1. both were heald to be god incarnate
2. both were incarnated and born of a woaman.
3. the mother in each case was a holy virgin.
4. the father of each was a carpenter.
5. both were of royal descent.
6. each had the divine title of 'savior'.
7. both were 'without sin'.
8. both were crucified.
9. both were crucified between tow theives.
10. each taught of a great and final day of judgement.
--Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read-Tim C Leedom
Private
)> Proof is only used in Math. You need to support your arguments with
> empirical evidence.
You made this up yourself there is no such correlation to the reality of
science or your own experience .
Prove that math is a reality and not an arrogant secretion of a gland . Can
Math prove Math ?This is absurd !
If you cannot establish your first principle why place it first ? Rather why
even place it 2nd or 3rd ?
Establish by empirical evidence that reason or intelligence are valid and
trustworthy or that they even exist at all . But first prove that valid and
trustworthy have any true meaning in themselves. How will you do this except
by Faith ?
Prove that Justice , Love , Equality ,Brotherhood , Tolerance ,Truth or
anything you wish to exhort us to are not just fanciful ,deceptive
secretions of a gland or organ in a man . Or that they are true and valuable
. How can matter perform an immaterial function such as the separation of
form and matter through abstraction?
How can you dare to have the hypocrisy to despise the beliefs that
established your right to express your thought freely , What atheistic
government ever did this ? Don't you see the arrogance and absurdity in
standing tall on the shoulders of Christendom and looking down your nose and
calling it short ?
Prove that the existence of God is false .
Prove that there is only matter or observable and comprehensible phenomena.
It is clearly impossible to refute that your entire system of thought
cannot demonstrate any of its first principles
in its own right or by its own principles ,but one must in each instance
take a leap of faith as Blaise Pascal spoke of so clearly .
Your concepts of science and evidence as you try to present them do not
exist outside of your own imagination.
>
> Not good enough. We'll await for your evidence.
I understand and respect that you don't attempt or pretend to refute
Aquinas' irrefutable demonstration . For this cannot be done .
The ball is in your court I freely and happily admit that I live by faith
and that I know through faith . It's time for you to admit this to yourself
not for my benefit but for yours, because I do not wish you to live your
life in a self-delusion . I wish for you all of the very best and I hope
that I can be of some small assistance if possible .
God bless you always , not "my god" but God Himself
sincerely ,
Michael N.
Alan Sindler
>
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 12:49:46 -0500, "P.A.A." <Paul_...@bmc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Which stories about Jesus are fabricated and what proof do you have that
> >they are fabricated?
A much better question, with a much shorter answer, would be: Which stories
about Jesus are factual, and what proof do you have (outside of the bible),
that they are factual? Waiting...
Alan S.
--
-Any point of view is too small for the whole truth.
Alan Sindler
> KRISHNA vs CHRIST
>
> 1. both were heald to be god incarnate
> 3. the mother in each case was a holy virgin.
> 4. the father of each was a carpenter.
> 5. both were of royal descent.
> 6. each had the divine title of 'savior'.
> 7. both were 'without sin'.
> 8. both were crucified.
> 10. each taught of a great and final day of judgement.
> --Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read-Tim C Leedom
This quote made me curious to find out more. What I read claimed that Krishna
was born of neither a human father or mother, but just miraculously incarnated
as God.
Mr Douglas, Pstychologist
Andy <du...@freemail.com.au> wrote in article
<MPG.11a819664...@news.idx.com.au>...
> In article <7hfv61$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, lo...@execpc.com says...
> > Absolutely right. None of these, however, has a place in correct
> > Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its
truths,
> > and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
> >
> > -bh
>
> Superbly written bh.
>
> This poster doubts you will receive anything back
> of substance from Maff. He cuts n pastes URLs and not much
> else, but I will wait and see.
>
> Andy
>
So, you agree that 'Correct Christianity', based on the Bible, examines
it's truths, and doesn't 'savagely persecute' those who disagree?
Then why won't you examine it's truths as I asked you, or if you have,
relate that truth to me?
ah.. the 'correct' part, I see.. you don't qualify.
mrD
David Johnston
>
> maff91 <maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:37c2839b....@news2.newscene.com..
> > empirical evidence.
>
> science or your own experience .
>
> Prove that math is a reality and not an arrogant secretion of a gland . Can
> Math prove Math ?This is absurd !
As a matter of fact, math does prove math. By demonstrating internal
consistency mathematical statements can be proven. This is because math
has no necessary connection to fact.
> If you cannot establish your first principle why place it first ? Rather why
> even place it 2nd or 3rd ?
>
> Establish by empirical evidence that reason or intelligence are valid and
> trustworthy or that they even exist at all .
Not a problem. Just examine the results of using intelligence and see
whether they are what you want.
But first prove that valid and
> trustworthy have any true meaning in themselves.
They don't. "Trustworthy" is an interpretation that we impose
on things. It has no true meaning that we do not give it.
How will you do this except
> by Faith ?
I do not.
>
> Prove that Justice , Love , Equality ,Brotherhood , Tolerance ,Truth or
> anything you wish to exhort us to are not just fanciful ,deceptive
> secretions of a gland or organ in a man .
What do you mean by "deceptive"? Deceptive as opposed to what?
Or that they are true and valuable
Things are valuable if you place a high value on them.
> . How can matter perform an immaterial function such as the separation of
> form and matter through abstraction?
By producing thought.
>
> How can you dare to have the hypocrisy to despise the beliefs that
> established your right to express your thought freely ,
Just because he's fond of empirical evidence doesn't mean that he
despises those things.
What atheistic
> government ever did this ?
What theocratic government ever did this?
Don't you see the arrogance and absurdity in
> standing tall on the shoulders of Christendom and looking down your nose and
> calling it short ?
>
> Prove that the existence of God is false .
Proof is for mathematicians and distillers.
maff91
>In article <7hfv61$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, lo...@execpc.com says...
>> Absolutely right. None of these, however, has a place in correct
>> Christianity. Correct Christianity, based on the Bible, examines its truths,
>> and does not 'savagely persecute' those who disagree.
>>
>> -bh
>
>Superbly written bh.
>
>This poster doubts you will receive anything back
>of substance from Maff. He cuts n pastes URLs and not much
>else, but I will wait and see.
Bearer of false witness strikes again.
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&QRY=%22andy+d%22+AND+%7Ea+%28maff91%29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100>
>
>Andy
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message news:374289b2...@news.alt.net...> >HEY maff91 !
> Yet another mindless claim that a lack of a religion causes the
> various nuts throughout the centuries to impose their political system
> upon the masses.
Mindless claim or rule without exception ?
> Ah, the innuendos of the zealot. He states, "You KNOW in your heart
> I'm right and you're wrong."
Don't even pretend that you aren't taking the same stance from the
opposite side ! If you didn't believe that your view could be brought out
of another you simply wouldn't be discussing your views and taking issue
with
the views of others . Otherwise you are just a sadistic smart ass .
> I don't usually bother with the obtuse posters that attempt to argue
> Aquinas as the man has been soundly bested for ages.
By whom ? Who even approached his power of logic or intuition for the truth?
If you knew Aquinas you would realize how childish you sound saying that .
Just like a 13 year old girl saying that Backstreet Boys are better than The
Beatles
> Says who? You? Aquinas? So what. There ARE things that exist into
> infinity in both directions. Ever hear of positive and negative
> numbers? Tell me what the last positive and/or negative number is.
> This assertion requires that an infinite series of anything, is
> impossible. Simple addition and subtraction shoots it down.
Little one in understanding , infinity is an abstract concept of a rational
mind . It is not reality outside of us . It is more of negation than
anything else . Infinity means : I cannot fathom or contain , therefore
nothing can . Somewhat of an arrogant concept .Infinity only exists in a
finite mind
No matter what you say about fruit and dung you don't seem to get it that
numbers don't exist in reality but are mere concepts . If there are as we
say 3 apples does the first contain One in its essence and the next contain
2 in its essence and the last contain 3 ? Of course it doesn't ! Can you say
honestly that a number inheres in any object or in a mass ? Each number
exists only in your mind and nowhere else . Unless you are claiming Plato's
concept of The Ideas and believe that 3 exits somewhere and that minds
conform to the Idea of 3 .This is so basic its elementary .Do you think that
to say "I can count" proves that numbers exist ? Will you then accept if one
says "I can pray " that therefore prayers are heard ? Of course not that's
circumlocution .
>
> Geeze. There is AT LEAST as much disorder in nature as there is
> order. Poverty, natural disasters, freak accidents, etc. BTW, So much
> for an all loving god.
Dis-order means not in accord with order. Are you saying there is no
ultimate order ? Then what do you even mean by order or dis-order ? As with
all concepts of superlatives and perfections, if it is not a true or
ultimate
reality to which things conform or deviate what does it even mean to say it
? Are you saying that there is an ultimate reality outside of observation
and experience of phenomena that you are judging the Universe by ?
Are you saying God is not godlike and Love is not very Loving > What are you
judging these by ? Where did you get the perfection that they don't conform
to ?
> Oh really? I'm a man and I don't speak of it as a god.
A snide remark is not a refutation, if you have no response to the proof
just remain silent .
> Souls. You're talking a hierarchy of souls here. So you're basing
> this assumption on another assumption that souls exist. Hee. Where
> as the scientist sees a gradation of patterns as simply the natural
> order of nature. No god needed.
Where is a soul mentioned or even intimated ? Are you confusing what
Aristotelian Metaphysics names FORM for soul ? Again you evade response to
the proof and regress into your Materialist phobic reflex .
> Best result? Then explain the usefulness of the appendix? Or the
> awkwardness of design concerning the Panda's thumb? Just to name two.
Your ignorance or comprehension of purpose doesn't establish it in the
object you ponder or seek to understand . Do you think your eyes cause the
sun to shine ? Will the painting instruct its artist ? Can a stream rise
higher
than its source? Is the Panda un-Pandaish ? How is a Panda's thumb to be
that you find it
lacking ?
> And the argument from design has been whipped for ages. Geeze, let it
> rest.
I guess you don't keep up with current developments in science for Design is
a widely increasing belief among Astronomers and Physicists . Especially as
the bulwark of the ultimately simple building block has given way to the
observation of the mind boggling complexity of inner space and sub-atomics .
> Also leave the laws of physics and science to those that understand
> such, as with this 'fifth way' you obviously don't.
If you know even a little about science you would know that "science" is in
a constant state of flux , abandonment ,revision ,reversal and change .
Today's certainty becomes tomorrow's joke . In 100 years your nonsensical
conjectures and surmising ; professed with dogmatic certainty and
"understanding", will be satire for the scientist who is as foolish and
arrogant as yourself .
>
> Gads, don't ya see them? The contradictions? In your first couple of
> arguments (motion, cause) there are contradictions. First you state
> that everything in motion must be acted on by something else that was
> already in motion. With the conclusion that there is something that
> moves without needing to be acted on by something else that's already
> in motion. This conclusion contradict's the premise! Same boo boo in
> your cosmological section. First it states that everything must have a
> cause but then it concludes that not everything has a cause. Mind
> numbing, isn't it.
Your problem is that you are tripping again over your leg-irons of an
infinite infatuation with infinities > How is it possible to pass through an
infinite medium ? What possible meaning is it to say that something is a
part , place or position in an infinite chain ? And if things in that chain
can NOT BE , as is certain , how is there a possible gap or space in
infinity ? And what principle keeps the infinite chain apparently and
intact when its links cease to be. How does an absence or deficiency remain
a cause ?
How can One be added or One taken away from infinity ?
> Now lets get out in the open what old Aquinas was doing. He was
> attempting to define the whole enchilada. The universe. >
Absolutely not ! He does not even profess to have a summary or compendium of
all things or even presume one to exist . He humbly focuses on a select few
steps in an incomprehensibly large staircase . He doesn't profess to ascend
them or even to map them out . If I were to speak of Paris, Rome and
Jerusalem would you assume I was trying to map the terrain of all features
from here to there and all between , or go wild with your assumption and
say I professed to be a cartographer of the whole Earth itself ?
> That's why I'm an agnostic. I recognize the limits imposed on science
> by reality. I further concede that there may be a god or two out
> there. But if such a being exists, the odds of it even remotely
> related to the bumbling, hateful, jealous, incarnation that is
> judeo/xian/muslim model, is remote. Your religion is so riddled with
> errors, contradictions, inconsistences, and down right spite, that it
> would truly take a 'miracle' for it to be the representation of it's
> self proclaimed, one and only 'Truth'.
Once again where do the true and absolute Charity,Justice and self-less
giving exist outside of your observation that you judge religions by ? Your
vain evasive attempts at responding to the original points are sadly bathed
in serious errors , contradictions and inconsistencies .How valid then is
your judgment of religion , are you saying that religion is bad because it's
like you ? In case no one ever pointed it out to you you write consistenly
in a very spiteful way .
If there was a religion that lived perfectly by its principles it
would cease to be perfect the moment you or I joined it .
Private
than its source? Is the Panda too un-Pandaish for you ? How is a Panda's
like you ? If there was a religion that lived perfectly by its principles it
Private
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:374071...@telusplanet.net...
>
> Not a problem. Just examine the results of using intelligence and see
> whether they are what you want.
> on things. It has no true meaning that we do not give it.
None of my points were directed to subjective relativists as would be clear
by their method . I cant even imagine how any discussion could occur on such
a quicksand of thought .
> > . How can matter perform an immaterial function such as the separation
of
> > form and matter through abstraction?
> By producing thought.
You didn't understand that at all did you ? Why am i even asking ?
> What theocratic government ever did this?
I suppose theocratic is going to be a shifting definition ,and every example
I give will be dismissed " well that wasnt a theocratic government ". You
are using it as a normative and not definitive term , right ? Give a proper
and clear definition of "theocratic" first ,then we can proceed .
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.com> wrote in message
news:375144e5...@news.supernews.com...
> On Sun, 16 May 1999 10:29:13 -0600, Alan Sindler
> <als...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >FvsF wrote:
> >
> >> KRISHNA vs CHRIST
As is well known the Apostle Thomas (doubting Thomas ) established Churches
in India and these were unknown to the West until recent centuries when they
were discovered . It is a common charecteristic of pagan and polytheistic
religions (Hinduism being the most complex and incomprehensible) to
assimilate other religions without hesitation as any history or religions
shows .
In light of this only demonstrations of Krishna myth prior to the first
century would be of interest . Most likely there was a god or demon of
another name to whom the Thomistic Christianity was added and intertwined .
Alan Sindler
dots on their forheads... From people poking them in the head with their
finger, and saying: "Stay the fuck away from me".
(Ok, the jokes better as a visual, and it helps if you've been harassed by one
of them for money at the airport.)
:)
Alan S.
FvsF wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 May 1999 10:29:13 -0600, Alan Sindler
> <als...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >FvsF wrote:
> >
> >> KRISHNA vs CHRIST
> >>
> >> 1. both were heald to be god incarnate
> >> 2. both were incarnated and born of a woman.
> >> 3. the mother in each case was a holy virgin.
> >> 4. the father of each was a carpenter.
> >> 5. both were of royal descent.
> >> 6. each had the divine title of 'savior'.
> >> 7. both were 'without sin'.
> >> 8. both were crucified.
> >> 9. both were crucified between two theives.
> >> 10. each taught of a great and final day of judgement.
> >> --Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read-Tim C Leedom
> >
> >This quote made me curious to find out more. What I read claimed that Krishna
> >was born of neither a human father or mother, but just miraculously incarnated
> >as God.
> >Alan S.
>
> Well now ya went and got me curious here is what I found:
>
> *******Looks to me like he was 'born', Alan. So there's this stuff
> plus what you found, plus what it says above, pick your favorite
> version. That's what religionists do********************************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.unc.edu/depts/ackland/education/krishna3.html
>
> THE BIRTH OF KRISHNA (detail with Kamsa killing baby)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/7587/LifeOfKrishna.htm
>
> SRI KRISHNA WAS RAISED IN A PASTORAL setting in Gokula and nearby
> Brindaban on the banks of the Yamuna River, having been secretly
> carried there by his father Vasudeva immediately after his birth to
> Devaki in the prison in Mathura. (Miraculously, the locked doors had
> opened and the guards had fallen into a deep stupor, allowing the
> infant to be carried safely to his foster home.) His foster parents
> were a kindly cowherd Nanda and his loving wife Yasoda. As a child in
> Brindaban, Krishna amazed all with his precocious wisdom and display
> of incredible powers. His inner joy frequently erupted in prankish
> outbursts—to the amusement and delight, and sometimes consternation,
> of those at whom his fun was directed.
>
> One such incident was the cause of revealing to Yasoda the divine
> nature of the child she was mothering. The infant Krishna loved to
> snatch away and consume the cheese made by the milkmaids. Once he had
> so stuffed his cheeks that Yasoda feared he would choke, so she rushed
> to pry open his gorged mouth. But instead of cheese (popular accounts
> say it was mud he had eaten), she beheld in his open mouth the whole
> universe—the infinite body (vishvarupa) of the Creator— including her
> own image. Awestricken, she turned away from the cosmic vision, happy
> to see and clasp to her bosom once again her beloved little boy.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.umich.edu/~hindu/shrine/krishna.html
>
> Krishna is the 8th avatar of Vishnu. The mythology around Krishna is
> the most colorful and the richest in lyricism, adventure and in love
> in all its forms, from the sensuous to the worship of the divine.
>
> (Alan an avatar in hinduism is the decent to earth of a deity in human
> form)
>
> Krishna as a child was lively and mischievous. He always stole butter.
> There are many episodes of his childhood. Here is is shown uprooting
> trees outside of his hours. Krishna is portrayed as a blue color the
> same as Vishnu.
>
> Krishna is often shown with a flute. When he played his flute all the
> gopis or milk-maids fell in love with him. He is often depicted with
> the gopis all around him. It is said that he had intercourse with
> 16,000 women and fathered as many as 80,000 sons. He would tease the
> gopis and take their clothes.This is the quest for union with the
> divine.
>
> *******Whoa Alan! Now I see the attraction for this god!************
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.trancenet.org/krishna/rumors/rumors.shtml
> The divine life of Lord Krishna
>
> On rampant chauvinism:Women remained on the sidelines of the ISKCON
> utopia. Unless spoken to, they were not to look at men or talk to
> them. They had no voice whatsoever in social affairs. . . . At the
> temple, women had to cover their heads with a shawl and their legs
> with a long skirt or, preferably, wear a sari. p. 11
>
> Child Abuse: Ironically the gurukula [school] in Vrindavana, India,
> the land of Krishna's youthful pastimes, was the setting of the worst
> child abuse. . . . Tragically, there were men on the staff who never
> should have been around children. Students were slapped, kicked,
> beaten, and slugged when blindfolded, held under water faucets, locked
> in bathrooms for days without food or blankets, sodomized, and
> threatened with death. The most abusive aspect of gurukula life was
> that the teachers employed the older, more experienced boys as
> "monitors" to enforce discipline and corporal punishments. Teachers
> looked the other way when monitors abused and sodomized younger
> children. p. 76
>
> ********Now I see why I haven't seen any Hare Krishna's in years they
> must be in hiding****************************************************
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.iskcon.org/sastra/f_bg.html
>
> Chapter 7a [65 Kbyte]
> Chapter 7b [60 Kbyte]
>
> Knowledge of the Absolute
>
> Lord Krishna is the Supreme Truth, the supreme cause and sustaining
> force of everything, both material and spiritual. Advanced souls
> surrender unto Him in devotion, whereas impious souls divert their
> minds to other objects of worship.
>
> One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind,
> thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be
> more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and
> should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of
> mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly.
>
> *************except for the sex, does it sound like a typical
> organized religion to you? Does to me*******************************
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.optonline.com/comptons/ceo/02211_A.html
>
> Gods of Modern Hinduism
> Although many divinities may be worshiped, modern Hindus are generally
> divided into followers of Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti. Nearly all Hindus
> look upon one of these as an expression of the ultimate being, the one
> in charge of the destiny of the universe.
>
> Each group of followers holds the Vedas in high regard, but each also
> has its own scriptures. In the Bhagavadgita, for example, Vishnu is
> honored in his incarnation Krishna. Another incarnation, Rama, is the
> hero of the Ramayana. Vishnu is the protector and preserver of the
> world, and he is worshiped by many cults in various forms besides
> Krishna and Rama. The worship of the god is called Vaisnavism. The
> beginnings of this cult were about the 7th century BC.
>
> "God is on our side and satan is on the side of the
> United States."
> -----Saddam Hussein
maff91
>
>maff91 <maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:37c2839b....@news2.newscene.com...
>)> Proof is only used in Math. You need to support your arguments with
>> empirical evidence.
>
>You made this up yourself there is no such correlation to the reality of
>science or your own experience .
>
>Prove that math is a reality and not an arrogant secretion of a gland . Can
>Math prove Math ?This is absurd !
>If you cannot establish your first principle why place it first ? Rather why
>even place it 2nd or 3rd ?
All the goodies you enjoy are the direct result of the scientific
method. Why don't you learn about it?
http://www.scientificmethod.com/chapters.htm
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
>
>Establish by empirical evidence that reason or intelligence are valid and
>trustworthy or that they even exist at all . But first prove that valid and
>trustworthy have any true meaning in themselves. How will you do this except
>by Faith ?
Atheism is not concerned with the existence of God or not. It's simply
lack of belief in the absence of evidence. If at anytime you can
present the evidence do so.
>
>Prove that Justice , Love , Equality ,Brotherhood , Tolerance ,Truth or
They're just social constructs/ consensus. Nothing more, nothing less.
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard University Press,
1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. Harper
and Row, New York (1983).
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society''
Scientific American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/refs.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021212/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679763996/
>anything you wish to exhort us to are not just fanciful ,deceptive
>secretions of a gland or organ in a man . Or that they are true and valuable
>. How can matter perform an immaterial function such as the separation of
>form and matter through abstraction?
Who said it was an immaterial function? Ignorance is no excuse.
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457243655
>
>How can you dare to have the hypocrisy to despise the beliefs that
You're welcome to your belief. I just don't share it.
>established your right to express your thought freely , What atheistic
>government ever did this ? Don't you see the arrogance and absurdity in
>standing tall on the shoulders of Christendom and looking down your nose and
>calling it short ?
>
>Prove that the existence of God is false .
Why? I'm not the one claiming it.
>
>Prove that there is only matter or observable and comprehensible phenomena.
You don't know much about science, do you?
>
>It is clearly impossible to refute that your entire system of thought
>cannot demonstrate any of its first principles
>in its own right or by its own principles ,but one must in each instance
>take a leap of faith as Blaise Pascal spoke of so clearly .
Pascal's wager has been refuted many times.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
>
>Your concepts of science and evidence as you try to present them do not
>exist outside of your own imagination.
You can believe in Easter Bunny for all I care.
>>
>> Not good enough. We'll await for your evidence.
>
>I understand and respect that you don't attempt or pretend to refute
>Aquinas' irrefutable demonstration . For this cannot be done .
>
>The ball is in your court I freely and happily admit that I live by faith
>and that I know through faith . It's time for you to admit this to yourself
>not for my benefit but for yours, because I do not wish you to live your
>life in a self-delusion . I wish for you all of the very best and I hope
>that I can be of some small assistance if possible .
>
>God bless you always , not "my god" but God Himself
>sincerely ,
You're welcome to your delusion.
>
>Michael N.
>
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
Alan Sindler
>
> FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.com> wrote in message
> news:375144e5...@news.supernews.com...
> > <als...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >FvsF wrote:
> > >
> > >> KRISHNA vs CHRIST
>
> in India and these were unknown to the West until recent centuries when they
> were discovered . It is a common charecteristic of pagan and polytheistic
> religions (Hinduism being the most complex and incomprehensible) to
> assimilate other religions without hesitation as any history or religions
> shows .
>
> In light of this only demonstrations of Krishna myth prior to the first
> century would be of interest . Most likely there was a god or demon of
> another name to whom the Thomistic Christianity was added and intertwined .
Nice try, but stories of Krishna pre-date Jesus by centuries. The Gita's are
most older than the Gospels.
pla...@iamerica.net
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 May 1999 20:21:02 +1000, du...@freemail.com.au (Andy) wrote:
>>In article <7hfv61$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, lo...@execpc.com says...
>>> >Jesus and the early Christians were commies. You just can't get away
>>> >from it.
>>> I don't currently have the time to search all of those documents for the
>>> 'proof' you are looking for, but after reading the Gospels a few times
>>> through I don't see much evidence that Jesus was a 'commie'. You seem to use
>>> the word very loosely... it has so many bad connontations nowadays that it's
>>> hard to understand what you're talking about.
=====================
It's a fact that the 1st. Christians were communists!
People today generally identify communism
with Marxism and other varieties of socialism and
dictatorship. That this has not always been the case is
easily demonstrated by the fact that the earliest known
communist societies were not only initially successful
but had DIVINE mandate as well.
It is recorded in the Biblical book of Acts that
the original Christians practiced a very pure form of
communism. There is found the historical fact that "All
that believed were together, had all things in common,
sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all
according as each had need."(Acts 2:44-45). These
words are not taken from the hated "Communist
Manifesto" of Karl Marx, but from the holy Bible
itself.
This Christian communist society is further
described in "...nothing they possessed was their own,
but they had all things in common...for as many as
possessed lands or homes sold them and brought the
proceeds to lay at the apostles' feet: and distribution
was made unto each according to his need."(Acts 4:32-
35).
And in Acts 5:1-11, we even read about an
early form of communist totalitarianism. It involves a
"purge" in which two "bourgeois reactionaries",
Ananias and Sapphira, are "liquidated" (by the Holy
Ghost himself!), for holding back a share of the
communal property.
The fact that none of this communal living and
property sharing was an aberration is found in the
Biblical Jesus Christ's own constantly repeated
teachings to the effect that "Whosoever of you that
renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot be my
disciple."(Luke 14:33).
And so the communist ethic "from each,
according to his ability, to each according to his
needs," was contained in the heart of the early Gospel
itself. But somehow believing Christians have drifted
away from this notion.
After all, those early Christian communes failed
in spite of their promotion and backing by the Biblical
Gods themselves. And now the death knoll for
Communism finally results from it's attempted
competition with the superior Capitalist systems.
Let's hope we all aren't forced to return to
Biblical values and precedents anytime soon!
Never forget that: If you scratch a
Christian, you'll ALWAYS find a 'filthy', 'dirty', 'lying',
'perverted' Communist underneath.
M. McLeod
On Sun, 16 May 1999, FvsF wrote:
> >
> >This quote made me curious to find out more. What I read claimed that Krishna
> >was born of neither a human father or mother, but just miraculously incarnated
> >as God.
> >
> >Alan S.
>
I usually don't tell too many people but I don't remember being born.
Perhaps, I'm another God. Or a piece of one. In fact my earth mother never
once told me she was ever pregnant. I believe she was a virgin. (All
mothers are).
MM
js...@juno.com
Comments of a Peruvian Bishop at the International Congress of Charity
ROME, May 16 (ZENIT). On the 19th of June a delegation of Catholics
will present a petition for the reduction of the foreign debt of poorer
countries at the summit of the world's seven most industrialized
countries (the "G7"). The presentation will take place in the German
city of Cologne.
The announcement was made by Bishop Miguel Irízar Campos of Callao,
secretary of the Peruvian Bishops' Conference, who did so during the
International Congress of Charity, concluded today in Rome with a Mass
celebrated by Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Square. 50,000 young
people were in attendance.
The problem of international debt is reaching particularly distressing
levels. For example, according to the testimony given by Bishop Irízar,
Peru's 25 billion dollar foreign debt "generates" an additional debt of
two billion dollars in the form of interest every year. It is a reality
that "closes all doors to genuine development."
Right now, added the bishop, it seems "that attitudes are finally
changing with regard to this problem, not just among individuals, but
also among international institutions. It's an indicator that the
Pope's repeated pleading is finding a place in people's consciences."
Bishop Campos recalled the importance of the meetings promoted by the
Vatican last year between Latin America's bishops, the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund, where the problem of self-perpetuating
indebtedness was studied in depth.
"At the G7 summit that will take place in Cologne in June, a delegation
of Latin American and European bishops, along with a Vatican delegation,
will present a petition for the reduction of international debt, in the
context of the Jubilee."
During the plenary session of the Latin American Bishops' Conference
(CELAM) last week in Quito, Ecuador, Latin America's bishops announced
that they had approved a petition to the world's more industrialized
countries for the
canceling of the external debt of poorer countries. They also condemned
the economic blockade of Cuba and elected a new President, Bishop Jorge
E. Jiménez Carvajal of Zipaquirá, Colombia.
ZE99051608
js...@juno.com
Greets a Group of Refugees in St. Peter's Square
VATICAN CITY, May 16th (ZENIT). At the conclusion of the first world
encounter of volunteers, John Paul II launched a new call for peace in
Kosovo.
A group of refugees from the war-devastated region gathered in St.
Peter's Square to hear the Pope's words to them: "I am very pleased to
receive this morning a group of Kosovian refugees being cared for by
Italian Caritas."
In continuation he added, "Beloved brothers, in this month of May we are
praying for peace. May the intercession of Mary most Holy obtain it for
you and for all peoples made martyrs by war."
ZE99051610
Colin R. Day
>
> Little one in understanding , infinity is an abstract concept of a rational
> mind . It is not reality outside of us . It is more of negation than
> anything else . Infinity means : I cannot fathom or contain , therefore
> nothing can . Somewhat of an arrogant concept .Infinity only exists in a
> finite mind
>
Actually, a set is infinite if it can placed in one-to-one correspondence
with a proper subset of itself.
>
> Your problem is that you are tripping again over your leg-irons of an
> infinite infatuation with infinities > How is it possible to pass through an
> infinite medium ? What possible meaning is it to say that something is a
> part , place or position in an infinite chain ? And if things in that chain
> can NOT BE , as is certain , how is there a possible gap or space in
> infinity ? And what principle keeps the infinite chain apparently and
> intact when its links cease to be. How does an absence or deficiency remain
> a cause ?
> How can One be added or One taken away from infinity ?
>
One can delete an element from or append an element to an
infinite set. Of course, it's still an infinite set.
maff91
Private
> On Sun, 16 May 1999 10:21:29 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
> All the goodies you enjoy are the direct result of the scientific
> method. Why don't you learn about it?
I have absolutely no opposition to the scientific method ,nor do i blame the
attrocious evils produced by science on "science" but on reckless humans
who sometimes conduct it. I am just as aware as you are of the tremedous
benefits of Science and only a willfully ignorant person would deny its
value.
>
> Atheism is not concerned with the existence of God or not. It's simply
> lack of belief in the absence of evidence. If at anytime you can
> present the evidence do so.
Atheism can do nothing whatsoever , its an inanimate idea . It is atheists
that cause the trouble .
,
> They're just social constructs/ consensus. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you truly believe that then stop condemning Theists for there
non-conformity to something so meaningless as a consensus or social
construct . If at any time they had a consensus to do evil or make
oppressive constructs so be it ! Right ?
> You don't know much about science, do you?
I know a fair amount . But i'm not speaking as a Materialist as you often do
in condemning and deriding Theists.
>
> Pascal's wager has been refuted many times.
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
Refutation should only properly be applied to proofs and theories and
Pascal's Wager is neither but simply an exhortation to consider the outcome
of unbelief if God exists as opposed to Faith if He does . But this is a
digression of my alussion to Pascal for my prior reference to him has
absolutely nothing to do with his "wager "
> "A national institution , human invention, set up to terrify
> and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
> profit."
>
The above is a definition of Communism .
The Middle Ages referred to as The Age of Faith by the sober minded and the
" reign of terror" by agitated atheists and Fundamentalist Christians, was
the greatest explosion of learning and most widely diffused sytem of higher
education the world had ever seen by applying the monastic method to society
in general . All of the foundations of the modern West were laid down in
this period . Unfortunately irrational ingrates persist in spitting upon
this glorious age repeatedly . The Church and State were practically
indistinguishable and it would not be false to call it a Theocracy proper,
and all of Europe existed together as if one realm . The Rennaisance was
simply the height and crown of the Middle Ages . But since Martin Luther who
called reason " The devil's whore " spread his warped comtempt of mankind
and all of Creation like a virus through Europe everything has been downhill
. From Lutheranism ,worse than Luther himself , nationalism , bigotry , and
endless wars followed and continue to this very day .
Private
<pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:373f7638....@news.iamerica.net...
These
> words are not taken from the hated "Communist
> Manifesto" of Karl Marx, but from the holy Bible
> itself.
The great difference between these two systems is that in Christianity out
of charity one says to his brother " What is mine is thine " ; Communism on
the other hand has the State saying to all its comrades " What is thine is
mine " Any person that can't see the difference is beyond help, save Grace
.
maff91
"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
been due to its enemies."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
Christianity and Communism
maff91
>
>maff91 <maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:377d6859...@news2.newscene.com...
>> On Sun, 16 May 1999 10:21:29 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>> All the goodies you enjoy are the direct result of the scientific
>> method. Why don't you learn about it?
>
>I have absolutely no opposition to the scientific method ,nor do i blame the
>attrocious evils produced by science on "science" but on reckless humans
>who sometimes conduct it. I am just as aware as you are of the tremedous
>benefits of Science and only a willfully ignorant person would deny its
>value.
But you seem to when it doesn't suit your agenda.
>>
>> Atheism is not concerned with the existence of God or not. It's simply
>> lack of belief in the absence of evidence. If at anytime you can
>> present the evidence do so.
>
>Atheism can do nothing whatsoever , its an inanimate idea . It is atheists
>that cause the trouble .
Nope. It's organized religion which are the cause of trouble. If
they're going to declare war then we've to join the rest of the
population to stop them.
>
>,
>> They're just social constructs/ consensus. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
>If you truly believe that then stop condemning Theists for there
>non-conformity to something so meaningless as a consensus or social
>construct . If at any time they had a consensus to do evil or make
>oppressive constructs so be it ! Right ?
Only when you stop your holier than thou attitude.
>
>> You don't know much about science, do you?
>
>I know a fair amount . But i'm not speaking as a Materialist as you often do
>in condemning and deriding Theists.
See above.
>>
>> Pascal's wager has been refuted many times.
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
>
>Refutation should only properly be applied to proofs and theories and
>Pascal's Wager is neither but simply an exhortation to consider the outcome
>of unbelief if God exists as opposed to Faith if He does . But this is a
>digression of my alussion to Pascal for my prior reference to him has
>absolutely nothing to do with his "wager "
We aren't buying into your belief.
>
>
>> "A national institution , human invention, set up to terrify
>> and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
>> profit."
>>
>
>The above is a definition of Communism .
Communism is just another utopian ideology like organized religion.
>
>
>The Middle Ages referred to as The Age of Faith by the sober minded and the
>" reign of terror" by agitated atheists and Fundamentalist Christians, was
>the greatest explosion of learning and most widely diffused sytem of higher
>education the world had ever seen by applying the monastic method to society
>in general . All of the foundations of the modern West were laid down in
>this period . Unfortunately irrational ingrates persist in spitting upon
>this glorious age repeatedly . The Church and State were practically
>indistinguishable and it would not be false to call it a Theocracy proper,
>and all of Europe existed together as if one realm . The Rennaisance was
Galileo, Bruno, Vanini and countless other martyrs disagree.
>simply the height and crown of the Middle Ages . But since Martin Luther who
>called reason " The devil's whore " spread his warped comtempt of mankind
There was no difference between Martin Luther and the Popes of his
time.
>and all of Creation like a virus through Europe everything has been downhill
>. From Lutheranism ,worse than Luther himself , nationalism , bigotry , and
>endless wars followed and continue to this very day .
It was like the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. If you keep
people under a dictatorship, it's dissolution will rekindle
nationalist and ethnic divide. Roman Empire had more tolerance for
other religions than the Church during the reign of terror of the
Vicar of Christ.
Joe Golowka
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain
and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. No
whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in
motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion;
whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else
than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing
can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a
state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood,
which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes
it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in
actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different
respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot;
but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that
in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and
moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion
must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be
itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another,
and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then
there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing
that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the
first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the
hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by
no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This argument was originally made by aristotle, but he was a little more
thorough then Aquinas. Aristotle didn't claim that the first mover had to be
intelligent, powerfull, or care at all about humans. Yet, for the first mover
to be classified as a God it would have to have these characteristics. Aquinas
showed no proof whatsoever as to why the first mover must be anything even
remotely resembling a God. It's just as likely that the first mover was a
cosmic fart as it was God.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of
sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known
(neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the
efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity,
because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause
of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate
cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take
away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first
cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any
intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an
ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is
plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause,
to which everyone gives the name of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, why must the prime cause be God? You have shown no evidence to
prove this. Based upon the available evidence it seems much more likely that
the prime cause is the Big Bang rather then God.
> The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We
> find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are
> found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible
> to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for
> that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if
> everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been
> nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing
> in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by
> something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in
> existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to
> \exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd.
> Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist
> something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing
> either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to
> go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by
> another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore
> we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own
> necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others
> their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Not all men. Not all women, either. When people speek of God they speak of
some sort of intelligent, superpowerfull being. What is described above does
not need to be intelligent or superpowerfull. Thus it is not God.
> The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among
> beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But
> "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they
> resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing
> is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is
> hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best,
> something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for
> those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is
> written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in
> that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot
> things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the
> cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call
> God.
This arguement assumes that qualities such as "goodness" exist and are not
merely our perceptions of things. You (or rather, Aquinas) have not shown any
evidence whatsoever that is the case.
> The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things
> which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is
> evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as
> to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but
> designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence
> cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with
> knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
> Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are
> directed to their end; and this being we call God.
This arguement makes the assumption that non-intelligent things are acting
"designedly" and in order to "achieve an end" rather then just blindly obeying
physical laws. I see no reason why that assumption is correct.
Joe R. Golowka
Alan Sindler
>
> Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:374116FF...@earthlink.net...
> > Private wrote:
> >. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
> > wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered
> himself one.
>
> The fact that a Catholic boy became a neo-pagan occultist who hated the
> Church and imprisoned priests and killed them in death camps is hardly
> crap.This is no secret and i fear that many people get most of their
> information from agenda websites and not from mainstream media and history
> books .
Well, tell me what you make of all of this "ex-Catholic's" speaches Where,
pray tell, do you get *your* information from? Here's our boy, Hitler, in his
own words:
Alan S.
''I believe today that my conduct
is in accordance with the will of the Almighty
Creator.''pp46
''What we have to fight for...is the
freedom and independence of the fatherland,
so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
the mission assigned to it by the Creator.''pp125
''This human world of ours would
be inconceivable without the practical existence
of a religious belief.''pp152
''And the founder of Christianity made
no secret indeed of his estimation of the
Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
He drove those enemies of the human race
out of the Temple of God.''pp174
''God be praised and thanked.''pp226, 268
''Catholics and Protestants are
fighting with one another...while the enemy
of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is
laughing up his sleeve.''pp309
To hear Hitler proclaim before the
Reichstag in 1939 that "I believe today that I
am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator.
By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the
Lord's work" would convince most people of
his Christian sentiments. As would his words
to General Gerhard Engel in 1941 that "I am
now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
Knowing that Hitler continued to
receive Catholic Sacraments until shortly
before his death, and that even unto today
he has never been excommunicated from
the Roman Catholic Church, or that his book
MEIN KAMPF never appeared on the Church's
Index of Forbidden Books, that his Nazi
soldiers wore belt buckles proclaiming "God
is With Us"('GOTT MITT UND'), etc., etc,
should normally be conclusive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
be desecrated.
For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's
creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in
his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his
first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by
word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and
tries to butt into the other."
... Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so..."
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior 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 fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a 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
adders. How terrific was his fight 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 if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I
have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see
them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they
have only for their wages wretchedness and misery."
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their
queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no
Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not,
as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom
today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
- Adolf Hitler, "My New Order"
Alan Sindler
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:06 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:374116FF...@earthlink.net...
> >> Private wrote:
> >>. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
> >> wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered
> >himself one.
> >
> >
> >The fact that a Catholic boy became a neo-pagan occultist who hated the
> >Church and imprisoned priests and killed them in death camps is hardly
> >crap.This is no secret and i fear that many people get most of their
> >information from agenda websites and not from mainstream media and history
> >books .
>
> sanctioned by the Popes and Martin Luther.
>
> Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
> http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
> http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
> http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
> http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
> http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
Here's a whole lot more about Hitler:
''I believe today that my conduct
is in accordance with the will of the Almighty
Creator.''pp46
''What we have to fight for...is the
freedom and independence of the fatherland,
so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
the mission assigned to it by the Creator.''pp125
''This human world of ours would
be inconceivable without the practical existence
of a religious belief.''pp152
''And the founder of Christianity made
no secret indeed of his estimation of the
Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
He drove those enemies of the human race
out of the Temple of God.''pp174
''God be praised and thanked.''pp226, 268
''Catholics and Protestants are
fighting with one another...while the enemy
of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is
laughing up his sleeve.''pp309
That all has a familar 'ring' doesn't it!
It's easy to see where Hitler's inspiration and
religious beliefs sprang from. Most of these
words and phrases found in "MEIN KAMPF"
are lifted right out of the Bible, aren't they?
And why not! After all, wouldn't it take
too much re-writing of history to portray Adolph
Hitler as anything else but the Bible expounding
Catholic and Christian that he really was?
I mean, everyone certainly knows that
under the Hitler administration, German school
children started the day with Christian prayers.
[The NAZI version of 'voluntary school prayer'!]
- Adolf Hitler
Alan Sindler
>
> Begging yer pardon but on Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:06 -0500, "Private"
> <no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
>
> >
> >Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:374116FF...@earthlink.net...
> >> Private wrote:
> >>. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
> >> wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered
> >himself one.
> >
> >
> >The fact that a Catholic boy became a neo-pagan occultist who hated the
> >Church and imprisoned priests and killed them in death camps is hardly
> >crap.This is no secret and i fear that many people get most of their
> >information from agenda websites and not from mainstream media and history
> >books .
>
Oh, and there's much more to it:
FvsF
Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> proposed this prose:
>FvsF wrote:
>>
>> Begging yer pardon but on Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:06 -0500, "Private"
>> <no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
>>
>> >
>> >Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:374116FF...@earthlink.net...
>> >> Private wrote:
>> >>. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
>> >> wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered
>> >himself one.
>> >
>> >
>> >The fact that a Catholic boy became a neo-pagan occultist who hated the
>> >Church and imprisoned priests and killed them in death camps is hardly
>> >crap.This is no secret and i fear that many people get most of their
>> >information from agenda websites and not from mainstream media and history
>> >books .
>>
>> Point to you for accepting that heil hitler was a catholic boy.
>
>Oh, and there's much more to it:
>
>
> ''I believe today that my conduct
>is in accordance with the will of the Almighty
>Creator.''pp46
<snipper of hitler & xiansim bonding>
Weel gash nab it, you've convinced me!
All I need ta know now is how do I not pray to no god in order for no
god to not guide me.
That seems to be the gist of what theists (xian branch) believe about
non theists, which I guess isn't any LESS rational then their initial
belief in a god or two by use of that very same faith.
IMO great post, BTW.
--
"'And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways', Yossarian continued
'There's nothing mysterious about it, He's not working at all. He's
playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you
people talk about-a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless,
conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a
Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm
and tooth decay in His divine system of Creation? What in the world was
running through that warped, evil, scatalogical mind of His when He robbed
old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world
did He ever create pain?" -Joseph Heller [Catch-22]
FvsF
Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> proposed this prose:
<snipper>
>
>Here's a whole lot more about Hitler:
>
>
> ''I believe today that my conduct
>is in accordance with the will of the Almighty
>Creator.''pp46
>
> ''What we have to fight for...is the
>freedom and independence of the fatherland,
>so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
>the mission assigned to it by the Creator.''pp125
>
> ''This human world of ours would
>be inconceivable without the practical existence
>of a religious belief.''pp152
>
> ''And the founder of Christianity made
> no secret indeed of his estimation of the
>Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
>He drove those enemies of the human race
>out of the Temple of God.''pp174
>- Adolf Hitler, "My New Order"
I can tell ya what Mr Privates, RCBRAY, Dr Sinister, Lilth, js36, and
most other kiddies of the cloth, think Alan.
This stuff is LIES! Made up by christian enemies!!
Hitler could be cloned and walking the streets right now yelling the
same epitaphs of his original yet they wouldn't believe the original
idiot was the same, nor that he fervently believed in their god.
That appears to be the essence of faith. Believe whatever helps you
to sleep at night, while preparing for the eternity of the afterlife.
Private
<pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:37415b78...@news.iamerica.net...
> On Mon, 17 May 1999 21:54:40 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
> In Acts 5:1-11, we even read about an early
> Christian form of communist totalitarianism. It involves a
> "purge" in which two "bourgeois reactionaries",
> Ananias and Sapphira, are "liquidated" (by the Holy
> Ghost himself!), for holding back a share of the
> communal property.
If you read the text you cite you would see that peter said it was theirs to
keep or give as they wished but it was because they lied that they died .
And their spirits were dismissed by God himself by Peter's words alone . So
your argument is with God and not a person so go take it to him !
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message
s.net...
I think we are just regressing into hairsplitting and it's not productive to
either one of us . I find myself slipping into petty and low down snide
remarks ,which I detest because I have absolutely nothing against you as a
person . I think that you and I agree on many things but we would never
admit any of them by going on hairsplitting each others posts . I hope your
search for truth and understanding is rewarded richly . Take care .
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message
s.net...
> Begging yer pardon but on Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:06 -0500, "Private"
> <no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
>
>
I'm not afraid of facing the whole truth about anything ,if I can't be
honest then I would simply be afraid that I'm on shaky ground . Denying the
truth doesn't lead to the truth .
>
> Although I see him as someone with just another interpretation of your
> bible. And living that interpretation along the same lines of any
> woman's clinic Dr's murderer.
He ultimately rejected the Bible and the entire Judeo-Christian system of
thought which is the natural final outcome of hatred of Jews . He was
entirely consumed by Occultism, and Norse Mythology and believed that those
of Nordic descent were incarnate Deities. Woman's clinic DR? Thats double
plusgood ! That's just Orwellian newspeak for a Abortuary Eugenicist .
Changing terms and nomenclature has no effect on the thing signified in
its' substance .
>
> Give me an example of how a non-belief in NO god is a cause and effect
> paradigm. I want you to show me how NO one whispering into these
> maniacs' ears influenced them and their idea of politics.
> Admit it. What you are alluding to is that your 'devil' influences
> those that don't believe in your god, as well as those that may stray
> from what you feel is the correct 'path'> So your assertion is if the
non-religious don't have a god whispering
> what to do or not to do (or a religious 'leader'), like hitler felt
> he did, then it must be your devil that controls our thoughts?
We are free moral agents and the devil can't make anyone do anything . "The
Devil made me do it "
That's an excuse Theology . But some systems are more conducive to good and
some are more conducive to evil . I forget who said that a good society is
simply one in which it easy to be good and an evil one is simply one in
which it is easy to be evil . Thats a loose paraphrase i'm sure .
Private
> FvsF wrote:
> >
> > Begging yer pardon but on Tue, 18 May 1999 04:03:06 -0500, "Private"
> > <no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
> >
> > >
> > >Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >news:374116FF...@earthlink.net...
Christian art was replaced with Nazi paraphenelia and Swastikas and Eagles
were placed on Altars . And Christian holidays were replaced with Nazi
substitutions .Children who were born in the Arian breeding camps who didnt
have pure Arian traits were burnt on altars as sacrifices to Hitler and
racial purity . At the height of Nazi power they were conducting nothing
less than Emperor worship ,and Hitler was Divus Caesar . The fact that
Christianity wasn't immediately or completely replaced demonstrates nothing
other than an imperfect and gradual replacement .
Private
That which is prior doesnt demonstrate or negate that which is the latter .
Private
again that which is prior doesnt demonstrate or negate that which is latter.
Nazism was was a religion of Nordic incarnation of deities and Emperor
Worship . Its gradual or incomplete implementation proves nothing .
Private
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 01:44:09 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> Is that an example of bearing false witness?
No it's equivication and Rhetorical device
>So why don't you then try to amend the constitution? The majority of
your opponents are other believers.
Unlike Evangelicals I don't seek to establish my faith in the government by
codification . Whether America rises or falls has no correlation to my Faith
. Even if it were to become illegal to be a Christian and were a capital
offense doesn't scare me . Bring it on ! The Church would only become
stronger and more unified if this happened as was demonstrated by the
Church's first 300 years . The Church doesnt need the state for anything .
> How is atheism a motive for anything? It doesn't have an ideology or
> theology to justify anything.
That's nonsense because atheism almost always degrades in antitheism and
antitheist . Your persistence in posting is a perfect example of this . you
are not Atheist in its true sense of simply being without theism .
You are vehemently in opposition .
>
> You can try to re-write history. But Vatican will be forced to
> apologize for all the crimes against humanity.
Forced by whom ? nobody ever made them do anything and they never will . its
indestructible and indefatigable . Empires and republics rise and fall and
always will ,but the Church goes on to the end of time .
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message
s.net...
> BTW I like the non-apologist history of Galileo better.
>
> Hell of a lot shorter.
Yes revisionism and over-simplification are always shorter presentations . I
stand behind the Church's sole authority as interpreter and defender of
Faith . Catholics have no right to heresy . If you are going to insult your
Mother and usurp her authority it's time to leave the house and go out on
your own and stop parasitically enjoying the benefits and ingnoring all
responsibilities .
Private
.
>
> The point is that Pope had no authority to persecute Galileo or burn
> Bruno and Vanini alive. Lets face it. It was an criminal organization
> like the mafia who intimidated and murdered dissenters.
On the contrary he most certainly did hold and exercise all authority . A
criminal breaks the law . And legally the Pope had all legal authority .
Youre not proposing natural law are you ?
Alan Sindler
>
> Begging yer pardon but on Tue, 18 May 1999 14:07:53 -0600, Alan
> Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> proposed this prose:
>
> <snipper>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ''I believe today that my conduct
> >is in accordance with the will of the Almighty
> >Creator.''pp46
> >
> > ''What we have to fight for...is the
> >freedom and independence of the fatherland,
> >so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
> >the mission assigned to it by the Creator.''pp125
> >
> > ''This human world of ours would
> >be inconceivable without the practical existence
> >of a religious belief.''pp152
> >
> > ''And the founder of Christianity made
> > no secret indeed of his estimation of the
> >Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
> >He drove those enemies of the human race
> >out of the Temple of God.''pp174
>
> most other kiddies of the cloth, think Alan.
I know, I know. Sigh.
> This stuff is LIES! Made up by christian enemies!!
One person argued that he said this stuff in public to gain support, but then
secretly disavowed his Catholicism. They even have supposedly "private" quotes
by him which claim to back up this assurtion. That silly theory aside, it
would beg the question: How can someone misuse Catholicism by claiming to
follow it, to do such evil deeds, and get an entire nation to follow along,
lockstep all the way?
> Hitler could be cloned and walking the streets right now yelling the
> same epitaphs of his original yet they wouldn't believe the original
> idiot was the same, nor that he fervently believed in their god.
Many of Hitler's rants sound like the religious right's prayer breakfast meetings.
Alan S.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with
religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal
Alan Sindler
<snip>
> Christian art was replaced with Nazi paraphenelia and Swastikas and Eagles
> were placed on Altars . And Christian holidays were replaced with Nazi
> substitutions .Children who were born in the Arian breeding camps who didnt
> have pure Arian traits were burnt on altars as sacrifices to Hitler and
> racial purity . At the height of Nazi power they were conducting nothing
> less than Emperor worship ,and Hitler was Divus Caesar . The fact that
> Christianity wasn't immediately or completely replaced demonstrates nothing
> other than an imperfect and gradual replacement .
None of which negates the fact that Hitler:
1) Considered himself a Catholic to the very end, as evidenced by his speeches.
2) Used Catholicism and the bible as an excuse to persecute the Jews.
3) Led a nation of "Catholics" to follow him, while they all the while
proclaimed their allegiance to both him and Catholicism.
Alan S.
--
-Any point of view is too small for the whole truth.
Alan Sindler
I hope you're not suggesting that the pope had the *moral* authority to
persecute Galileo, or murder Bruno and Vanini?
Alan Sindler
One could claim that Hitler was a madman (which he obviously was), and that he
wasn't a *real* Christian (which he obviously was not), but it doesn't change
the fact that he used the Christian bible to motivate an entire nation of
Christians to follow him, and support his genocide of the Jews. What does that
say about how easily "Christians" can be led astray and toward hatred?
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message
s.net...
> Begging yer pardon but on Tue, 18 May 1999 00:27:25 -0500, "Private"
> <no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
>
> >No of course not ! Did you forget that we are an
uncompromising,inflexible
> >intolerant scourge upon the Earth ?
>
> Geezers what a record! You managed to contradict yourself with just
> two sentences!
>
In what way is it a contradiction ?
Private
Joe Golowka <Joe.G...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3741B155...@prodigy.net...
> This argument was originally made by aristotle, but he was a little more
> thorough then Aquinas. Aristotle didn't claim that the first mover had to
be
> intelligent, powerfull, or care at all about humans. Yet, for the first
mover
> to be classified as a God it would have to have these characteristics.
Aquinas
> showed no proof whatsoever as to why the first mover must be anything even
> remotely resembling a God. It's just as likely that the first mover was a
> cosmic fart as it was God.
Brevity and concise compendious style are stated as the intention in his
preface to the Summa Theologica
which itself is only a single and brief paragraph* . Aristotle's
demonstrations of God's nature were treated at great length in his works on
Ethics and Happiness not in Metaphysics so your objection is specious and
deceptive .You are misrepresenting aristotle's sytem of thought . To say
that a brief formula isn't exhaustive or comprehensive is ridiculous; for
the entire work demonstrates its claims and purpose . To expect an isolated
part to be the whole is absurd . Your characterization of all things
including yourself and your family as a product of flatus is a perfect
example of the devaluing of humanity and all life that atheism inevitably
leads to .
*preface is given in its entirety at the end of this post
> Once again, why must the prime cause be God? You have shown no evidence
to
> prove this. Based upon the available evidence it seems much more likely
that
> the prime cause is the Big Bang rather then God.
This demonstration of God is not intended to support or validate the
Judeo-Christian God , but is simply the concept that is arrived at by reason
alone and not Faith , Anyone familiar with Aquinas' would know that he
always clarified the distinction between Faith and Reason which was in fact
the entire substance of his work* .
*cf. Summa Contra Gentiles- volumes 1-3 Reason , volume 4 Faith alone
>
> Not all men. Not all women, either. When people speek of God they speak
of
> some sort of intelligent, superpowerfull being. What is described above
does
> not need to be intelligent or superpowerfull. Thus it is not God.
The reference to inclusive language and speech based ideologies is
irrelevant and out of place, fads ,styles and fashions carry no weight in
themselves . Again you make no distinction between the God of Faith with a
comprehensive system of dogma ,doctrine and theology ; and the God in the
sense of being a term in a demonstration . Aquinas suffered from no such
deficiency as you do . Also the argument that an isolated treatise doesn't
contain the exhaustive presentation of the whole is the argument of a child
.
>
>
> This arguement assumes that qualities such as "goodness" exist and are not
> merely our perceptions of things. You (or rather, Aquinas) have not shown
any
> evidence whatsoever that is the case.
Again consult the whole work and don't blame your house for not being the
whole world . Nominalism and Moral Relativism were held by no one at his
time ,so an expectation of him to reply in advance to every possible future
insane and suicidal reasoning is ridiculous .
> This arguement makes the assumption that non-intelligent things are acting
> "designedly" and in order to "achieve an end" rather then just blindly
obeying
> physical laws. I see no reason why that assumption is correct.
All arguments make assumptions as all sciences use assumptions called
theories , which is lost to all who make no distinction between theory and
fact . Achieve an end :Terminus , denotes no Will . Obedience denotes Will
and Laws denote Lawgiver .Your terms assume this by their nature . You
practice what you are reviling in your accusation . So state your case in
strictly Materialist terms to avoid confusion in yourself and those you seek
to admonish and instruct .
*BECAUSE THE DOCTOR of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the
proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As
unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat -- 1 Cor.
3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the
Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of
beginners*. We have considered that students in this doctrine have not
seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors,
partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and
arguments, partly also because those things that are needful for them to
know are not taught according to the order* of the subject matter, but
according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the
argument offer, partly, too, because frequent repetition* brought weariness
and confusion to the minds of readers.
Endeavouring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by God's
help, to set forth whatever is included in this sacred doctrine as briefly*
and clearly as the matter itself may allow.
( Summa Theologica preface)
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 20:04:01 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> Occams Razor. Simplest answer is usually the most accurate.
you will find no wise ass remarks from me about using dead men's reasonings
,such as a great mind like William Ockham . If it's true when you say it :
it's true when youre dead and to the end of time .
Private
> Private wrote:
> I hope you're not suggesting that the pope had the *moral* authority to
> persecute Galileo, or murder Bruno and Vanini?
No just legal . What is the meaning of Moral Authority to an atheist or
agnsotic who denies Natural Law ?
Someone tell me who Bruno and Vanini are so I can check those cases myself
,i'm not familiar with them at all .
And plese no wisecracks about someone because they don't know every detail
of the last 2,000 years .
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 19:41:09 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
> This is a religious opinion. Not a facet of any accepted mainstream>
history.
I'm sure it's not in the 10 Volume work " Why I hate Christians: a guide
for haters of Religion who want to pretend to ' just not believe' "
And you won't find it on Christian hating agenda websites but by all means
go to a library and check it out yourself .
by using "mainstream " you are trying to prepare yourself for an attack on
the evidence in advance . That's the sole purpose of Normative Claims .
"Hey , he wrote it "
"well he's not mainstream "
"what about this guy ?"
"no he isnt either "
"OK take a look at this "
"Nope ,not mainstream "
"what about this book "
"not mainstream "
"what about this BBC documentary "
"not mainstream either "
"Encyclopedia Brittanica ?"
"No the chaiman of editors is christian , can't trust it "
"well why do the majority that consider the matter say the same thing ? "
"cuz theyre wackos "
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.com> wrote in message
news:37596947...@news.supernews.com...
> On Sun, 16 May 1999 18:36:27 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
> Smart ass, definitely. Sadistic, conditionally. The diff between us
> is really itty bitty. You see I don't demand that others think like
> me. You do. I don't threaten others with ever lasting hellish torment
> if they don't believe like me. You do.
When did I make such a demand or threat ? Be reasonable and resist these
paranoid delusions and persecution complex . Don't ask me to defend your
assumptions and surmising about me .
> Oh and I'm
> 'sadistic' when dealing with egotistical ass wipes. Like you.
I am so rightly admonished by your words of deep humility and warmth.
>Get your head out of your ass and pick up ANY first year
> philosophy 101 book and the refutes will be there for you to froth at.
I'm well past intro. to Philosophy son , it is a glaring certainty that you
don't even know what the fundamentals of philosophy are much less
understanding them . You are very childish and your snide words are to fill
gaps due to your lack of cohesive and reasonable content
> Bull shit. Infinity means unbounded space time or quantity. If you
> can't understand the concept of 'infinity', trade your peanut size
> brain in for an all beef patty, special sauce, pickles, onions on a
> sesame seed bun, brain. At least it'll have more cerebrum then your
> current, sad head rattler.
I know very well what the concept of infinity is , I don't need remedial
definitions . To define is not to prove . Your culinary preferences are
perfectly age appropriate to your level of understanding .
> Or complain to the christian teachers that have obviously handicapped
> you by convincing you of your own lack of comprehension.
>
Yes ! Isaac Newton , Johannas Kepler ,Galileo , Blaise Pascal , Robert
Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, and the like have really
crippled the world haven't they ?
Just imagine how far we would have advanced if the following Bible believing
Christians had't got themselves in the way of science!
Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Bacteriology Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Calculus Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Celestial Mechanics Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Chemistry Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
Computer Science Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Dynamics Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Electromagnetics Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Electronics Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
Energetics Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
Field Theory Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Galactic Astronomy William Herschel (1738-1822)
Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Genetics Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Gynecology James Simpson (1811-1870)
Hydraulics Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Hydrography Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ichthyology Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsay (1852-1916)
Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Natural History John Ray (1627-1705)
Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866)
Oceanography Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Optical Mineralogy David Brewster (1781-1868)
Paleontology John Woodward (1665-1728)
Pathology Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
Physical Astronomy Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Reversible Thermodynamics James Joule (1818-1889)
Statistical Thermodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Stratigraphy Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
Systematic Biology Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
Thermodynamics Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Thermokinetics Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
Vertebrate Paleontology Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis,
a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift
from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
- Thomas Jefferson
>
> Your BS philosophizing isn't doing anything to prove your god. Cheer
> up, it isn't doing anything to disprove it, either.
How do you know that it's not MA philosophizing if not even doctoral?
> I have no idea if there is an ultimate order. Unlike you, I don't
> feel I know all the answers.
I know that the truly wise man admits he knows almost nothing .
> And by stating that everything must have a cause but then concluding
> that not everything has a cause and then 'proving' this by pulling the
> concept of a god out of your ass, is STILL a contradiction:
A quote from C.S Lewis came to mind when I saw this " People who don't
understand books written for adults shouldn't talk about them "
> This is a lie. The medieval mind couldn't comprehend infinity and I
> guess your mind hasn't gotten any sharper then theirs.
> No matter what last number you name I can still add '1' to it.
> Forever and ever.*
*(St. Augustine said this and Thomas Aquinas quoted him . )
You obviously know nothing of Scholastic theologians or me . Rational
abstraction is not confined by Space nor is it a material function . Only a
rational mind can apprehend what you are saying . There is no empirical
demonstration of this possible . Just ask a real Scientist and stop skimming
Agnostic websites for scraps of disjointed thought .
> As far as order and disorder goes lets get it out in the open. Lets
> talk 2nd law of thermodynamics which, eventually, is the usual red
Lets see now help me remember one law of thermodynamics is from a Christian
and one From a Jew who at least had a Deistic view of Creation ,who was the
third from ?
P.C. Davies explains one of the two profound implications of the second law:
The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were,
in its own entropy. This is known as the "heat death" of the universe. The
second is that the universe cannot have existed for ever, otherwise it would
have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the
universe did not always exist.
- Paul Davies, God and the New Physics
How does everything come out nothing ? Unless a power outside of what we now
call Universe caused it to be ?
Ex Nihlo Creation is what we call it . It is really foolish how you make so
many assumptions about me throughout your post .As if I were just a space in
a monolith . I make no presumptions of what you believe or how you act but
confine my responses to what you clearly state .
> A fart isn't a refutation either, yet that's all you're doing in my
> direction. If you don't like my snide remarks, SURPRISE! That's why
> I do's em, Mr Privates. Geeze.
So is your common pastime to dispute and admonish your flatus ? Or do you
seek to refute what you know pierces your comfy ignorance ?
>
.
>
> Aquinas arguement from gradiation is based on teh metaphysical
> concept of a heiracy of souls. In ascending order being progresses
> form inanimate objects toincreasingly complex animated creatures.
> Till we get to........ta da! The metapohysical 'soul'.
In the Aristotelian-Thomistic scheme of the four causes : efficient ,formal
,material and final , Nothing approaching or resembling a soul enters into
it . You may be confusing the Platonic Ideas with this.
Now it is true that Aquinas explains the soul as being the Formal Cause of
the body in the vegetative ,animal and rational souls . However neither he
nor Aristotle ever claimed the syllogism that you are proposing :
All souls are formal causes
Therefore all causes are souls
For what they knew well , but you cant see , is that a syllogism without a
middle minor premise is NO syllogism at all .
> Well adapted organs such as the eye can't be used to demonstrate the
> theory of human evolution since well 'intentioned' nitwits such as
> yourself can just as easily yell, 'special creation!'. The panda (a
> distant relative of the raccoon) lost it's true thumb early in its
> evolutionary history. When the environment in which it found itself
> and the bamboo leaves became a staple of its diet, there was an
> advantage to be gained by having something like a thumb to strip
> leaves from the bark. A thumb like spur evolved from the side of the
> bone in the wrist. This is awkward at best. A companionate god, such
> as you project, would have given him a more useful, opposable thumb
> like ours.
That is a stunning play-by- play you would think it must be from an eye
witness . But unproved theories establish neither the theory nor your
argument here . Sounds like you think our thumbs have been very
compassionately created. You are a true mystic my friend.
" The most remarkable thing about The Missing Link is that is missing "
G.K Chesterton
I'm sure we are all aware of the latest findings about Neanderthal , aren't
we ?
> I'm not even going to post the goofy 'watch maker' analogy. Someone
> else if they like can do so.
OK since you love infinity so much here's a new for you :
Imagine a fully equipped printing press which is a very orderly design in
itself , Now imagine trying to produce a set of Encyclopedias by exploding
the press. Now since this obviously won't occur in the first trillion , or
octillion times , so imagine a number further down the way of infinity .How
many times will it take ?
Now consider DNA which contains enough information to fill a set of
Encyclopedias being produced by a explosion of an un-designed mass .
Better yet imagine random chance without purpose producing DNA in a man who
builds a printing press that makes a set of Encyclopedias about the world
around him that he understands and subdues .
Why is the first example seemingly ridiculous and impossible but the more
complex one at the end reasonable to you ?
> And your stupid religion isn't! There is no 'flux' in religion. The
> bible was written by a bunch of your superfluous prehistoric peons,
> centuries ago.
Recorded History dates from about 3,000 BC well before the first words of
Moses were written much less the rest.
> Check your numbers, elitist. As the educated masses grow in number,
> your bloated yet diminished distortions of human dignity recedes.
The University system was established in the Theocratic realm of Christendom
in the Middle Ages . You certainly despise the hand that feeds you.
> Infinirty+1 works for me. You're amazing.
And you say that I don't understand infinity ! How does one go about adding
1 to infinity . Can it be infinity if something can be added to the end ?
Learn before you seek to instruct my friend.
> Well Mr Privates, you just shot down the one thing that had saved your
> precious Aquinas from at least a philosophical point of view. IF he
> was attempting to define the origins of the whole universe, that IS in
> the domain of philosophy, not science
I refuse to demonstrate the manifest difference between Unifying theory and
Origins that you don't seem to be able to distinguish from your original
point to your defense of it.
> And you, telling me, that I'm going to spend an eternity in your hell
> because I don't believe like you, and I'm spiteful?
Here you go again with the paranoid delusions ! I never said that to you
and I never would . That's not my decision . But if I were consulted I would
say that you seem to be following your conscience honestly , even if
ignorantly. I'm sure that "Forgive them Father for they know not what they
do" applies to you just as much as anyone else .
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.com> wrote in message
> religion, being neither pagan or polytheistic, didn't assimilate
> other religions without hesitation?
No of course not ! Did you forget that we are an uncompromising,inflexible
intolerant scourge upon the Earth ?
> Hee.
>
Private
> Private wrote:
> One could claim that Hitler was a madman (which he obviously was), and
that he
> wasn't a *real* Christian (which he obviously was not), but it doesn't
change
> the fact that he used the Christian bible to motivate an entire nation of
> Christians to follow him, and support his genocide of the Jews. What does
that
> say about how easily "Christians" can be led astray and toward hatred?
Stalin and Mao killed more of there own people then Hitler . The question is
'what does this say about human nature ?
Private
> On Mon, 17 May 1999 21:46:40 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> But you seem to when it doesn't suit your agenda.
I freely admit that i will sometimes simply question( not deny) something
that i do not necessarily deny myself as a device if it is being
mis-applied or mis-represented.
>
> Nope. It's organized religion which are the cause of trouble. If
> they're going to declare war then we've to join the rest of the
> population to stop them.
Thats the thing about any belief , the believers tend to get organized and
raise a hedge against the world or advance into the enemy territory to
enlargen that hedge . Which in this country is most evident in the
revisionism and social engineering being forced in to schools and pursued
through the courts to redifine Jefferson and Madison's intentions . This is
a clear case of a tyranny by an extreme minority, atheists are a very pushy
and active 2% .But since you mentioned war ..Atheists are certainly no
exception ,as they sought to advanced their hedge their death tolls of this
century here and now can be honestly blamed for about 70% of all war deaths
and Civil Genocide worldwide. And this centuries attrocities are equal to
that of all previous ones combined. I freely admit that many Christians have
given Christianity a bad name by doing some very evil things too . But
overall it is Saint compared to our dark ages here and now .
> Only when you stop your holier than thou attitude.
Please tell me when i said that I was any better or holier than you ? I make
no such presumption . I dont know anything about you other than what you
write here . I know i'm less holy than everyone I know so far . Thats not
false humility either i honestly belive in giving everyone the benefit of
any doubt . I'm not Omniscient .
> Communism is just another utopian ideology like organized religion.
Did you know that St Thomas More who wrote Utopia was mocking men's attempts
to create paradise on Earth . Utopia means nowhere . He was a very humorous
man . Get on the inside of that joke . Its funnier that way .
> It was like the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. If you keep
> people under a dictatorship, it's dissolution will rekindle
> nationalist and ethnic divide. Roman Empire had more tolerance for
> other religions than the Church during the reign of terror of the
> Vicar of Christ.
Every single Pope was martyred for the first 3 centuries . I think you have
a false view of ancient Rome . If Nero using Christians as human torches to
light garden parties is tolerance i guess we give the term a very different
meaning . "As long as you worship me as God I won't kill you and you can
believe what you want " is not a tolerant policy in my book . If you won't
attribute the terrors done by atheists to atheism itself why do you
attribute the evils done by Christians to Christianity ? I will gladly hold
up the entire Middle Ages as a far greater example of a good sytem compared
to this century alone . Atheists are far more efficient and effective
killers without the speedbump of conscience to slow them down . Organized
atheism is run more like a hive ,swarm or ant colony than a collection of
individuals in the image of God .
"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." - Christendom in
Dublin, 1933
"America is the only country ever founded on a creed." - What I Saw In
America, 1922
"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact
that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not
created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for
democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - Chapter 19,
What I Saw In America, 1922
Brittish author G.K Chesterton
Alan Sindler
> Every single Pope was martyred for the first 3 centuries . I think you have
> a false view of ancient Rome . If Nero using Christians as human torches to
> light garden parties is tolerance i guess we give the term a very different
> meaning . "As long as you worship me as God I won't kill you and you can
> believe what you want " is not a tolerant policy in my book . If you won't
> attribute the terrors done by atheists to atheism itself why do you
> attribute the evils done by Christians to Christianity ? I will gladly hold
> up the entire Middle Ages as a far greater example of a good sytem compared
> to this century alone . Atheists are far more efficient and effective
> killers without the speedbump of conscience to slow them down . Organized
> atheism is run more like a hive ,swarm or ant colony than a collection of
> individuals in the image of God .
Obviously the Christian's learned well from those who persecuted them, how to
persecute others, did they not?
I for one will freely admit that atheists committed terrible acts of violence.
I would argue that they don't kill any more efficiently or effectively than
the Christians, however. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered himself one.
BTW, I'm rather stunned by your statement about the middle ages being a good
system compared to this century. Is burning women at the stake, and torturing
people to convert them, your idea of a good system?
Private
> One person argued that he said this stuff in public to gain support, but
then
> secretly disavowed his Catholicism. They even have supposedly "private"
quotes
> by him which claim to back up this assurtion. That silly theory aside, it
> would beg the question: How can someone misuse Catholicism by claiming to
> follow it, to do such evil deeds, and get an entire nation to follow
along,
> lockstep all the way?
Outlawing Catholicism because it was obedient to a foreign power and placing
Swastikas and Eagles on altars in place of the Catholic sacramentals ,and
imprisoning Priests and and killing them is not really "private " quotes.
> --
> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with
> religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal
>
yes ! He was a very wise Catholic wasnt he ?He contributed a great deal to
modern science . You should read his work Pensees
Private
The Galileo thing is one of the most repeated and least understood charges
levelled against the Church.
Now when Copernicus first published On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs
he dedicated it to Pope Paul III ,there was no commotion from the Church at
all. Most of the great scientific advances in this period as well as the
times prior to it were made by clerics or by lay people receiving Church
funding and assistance from the Church particuarly from the Jesuits .When
Osiander published Copernicus' work into Protestant countries
he added a preface to the beginning stating that it was simply a theory to
prevent it's condemnation since Luther saw Geocentrism as an article of
faith basically . So far so good !
Now ten years before Galileo published his work Johannes Keppler published
his own works on heliocentrism and was condemned as a blasphemer by
Protestants . So he fled to The Jesuits who gave him protection and asylum .
The big difference with Galileo is that in his presentations he always
taught theology with his views and
made some hostile remarks about Scripture and teaching his private
interpretation which any tactful person knew was asking for trouble after
the recent Reformation . This brought him under the scrutiny of The Holy
Office (1616) who told him to stop teaching Theology and focus on
heliocentrism exclusively, but a condemnation was issued though not
published . This was shortly afterwards revoked .
Galileo was put on trial a second time because Cardinal Bellarmine had
issued and Edict since the first trial which told him to present
heliocentrism as a theory simply and not as fact (which it had not yet been
proven to be anyway) and was again warned to refrain from Theological
issues. For persisting in teaching theology and presenting heliocentrism as
fact in defiance of the edict he was charged not for being a scientist . He
also published a satire based on his ordeal and calling the Pope( his former
friend and supporter as a cardinal) a simpleton as well portraying him as
such . He had alienated all of his supporters up to this time by repeatedly
insulting anyone who disagreed with him . And he was placed under house
arrest . He was never threatened tortured or imprisoned . He was no martyr
just tactless and self-destructive .
Now this fool was not punished for science but for persisting to try to be a
Theologian . He could have avoided it all and taught Heliocentrism freely
his whole life but he couldnt stop shooting himself in the foot and
alienating people with insults ,sorta like FvsF.
Torkel Franzen
>Lessee. You're a christian, right? Christianity is a religion with a
>central tenant of conversion, right?
No, he's been evicted.
>Gotta save those heathens from
>hell, correct?
Nothing in Christianity implies that heathens will go hell.
Private
> Private wrote:
>. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
> wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered
himself one.
The fact that a Catholic boy became a neo-pagan occultist who hated the
Church and imprisoned priests and killed them in death camps is hardly
crap.This is no secret and i fear that many people get most of their
information from agenda websites and not from mainstream media and history
books .
>
> BTW, I'm rather stunned by your statement about the middle ages being a
good
> system compared to this century. Is burning women at the stake, and
torturing
> people to convert them, your idea of a good system?
Comparatively , I said . I didnt say ideal or perfect .
It is embarrassing ,tragic and shameful that anyone was ever killed because
of what they believed .
But pardon me for a little cold statistics when I look at the near
100,000,000 (50,000,000 WW II alone ) killed as a result of Hitler and
Communists this century ; and prefer several thousand killed over a period
of several hundred years and say that I by all means prefer then to now .
Don't overlook that in China and other Communists countries there are
Christians being imprisoned and killed this very day . In fact Cardinal
Kung of China is in prison right now . I cant change the past but if you
are truly so outraged by victims of conscience why dont you go help those
you can .
Private
FvsF <Fv...@FvsF.net> wrote in message news:3747ffb1...@news.alt.net...
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:22:34 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> Lessee. You're a christian, right? Christianity is a religion with a
> hell, correct?> Or what religion/denomiation do you claim allegiance to?
I am a Roman Catholic and I'm not trying to convert you , I cant send you to
heaven or save you from hell .
I suppose I just like arguing its a bit of a character flaw on my part .
> Wait a minute. Have I found yet another theist with a poor memory?
> Here's one of your past responses to a definition of infinity:
> Not only is your last sentence a paradox, but you clearly stated that
> infinity is beyond your understanding. I guess you did stop in at a
> Burger King.
It wasn't a statement of my belief or understanding but a way of expressing
how being finite necessitates an inability to apprehend all things and
therefore leads to a phrase infinity . I love a paradox!
>
> I see your still basically stuck in the 19th century.
If it weren't for those scientists listed , you and me both would still be
in the 16th century and we wouldn't even be having a discussion . Many of
today's scientist would be elementary school teachers or common laborers if
it weren't for those giants .
Unfortunately, 19th-century scientists were just as ready to jump to the
conclusion that any guess about nature was an obvious fact, as were
17th-century sectarians to jump to the conclusion that any guess about
Scripture was the obvious explanation . . . . and this clumsy collision of
two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science
and Religion.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, G.K Chesterton }
>
> And your in denial. The church has fought tooth and nail against the
> progress of science from the first day it challenged holy doctrine.
> If you don't understand that, I can see how your stymied by the
> concept, 'infinity'.
The Church was always as much a patron of science as it was of art and a
great deal of science was conducted by monks and clerics as well as them
teaching it to laity in Universities which they ran .The Church founded the
University system .And if you read history books instead of agenda tracts
you would know better.
You are absolutely backwards on that point . It's a cherished but utterly
false lie .
When such a critic says, for instance, that faith kept the world in darkness
until doubt led to enlightenment, he is himself taking things on faith,
things that he has never been sufficiently enlightened to doubt. That
exceedingly crude simplification of human history is what he has been
taught, and he believes it because he has been taught. I do not blame him
for that; I merely remark that he is an unconscious example of everything
that he reviles. 2/13/1926 ILN G.K Chesterton
I'll need some sources on those quotes do you know the works that they are
from ??
> Yet you claim to know the ultimate 'Truth'. You claim to know the
> mind of a god, to the degree as to how it wants all mankind to
> worship, live and die. I guess that make you NOT very wise by your
> own words, eh.
Are you Canadian ? To have something revealed and to assent to it by faith
is no claim to have ascended to those heights of your own power or wits .
And if you knew Christian doctrine you would know that it ,as well as the
bible professes God to only be known and understood in part . Not fully
known . The fullness of God cannot be known by us now . But I don't need to
know all of the members of our government and all of it codified laws and
procedures and history to see a stop sign and agree to obey it .
> "Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant,
> a robber baron is better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may
> sometimes sleep....But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty
> and lust of power and fear for the voice in heaven will torment us
> infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own
> conscience....
> -----C.S. Lewis, christian writer
That's a great one I've read it before
.
> Yeah. Right. Hee. Champion of a dead philosopher. With the dead
> philosophy to accompany him.
Are you saying that a system of thought perishes with the one who wrote it
or conceived it ? So what if he's dead ? So is Einstein . I don't see how
the fact that they are mortal means anything. If it's true it's true .
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our
ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to
the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking
about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of
birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of
death . . . I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and
tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea.
Orthodoxy~GK Chesterton * I'm feeling qoutatious tonight
>
> So the reason why you've been the only one I've seen post this ancient
> tripe in the last 3 years is because................., lessee, you are
> the only educated theist on the entire internet that 'understands'
> what Aquinas was about? About as plausible as your idea of a god.
> Maybe even more so.
I can't speak for others especially your private experience .
> But you hang on to old Davies there. Who knows you may even live long
> enough to accept the light bulb as fact...........Current theory has the
universe>
He is a living physicist and you are living novice . The way you attach
your self to a theory as if proof is just weird .
A proof is better than a theory but how can you say that one theory is the
end all be all bestest neato totally now cool man wow over another theory
,you understand theory isn't conclusion don't you ? And you speak of a
single theory as if it were universally held .
> I'm curious. IS english your primary language? Or is the above an
> example of your attempt at flowery 19th century prose?
Yeah comfy was a hot word in Victorian prose . When your fear arises your
insults raise like ships on a sea.
> Eye witness? You mean like all the eyewitness'es you can dig up for
> the existance of your god?
I merely pointed out how your mind doesn't distinguish at all between theory
and fact and you speak with absolute certainty about the shifting sands of
theories .I freely admit that I assent to dogmas by faith alone .
I hope there's not a theory that just because everyone remembers it ,doesnt
mean it really happened.
All of Christ's Apostles were killed rather then denying that they saw him
Resurrected and the only thing the deniers of this could come up with was
that the Roman guards fell asleep . Even though this meant a death sentence
in The Roman military . Several hundred people saw him at one time . The
greatest demonstration of the Church's divine origin is the fact of it's
2,000 continuation and increase as a singular unchanging visible
institution .Ever increasing in numbers in the Roman Empire when it was a
death sentence to join it . There is no parallel even similar in all of
history . When the paleontologists dig up your bones several centuries in
the future America will be a memory and the Roman Catholic Church will be
strong and continuing to the end of time .
pla...@iamerica.net
>The great difference between these two systems is that in Christianity out
>of charity one says to his brother " What is mine is thine " ; Communism on
>the other hand has the State saying to all its comrades " What is thine is
>mine " Any person that can't see the difference is beyond help, save Grace
====================
In Acts 5:1-11, we even read about an early
Christian form of communist totalitarianism. It involves a
"purge" in which two "bourgeois reactionaries",
Ananias and Sapphira, are "liquidated" (by the Holy
Ghost himself!), for holding back a share of the
communal property.
Do you suppose it made a large difference to
Ananias and Sapphira that the Christers'
"holy ghost' liquidated them and NOT the 'state'....?
=====================
Alan Sindler
> > One person argued that he said this stuff in public to gain support, but
> then
> > secretly disavowed his Catholicism. They even have supposedly "private"
> quotes
> > by him which claim to back up this assurtion. That silly theory aside, it
> > would beg the question: How can someone misuse Catholicism by claiming to
> > follow it, to do such evil deeds, and get an entire nation to follow
> along,
> > lockstep all the way?
>
> Outlawing Catholicism because it was obedient to a foreign power and placing
> Swastikas and Eagles on altars in place of the Catholic sacramentals ,and
> imprisoning Priests and and killing them is not really "private " quotes.
The Catholic church outlawed many things over the centuries of their bloody
history, does that mean they weren't Catholic? They persecuted Galileo for
having the gall to proclaim the earth wasn't flat. They "sold" the disposition
of people's souls by accepting money for pennace, and they burned other
Christian's at the stake for theological, as well as political, differences.
Does this mean they shouldn't be called Christians?
Alan S.
> > --
> > "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with
> > religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal
> >
>
> yes ! He was a very wise Catholic wasnt he ?He contributed a great deal to
> modern science . You should read his work Pensees
--
Alan Sindler
> > Private wrote:
> > I hope you're not suggesting that the pope had the *moral* authority to
> > persecute Galileo, or murder Bruno and Vanini?
>
> No just legal . What is the meaning of Moral Authority to an atheist or
> agnsotic who denies Natural Law ?
I'm going to answer with a quote I read elsewhere to a comment very similar to
yours. Here it is, and I think it applies:
"You have unwittingly demonstrated your own immorality, as many theists do when
they try to argue that atheists have no morals. The fact that you assume that
atheists do 'whatever they can get away with' simply because they have no
threat of eternal punishment looming overhead is nothing more than projection.
Quite obviously, you and many other theists, consider moral to mean doing
whatever it takes to avoid hell. That is not morality at all. Every time you
bring up this argument, it becomes painfully clear to everyone that religion is
actually good for something- for keeping weak-minded, immoral monsters like
yourself in line."
--
BJM #1519
So, I'll conclude with this: What he said!
Alan S.
Rgaddy
>
>FOREIGN DEBT OF POORER COUNTRIES: "SOMETHING IS CHANGING"
>Comments of a Peruvian Bishop at the International Congress of Charity
>
>ROME, May 16 (ZENIT). On the 19th of June a delegation of Catholics
>will present a petition for the reduction of the foreign debt of poorer
>countries at the summit of the world's seven most industrialized
>countries (the "G7"). The presentation will take place in the German
>city of Cologne.
>
<snip>
I do wonder how in this half century the usury rate has risen and risen and
risen.....only 50 years ago the only people that would charge interest of even
5 % were the loan sharks as it was an illegal activity.
I guess with the decline of morals and any absolutes, that the money changers
and usurers have become more free to charge whatever they will.
Your pass book earns about 5%, your credit card interest is over 18% Hummmm?
Wonder what this world would be like if we all served God and not money?
I think there will be no bankers in the new heavens and new earth!
(lawyers either)
I think God, as usual, knew what He was doing when he commanded a Jubeleee!
FvsF
<no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
>
Geezers what a record! You managed to contradict yourself with just
two sentences!
How dreadful. And quite droll.
"The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing
one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion."
-----------------Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Alan Sindler
> >
> > So are you excusing your crimes on the basis that Communists also do
> > it?
> >
>
> Not all !! Just pointing out that Communists do them more often and more
> efficiently > They have exponentially surpassed 1,900 years of Christian
> wrongdoing in one century .
Well, since Hitler, and the majority of the country that followed him, were
avowed Catholics, I'd say it's a pretty close tie.
The difference is the fact that Hitler killed in the name of his religion,
where the Communists killed for political and economic reasons.
Both equally brutal, both equality insane, except the Catholics should have
known better, don't you think?
Alan S.
FvsF
<tor...@sm.luth.se> proposed this prose:
>Fv...@FvsF.net (FvsF) writes:
>
> >Lessee. You're a christian, right? Christianity is a religion with a
> >central tenant of conversion, right?
>
> No, he's been evicted.
Evicted? From what? He believes that christ was the son of god, and
died for the sines of humanity. In my mind that makes him a xian.
So you disagree?
> >Gotta save those heathens from
> >hell, correct?
>
> Nothing in Christianity implies that heathens will go hell.
Why? Who died and made you supreme interpreter of all that is
christian?
Let me guess, your a catholic, right?
"Even though John Wycliffe died peacefully at home
in bed on New Year's Eve, the church exhumed his
body 44 years later. For the crime of translating
the latin bible into english, they burned his bones,
and scattered his ashes in a nearby river."
--Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read-Tim C
Leedom
FvsF
<no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
<snipper of apologistic drivel>
>Now this fool was not punished for science but for persisting to try to be a
>Theologian . He could have avoided it all and taught Heliocentrism freely
>his whole life but he couldnt stop shooting himself in the foot and
>alienating people with insults ,sorta like FvsF.
Compliment accepted.
BTW I like the non-apologist history of Galileo better.
Hell of a lot shorter.
FvsF
<no...@ever.com> proposed this prose:
>
>Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:374116FF...@earthlink.net...
>> Private wrote:
>>. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
>> wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered
>himself one.
>
>
>The fact that a Catholic boy became a neo-pagan occultist who hated the
>Church and imprisoned priests and killed them in death camps is hardly
>crap.This is no secret and i fear that many people get most of their
>information from agenda websites and not from mainstream media and history
>books .
Point to you for accepting that heil hitler was a catholic boy.
Although I see him as someone with just another interpretation of your
bible. And living that interpretation along the same lines of any
woman's clinic Dr's murderer.
>> BTW, I'm rather stunned by your statement about the middle ages being a
>good
>> system compared to this century. Is burning women at the stake, and
>torturing
>> people to convert them, your idea of a good system?
>
>
>Comparatively , I said . I didnt say ideal or perfect .
Hee. Just slightly off, right?
How if they just hadn't been caught..........
>It is embarrassing ,tragic and shameful that anyone was ever killed because
>of what they believed .
>But pardon me for a little cold statistics when I look at the near
>100,000,000 (50,000,000 WW II alone ) killed as a result of Hitler and
>Communists this century ; and prefer several thousand killed over a period
>of several hundred years and say that I by all means prefer then to now .
>Don't overlook that in China and other Communists countries there are
>Christians being imprisoned and killed this very day . In fact Cardinal
>Kung of China is in prison right now . I cant change the past but if you
>are truly so outraged by victims of conscience why dont you go help those
>you can .
Give me an example of how a non-belief in NO god is a cause and effect
paradigm. I want you to show me how NO one whispering into these
maniacs' ears influenced them and their idea of politics.
Admit it. What you are alluding to is that your 'devil' influences
those that don't believe in your god, as well as those that may stray
from what you feel is the correct 'path'.
So your assertion is if the non-religious don't have a god whispering
what to do or not to do (or a religious 'leader'), like hitler felt
he did, then it must be your devil that controls our thoughts?
Hm?
yang hu
> Your pass book earns about 5%, your credit card interest is over 18% Hummmm?
>
> Wonder what this world would be like if we all served God and not money?
Thanks to intertemporal mobility of capital, we have economic
devleopment.
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
"I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as
taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to
distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct
--that there is a greater mystery out there. I remember when I was
10 years old, I asked my mother, "If there's only one God, why are
there so many religions?" I've been pondering that question ever
since, and the conclusion I've come to is that all the religions
are true."
George Lucas, Time Magazine, 4/17/1999
Alan Sindler
> Creeds must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the
> universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for
> two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue
> with great mutual benefit; but, obviously, we must argue. Modern toleration
> is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I
> must not deny my opponent's faith is to say I must not discuss it . . . It
> is absurd to have a discussion on Comparative Religions if you don't compare
> them.
I concur, and it would be dishonest to pretend to agree, just to be polite.
What I would point out to you is that many theists get furious when their
beliefs are questioned, and yet very often, the person doing the questioning,
is an atheist who became an atheist, because of the hypocrisy that the
theist's intolerance implied.
Alan s.
"If Christian's want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
-Voltaire
maff91
>
>maff91 <maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:3761e33e....@news2.newscene.com...
>> On Mon, 17 May 1999 21:46:40 -0500, "Private" <no...@ever.com> wrote:
>>
>> But you seem to when it doesn't suit your agenda.
>
>I freely admit that i will sometimes simply question( not deny) something
>that i do not necessarily deny myself as a device if it is being
>mis-applied or mis-represented.
Is that an example of bearing false witness?
>
>>
>> Nope. It's organized religion which are the cause of trouble. If
>> they're going to declare war then we've to join the rest of the
>> population to stop them.
>
>Thats the thing about any belief , the believers tend to get organized and
>raise a hedge against the world or advance into the enemy territory to
>enlargen that hedge . Which in this country is most evident in the
>revisionism and social engineering being forced in to schools and pursued
>through the courts to redifine Jefferson and Madison's intentions . This is
>a clear case of a tyranny by an extreme minority, atheists are a very pushy
So why don't you then try to amend the constitution? The majority of
your opponents are other believers.
Why don't you read what the founding fathers said?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
Why don't you read about 1st amendment cases?
Http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>and active 2% .But since you mentioned war ..Atheists are certainly no
>exception ,as they sought to advanced their hedge their death tolls of this
>century here and now can be honestly blamed for about 70% of all war deaths
>and Civil Genocide worldwide. And this centuries attrocities are equal to
>that of all previous ones combined. I freely admit that many Christians have
>given Christianity a bad name by doing some very evil things too . But
>overall it is Saint compared to our dark ages here and now .
How is atheism a motive for anything? It doesn't have an ideology or
theology to justify anything.
Do you belong to the cult of bearing false witness within the Catholic
Church?
>
>> Only when you stop your holier than thou attitude.
>
>Please tell me when i said that I was any better or holier than you ? I make
>no such presumption . I dont know anything about you other than what you
>write here . I know i'm less holy than everyone I know so far . Thats not
>false humility either i honestly belive in giving everyone the benefit of
>any doubt . I'm not Omniscient .
>
>> Communism is just another utopian ideology like organized religion.
>
>Did you know that St Thomas More who wrote Utopia was mocking men's attempts
>to create paradise on Earth . Utopia means nowhere . He was a very humorous
>man . Get on the inside of that joke . Its funnier that way .
It wasn't funny for the victims of your utopian ideologies.
>
>> It was like the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. If you keep
>> people under a dictatorship, it's dissolution will rekindle
>> nationalist and ethnic divide. Roman Empire had more tolerance for
>> other religions than the Church during the reign of terror of the
>> Vicar of Christ.
>
>Every single Pope was martyred for the first 3 centuries . I think you have
>a false view of ancient Rome . If Nero using Christians as human torches to
>light garden parties is tolerance i guess we give the term a very different
>meaning . "As long as you worship me as God I won't kill you and you can
>believe what you want " is not a tolerant policy in my book . If you won't
>attribute the terrors done by atheists to atheism itself why do you
>attribute the evils done by Christians to Christianity ? I will gladly hold
>up the entire Middle Ages as a far greater example of a good sytem compared
>to this century alone . Atheists are far more efficient and effective
>killers without the speedbump of conscience to slow them down . Organized
>atheism is run more like a hive ,swarm or ant colony than a collection of
>individuals in the image of God .
Do you think that the rest of the world are morons who have no access
to information? Gutenberg Press and the Internet has made tyranny of
all utopian ideologies a losing proposition.
>
>
>"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." - Christendom in
>Dublin, 1933
>
>"America is the only country ever founded on a creed." - What I Saw In
>America, 1922
>
>"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact
>that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not
>created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for
>democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - Chapter 19,
>What I Saw In America, 1922
>
>Brittish author G.K Chesterton
You can try to re-write history. But Vatican will be forced to
apologize for all the crimes against humanity.
"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
been due to its enemies."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
Christianity and Communism
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1894-Christ/
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1882-Bauer/
http://www.fred.net/nhhs/nhhs/nhhs/compapps/workshop/communism/combeg.htm
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525
http://www.mindspring.com/~israel/NEWS2.HTML
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/>
Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
Murder of Hypatia and the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria
http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457374591
Crusades, Inquisition
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Middle_Ages/>
Black Death
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Renaissance/>
Persecution of Galileo
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Astronomers/Galilei__Galileo__1564_1642_/>
Murder of Giodarno Bruno
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/tochist.htm
Italian philosopher Lucilio Vanini tortured and burnt alive
http://www.turnpike.net/~mscott/sthom1.htm
http://www.gocreate.com/History/ra17.htm
http://www.atheism.org/library/historical/unknown/three_impostors.html
Criminal activities by various Popes
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tmanc.htm
Prelude to genocide of Native Americans and others
http://www.omen.com.au/~staffy/cook.html
http://www.sru.edu/depts/artsci/ges/lamerica/treaty.htm
http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/Whacked/IntranetCurr/SocialStudies/AmazonAdventure/tordesillas.htm
The Age of Enlightenment
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
http://tlc.ai.org/enlight.htm
Salem Witch trials
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Colonial_America/Salem_Witch_Trials/>
Witch burnings
http://www.silvermoon.net/catala/burning/times.htm
http://www.celticcrow.com/basics/burning.html
Torkel Franzen
> Evicted? From what? He believes that christ was the son of god, and
> died for the sines of humanity. In my mind that makes him a xian.
I think you meant "tenet".
> > Nothing in Christianity implies that heathens will go hell.
>
> Why?
Where do you find it stated or implied that heathens will go to
hell?
maff91
>Now this fool was not punished for science but for persisting to try to be a
>Theologian . He could have avoided it all and taught Heliocentrism freely
>his whole life but he couldnt stop shooting himself in the foot and
>alienating people with insults ,sorta like FvsF.
The point is that Pope had no authority to persecute Galileo or burn
Bruno and Vanini alive. Lets face it. It was an criminal organization
like the mafia who intimidated and murdered dissenters.
maff91
>
>Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:374116FF...@earthlink.net...
>> Private wrote:
>>. Look at Hitler. Don't give me that crap that he
>> wasn't a "real" Christian, of course he was not...but he considered
>himself one.
>
>
>The fact that a Catholic boy became a neo-pagan occultist who hated the
>Church and imprisoned priests and killed them in death camps is hardly
>crap.This is no secret and i fear that many people get most of their
>information from agenda websites and not from mainstream media and history
>books .
Anti-semitism and pogroms were part of the Christian theology
sanctioned by the Popes and Martin Luther.
Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
>
>
>>
>> BTW, I'm rather stunned by your statement about the middle ages being a
>good
>> system compared to this century. Is burning women at the stake, and
>torturing
>> people to convert them, your idea of a good system?
>
>
>Comparatively , I said . I didnt say ideal or perfect .
>
>It is embarrassing ,tragic and shameful that anyone was ever killed because
>of what they believed .
>But pardon me for a little cold statistics when I look at the near
>100,000,000 (50,000,000 WW II alone ) killed as a result of Hitler and
>Communists this century ; and prefer several thousand killed over a period
>of several hundred years and say that I by all means prefer then to now .
>Don't overlook that in China and other Communists countries there are
>Christians being imprisoned and killed this very day . In fact Cardinal
>Kung of China is in prison right now . I cant change the past but if you
>are truly so outraged by victims of conscience why dont you go help those
>you can .