| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jeremy" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2003 08:27:43 PM |
| Object: |
Evidences of God - Preface |
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
--- Jeremy
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- COSMOS or CHIMERA |
08 Oct 2003 12:29:08 PM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F81A807.582E03A3@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>Non sequitur.
"Self existence" means NO CAUSE.
As you stated, "that it exists is evident".
Suggesting that it is a "first cause" implies a beginning.
But it existence in no way implies a "beginning".
That is the precisely how God described Himself "I am who I am" or "I
am" to Moses.
===>Yes, in that story the author appears to show YHWH as a
"self-existent" being.
When Moses didn't want to do the job, and was trying to
get out of it, God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM". He said further "I
AM has sent me to you.'
If this is a true event, God is even implying 'self existence' in His
own name.
===>The AUTHOR is doing that, by having YHWH make that statement.
But in the same context he succeeds in contradicting what is written in
Genesis about YHWH appearing and introducing himself BY THAT NAME
to the patriarchs. The Exodus author has YHWH declaring that it was
not the case, that this is the first time he let himself be known by that name.
This lesds to the next question "Who created God". If yoy can believe
in a universe that is 'self existent', then I fail to see why you
would be unable to accept the possibility of a 'self existent' God in
the intellectual sense, other than the fact you have not seen Him.
===>That is the main difference. The COSMOS is visible, observable,
it can be studied, experimented with, questioned with full expectation
of getting an answer.
NONE of that is true of the "God" people talk about. It exists only
in the minds and imagination of certain people.
A humanist or atheist who argues the universe is 'self existent' is
merely substituting this physical universe as the "I am" or "It is".
===>WRONG.
There is no evidence of such a "substitution".
The Cosmos EXISTS, whether you are a theist or an atheist
or an agnostic or a Deist or whatever.
Which one is correct remains to be seen.
===>HAH?
What does that anthropomorphistic "poem" mean?
Much the same thing as the universe-morphistic original, merely
substituting a 'self existent' intelligent Creator.
===>"The universal cosmic Supremacy" is the COSMOS itself.
No "creator" is evident, intelligent or otherwise. It is simply a
CHIMERA.
People like Spinoza and Einstein realized this and simply equated
the COSMOS with "GOD", thus providing the ONLY intelligent,
acceptable definition of "GOD" whose existence even the atheist
must admit, even if he refuses to call it "GOD".
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- COSMOS or CHIMERA |
10 Oct 2003 04:57:07 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F844964.7C094611@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Bob Crowley wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F81A807.582E03A3@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>Non sequitur.
"Self existence" means NO CAUSE.
As you stated, "that it exists is evident".
Suggesting that it is a "first cause" implies a beginning.
But it existence in no way implies a "beginning".
That is the precisely how God described Himself "I am who I am" or "I
am" to Moses.
===>Yes, in that story the author appears to show YHWH as a
"self-existent" being.
When Moses didn't want to do the job, and was trying to
get out of it, God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM". He said further "I
AM has sent me to you.'
If this is a true event, God is even implying 'self existence' in His
own name.
===>The AUTHOR is doing that, by having YHWH make that statement.
But in the same context he succeeds in contradicting what is written in
Genesis about YHWH appearing and introducing himself BY THAT NAME
to the patriarchs. The Exodus author has YHWH declaring that it was
not the case, that this is the first time he let himself be known by that name.
This lesds to the next question "Who created God". If yoy can believe
in a universe that is 'self existent', then I fail to see why you
would be unable to accept the possibility of a 'self existent' God in
the intellectual sense, other than the fact you have not seen Him.
===>That is the main difference. The COSMOS is visible, observable,
it can be studied, experimented with, questioned with full expectation
of getting an answer.
NONE of that is true of the "God" people talk about. It exists only
in the minds and imagination of certain people.
A humanist or atheist who argues the universe is 'self existent' is
merely substituting this physical universe as the "I am" or "It is".
===>WRONG.
There is no evidence of such a "substitution".
The Cosmos EXISTS, whether you are a theist or an atheist
or an agnostic or a Deist or whatever.
Which one is correct remains to be seen.
===>HAH?
What does that anthropomorphistic "poem" mean?
Much the same thing as the universe-morphistic original, merely
substituting a 'self existent' intelligent Creator.
===>"The universal cosmic Supremacy" is the COSMOS itself.
No "creator" is evident, intelligent or otherwise. It is simply a
CHIMERA.
People like Spinoza and Einstein realized this and simply equated
the COSMOS with "GOD", thus providing the ONLY intelligent,
acceptable definition of "GOD" whose existence even the atheist
must admit, even if he refuses to call it "GOD".
Libertarius
============
To be honest I know nothing about Spinoza (I've heard teh name but
never been interested enough to read about him, or read his works),
but Einstein had a definite belief in a higher intelligence. There
was a quote I posted on this group some time ago, in which he claimed
the intelligence behind the universe was so great it made all
systematic human thinking inconsequential.
That doesn't mean Einstein believed in Christ, I don't think he did,
although I think I remember hearing a statement in church where
Einstein thought that if Christ was not the truth, then he didn't know
if mankind had any hope. Something like that, but without the actual
quote, I'm relying on a rather faulty memory.
As far as I am concerned this universe was made "Ex Nihilo", adds up
to nothing ("Sum Zero Energy" - look up references on the web if you
wish), and will in the end vanish to nothing.
I don't equate this Cosmos with God at all. As far as I'm concerned
it is something He has made, however He designed and created it. I
accept the Big Bank as its planned origin, unless a better theory
comes along, but I also believe an infinite intelligence is behind it.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- COSMOS or CHIMERA |
14 Oct 2003 10:55:58 PM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F844964.7C094611@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Bob Crowley wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F81A807.582E03A3@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
===>Non sequitur.
"Self existence" means NO CAUSE.
As you stated, "that it exists is evident".
Suggesting that it is a "first cause" implies a beginning.
But it existence in no way implies a "beginning".
That is the precisely how God described Himself "I am who I am" or "I
am" to Moses.
===>Yes, in that story the author appears to show YHWH as a
"self-existent" being.
When Moses didn't want to do the job, and was trying to
get out of it, God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM". He said further "I
AM has sent me to you.'
If this is a true event, God is even implying 'self existence' in His
own name.
===>The AUTHOR is doing that, by having YHWH make that statement.
But in the same context he succeeds in contradicting what is written in
Genesis about YHWH appearing and introducing himself BY THAT NAME
to the patriarchs. The Exodus author has YHWH declaring that it was
not the case, that this is the first time he let himself be known by that name.
This lesds to the next question "Who created God". If yoy can believe
in a universe that is 'self existent', then I fail to see why you
would be unable to accept the possibility of a 'self existent' God in
the intellectual sense, other than the fact you have not seen Him.
===>That is the main difference. The COSMOS is visible, observable,
it can be studied, experimented with, questioned with full expectation
of getting an answer.
NONE of that is true of the "God" people talk about. It exists only
in the minds and imagination of certain people.
A humanist or atheist who argues the universe is 'self existent' is
merely substituting this physical universe as the "I am" or "It is".
===>WRONG.
There is no evidence of such a "substitution".
The Cosmos EXISTS, whether you are a theist or an atheist
or an agnostic or a Deist or whatever.
Which one is correct remains to be seen.
===>HAH?
What does that anthropomorphistic "poem" mean?
Much the same thing as the universe-morphistic original, merely
substituting a 'self existent' intelligent Creator.
===>"The universal cosmic Supremacy" is the COSMOS itself.
No "creator" is evident, intelligent or otherwise. It is simply a
CHIMERA.
People like Spinoza and Einstein realized this and simply equated
the COSMOS with "GOD", thus providing the ONLY intelligent,
acceptable definition of "GOD" whose existence even the atheist
must admit, even if he refuses to call it "GOD".
Libertarius
============
To be honest I know nothing about Spinoza (I've heard teh name but
never been interested enough to read about him, or read his works),
but Einstein had a definite belief in a higher intelligence.
===>Looks like you know next to nothing about Einstein as well.
He said he believed in "the God of Spinoza", i.e. in NATURE and
NATURAL LAW, not some "higher intelligence".
There
was a quote I posted on this group some time ago, in which he claimed
the intelligence behind the universe was so great it made all
systematic human thinking inconsequential.
===>He never said such a thing.
That doesn't mean Einstein believed in Christ, I don't think he did,
although I think I remember hearing a statement in church where
Einstein thought that if Christ was not the truth, then he didn't know
if mankind had any hope.
===>Ridiculous. Einstein was JEWISH!
Something like that, but without the actual
quote, I'm relying on a rather faulty memory.
As far as I am concerned this universe was made "Ex Nihilo", adds up
to nothing ("Sum Zero Energy" - look up references on the web if you
wish), and will in the end vanish to nothing.
===>Your believing that does not make it so.
I don't equate this Cosmos with God at all.
===>Spinoza and Einstein did.
As far as I'm concerned
it is something He has made, however He designed and created it.
===>And where did that "He" come form?
And where did that "He" disappear?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- COSMOS or CHIMERA |
08 Oct 2003 12:04:57 PM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2003 06:57:45 -0700, (Bob Crowley)
wrote:
That is the precisely how God described Himself "I am who I am" or "I
am" to Moses. When Moses didn't want to do the job, and was trying to
get out of it, God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM". He said further "I
AM has sent me to you.'
If this is a true event,
It isn't!
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- COSMOS or CHIMERA |
10 Oct 2003 04:50:27 AM |
|
|
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<lsg8ovkqdutru643e5hrr9toe0hjnoto9o@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2003 06:57:45 -0700, (Bob Crowley)
wrote:
That is the precisely how God described Himself "I am who I am" or "I
am" to Moses. When Moses didn't want to do the job, and was trying to
get out of it, God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM". He said further "I
AM has sent me to you.'
If this is a true event,
It isn't!
I assume we have your infallible knowledge of that fact?
Bob Crowley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- COSMOS or CHIMERA |
10 Oct 2003 11:55:56 AM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2003 02:50:27 -0700, (Bob
Crowley) wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<lsg8ovkqdutru643e5hrr9toe0hjnoto9o@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2003 06:57:45 -0700, (Bob Crowley)
wrote:
That is the precisely how God described Himself "I am who I am" or "I
am" to Moses. When Moses didn't want to do the job, and was trying to
get out of it, God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM". He said further "I
AM has sent me to you.'
If this is a true event,
It isn't!
I assume we have your infallible knowledge of that fact?
The burden of proof is on you booby. You made the original statement.
Bible babble isn't proof of anything.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
04 Oct 2003 06:31:07 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2003 01:24:32 -0700, (AlEvan)
posted in alt.atheism:
Secondly, you are spinning as much as Al Klein does: What does
anyone know about anything pertaining to First Cause(s)physical or
otherwise?
We have evidence that current theory is pretty close. The CBR, for
one thing.
The question I am asking you to answer is why do you
choose one possibility over another, when there is no more evidence
for one than there is for the other.
We choose NO "possibility". The default choice to any assertion for
which there's no evidence, is "no". No Christian god, no Jewish god,
no Moslem god, no Hindu gods, etc.
So far, all postulates about the universe and creation amount to
"vacuous conjecture."
Except the big bang, for which there's a lot of evidence.
The only evidence of anything that anyone is sure of--and some
deny this, too--is that the Cosmos is here. Your statement, "...the
moment anyone
says god says , does, want's etc. they are talking nonsense" amounts
to a non-argument, because I am not repeating what "...god says..." I
am arguing that, from the physical evidence that exists, God is as
much a viable First Cause as anything else.
Nope - there's no evidence that any god has ever existed. There *IS*
evidence that the universe exists.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
04 Oct 2003 08:48:15 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2003 01:24:32 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
The only evidence of anything that anyone is sure of--and some
deny this, too--is that the Cosmos is here.
Nonsense. However, I won't argue the point as it isn't relevant to
what I said.
Your statement, "...the
moment anyone
says god says , does, want's etc. they are talking nonsense" amounts
to a non-argument, because I am not repeating what "...god says..."
Does the Bible have anything to do with God in your opinion?
I am arguing that, from the physical evidence that exists, God is as
much a viable First Cause as anything else. That is the argument to
which you ought to respond.
First cause and gods existence doesn't interest me.
The point is that nobody can say anything about gods and when they do
it leads to the horrors of the absurd religious beliefs which made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
Nobody knows a damned thing about any god and if one admits this the
only rational conclusions one can reach is that all religions are, so
to speak, are pure baloney.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlEvan" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
05 Oct 2003 04:21:09 AM |
|
|
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<drsunv4i2oprtqd15bhhnadr8fvb5nr0dq@4ax.com>...
On 4 Oct 2003 01:24:32 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
The only evidence of anything that anyone is sure of--and some
deny this, too--is that the Cosmos is here.
Nonsense. However, I won't argue the point as it isn't relevant to
what I said.
Your statement, "...the
moment anyone
says god says , does, want's etc. they are talking nonsense" amounts
to a non-argument, because I am not repeating what "...god says..."
Does the Bible have anything to do with God in your opinion?
I am arguing that, from the physical evidence that exists, God is as
much a viable First Cause as anything else. That is the argument to
which you ought to respond.
First cause and gods existence doesn't interest me.
The point is that nobody can say anything about gods and when they do
it leads to the horrors of the absurd religious beliefs which made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
Nobody knows a damned thing about any god and if one admits this the
only rational conclusions one can reach is that all religions are, so
to speak, are pure baloney.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
The point is that nobody can say anything about gods and when they do
it leads to the horrors of the absurd religious beliefs which made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
Mani,
You're worng on both counts:
First, I can conclude what God is like from His activity--Just
like I can make conclusions about humans from their activity.
second:
snippet:
... it [religion]leads to the horrors of the absurd religious beliefs
which made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
Where are religion's Gulags, and "re-education" camps, and
mass-graves, and racial superiority, and its ovens and gas chambers
and machine guns? Where are the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion? Where does the world's "miserable"
live and yearn to be free? Where are the Kulaks of religion.
[Religion]...made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
What?!!!
Religion makes life miserable for you, and the world, because it
requires things like, "Honor your father and mother-even when thy're
miserable and mean?"--Or, maybe it's because it says, "Don't murder";,
or, "No stealing...from anyone."
Oh, I think know: It says, "I am the Lord, your God, you shall
have no other gods before me." You're miserable because it tells you
that there is someone who says to you: "You can't do this because I
said so! Stop with the "But...But...But." Do what I say because I'm
God, and you're not!" That can be aggravating--sometimes to me, too.
Al Evan
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
05 Oct 2003 10:02:23 AM |
|
|
AlEvan wrote:
First, I can conclude what God is like from His
activity--Just like I can make conclusions about humans
from their activity.
Apparently you can't. The invention of gods, the religion
that goes along with that god, and the activities of that
god; are human activities.
Where are religion's Gulags, and "re-education" camps,
Every church and sunday school.
and mass-graves,
Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Dachau,
and racial superiority,
Religious superiority has killed as many as all the "race"
wars put together.
and its ovens and gas chambers and machine guns?
Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Dachau,
Where are the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion?
In every church and sunday school.
Where does the world's "miserable" live and yearn to be
free?
Everywhere.
Religion makes life miserable for you, and the world,
because it requires things like, "Honor your father and
mother-even when thy're miserable and mean?"--Or, maybe
it's because it says, "Don't murder";, or, "No
stealing...from anyone."
No, it's because it warps the mind and prevents one from
dealing with reality.
Oh, I think know: It says, "I am the Lord, your God, you
shall have no other gods before me."....
Since that god doesn't exist, I don't care what you think it
has to say.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
08 Oct 2003 12:03:25 PM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2003 02:21:09 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<drsunv4i2oprtqd15bhhnadr8fvb5nr0dq@4ax.com>...
On 4 Oct 2003 01:24:32 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Nobody knows a damned thing about any god and if one admits this the
only rational conclusions one can reach is that all religions are, so
to speak, are pure baloney.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
The point is that nobody can say anything about gods and when they do
it leads to the horrors of the absurd religious beliefs which made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
Mani,
You're worng on both counts:
First, I can conclude what God is like from His activity--
What activity?
Where are religion's Gulags, and "re-education" camps, and
mass-graves, and racial superiority, and its ovens and gas chambers
and machine guns? Where are the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion?
They supported secular religions which just like your brand is based
on dogma. They were unlike the dogmas of present western religions
which no longer have the power to kill people who question them.
However this is not the case with other places which are presently in
a state of perpetual religious wars and persecution.
Where does the world's "miserable"
live and yearn to be free? Where are the Kulaks of religion.
Try doing you home work and read the newspaper.
[Religion]...made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
What?!!!
Religion makes life miserable for you,
I live in a society where people like you can babble on but are unable
to make people who believe otherwise miserable. This isn't the case in
most of the worlds population.
and the world, because it
requires things like, "Honor your father and mother-even when thy're
miserable and mean?"--Or, maybe it's because it says, "Don't murder";,
or, "No stealing...from anyone."
Most who steal and murder claim to be against this whatever their
religious beliefs.
Oh, I think know: It says, "I am the Lord, your God, you shall
have no other gods before me."
Which is pure *****.
You're miserable
Many religion infested cranks have to imagine that those who don't
believe what they do are miserable.
because it tells you
that there is someone who says to you: "You can't do this because I
said so! Stop with the "But...But...But." Do what I say because I'm
God, and you're not!" That can be aggravating--sometimes to me, too.
Al Evan
-aggravating to you indeed. God never said a damned thing and if he
has anything to say he is free to come down and say so.
The best cure for religion is, read the Bible.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlEvan" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
09 Oct 2003 04:19:01 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<6hf8ovc9csp9vbd16r1g5i6dfdjuhiien6@4ax.com>...
On 5 Oct 2003 02:21:09 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<drsunv4i2oprtqd15bhhnadr8fvb5nr0dq@4ax.com>...
On 4 Oct 2003 01:24:32 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Nobody knows a damned thing about any god and if one admits this the
only rational conclusions one can reach is that all religions are, so
to speak, are pure baloney.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
The point is that nobody can say anything about gods and when they do
it leads to the horrors of the absurd religious beliefs which made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
Mani,
You're worng on both counts:
First, I can conclude what God is like from His activity--
What activity?
Where are religion's Gulags, and "re-education" camps, and
mass-graves, and racial superiority, and its ovens and gas chambers
and machine guns? Where are the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion?
They supported secular religions which just like your brand is based
on dogma. They were unlike the dogmas of present western religions
which no longer have the power to kill people who question them.
However this is not the case with other places which are presently in
a state of perpetual religious wars and persecution.
Where does the world's "miserable"
live and yearn to be free? Where are the Kulaks of religion.
Try doing you home work and read the newspaper.
[Religion]...made the
world a miserable place and in most cases still does.
What?!!!
Religion makes life miserable for you,
I live in a society where people like you can babble on but are unable
to make people who believe otherwise miserable. This isn't the case in
most of the worlds population.
and the world, because it
requires things like, "Honor your father and mother-even when thy're
miserable and mean?"--Or, maybe it's because it says, "Don't murder";,
or, "No stealing...from anyone."
Most who steal and murder claim to be against this whatever their
religious beliefs.
Oh, I think know: It says, "I am the Lord, your God, you shall
have no other gods before me."
Which is pure *****.
You're miserable
Many religion infested cranks have to imagine that those who don't
believe what they do are miserable.
because it tells you
that there is someone who says to you: "You can't do this because I
said so! Stop with the "But...But...But." Do what I say because I'm
God, and you're not!" That can be aggravating--sometimes to me, too.
Al Evan
-aggravating to you indeed. God never said a damned thing and if he
has anything to say he is free to come down and say so.
The best cure for religion is, read the Bible.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
**********************************************************************<
<**********************************************************************<
Mani,
snippet:
I live in a society where people like you can babble on but are unable
to make people who believe otherwise miserable. This isn't the case in
most of the worlds population.
Many religion infested cranks have to imagine that those who don't
believe what they do are miserable.
Then why do you sound so angry and miserable?
Snippet: [Where are]
the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion?
They supported secular religions which just like your brand is based
on dogma. They were unlike the dogmas of present western religions
which no longer have the power to kill people who question them.
I see, so Socialism is a religion?--but, now you're also saying the
problem is not religion: it's dogma? Is that, religion, per se?
snippet:
Oh, I think know: It says, "I am the Lord, your God, you shall
have no other gods before me."
Which is pure *****.
Please explain further: Which part is "*****?" "I am the Lord
your God", or "You shall have no other Gods before me?"
Or, is it the part that says,
snippet:
because it [religion] tells you
that there is someone who says to you: "You can't do this because I
said so! Stop with the "But...But...But." Do what I say because I'm
God, and you're not!"
Yes, Mani, I can tell that you are a Mr. Happy Face: Full of the Joy
of just being alive. And, I can tell you want to spread that joy
everywhere men gather. You are like a modern day St. Paul-a
missionary to the gentiles of religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
09 Oct 2003 11:24:45 PM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2003 14:19:01 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<6hf8ovc9csp9vbd16r1g5i6dfdjuhiien6@4ax.com>...
On 5 Oct 2003 02:21:09 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Many religion infested cranks have to imagine that those who don't
believe what they do are miserable.
Then why do you sound so angry and miserable?
Snippet: [Where are]
the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion?
They supported secular religions which just like your brand is based
on dogma. They were unlike the dogmas of present western religions
which no longer have the power to kill people who question them.
I see, so Socialism is a religion?
Ill informed remark I didn't mention socialism.
--but, now you're also saying the
problem is not religion: it's dogma? Is that, religion, per se?
Religion is the problem because it is dogma.
snippet:
Oh, I think know: It says, "I am the Lord, your God, you shall
have no other gods before me."
Which is pure *****.
Please explain further: Which part is "*****?" "I am the Lord
your God", or "You shall have no other Gods before me?"
Because there is no such animal.
snippet:
because it [religion] tells you
that there is someone who says to you: "You can't do this because I
said so! Stop with the "But...But...But." Do what I say because I'm
God, and you're not!"
Yes, Mani, I can tell that you are a Mr. Happy Face: Full of the Joy
of just being alive. And, I can tell you want to spread that joy
everywhere men gather. You are like a modern day St. Paul-a
missionary to the gentiles of religion.
I think you have a painful godon. and are marinated gospel doubltalk.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlEvan" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
10 Oct 2003 07:34:31 AM |
|
|
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<fpccovkfeaer1i5rvrcanqolnpa3t3epbk@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2003 14:19:01 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<6hf8ovc9csp9vbd16r1g5i6dfdjuhiien6@4ax.com>...
On 5 Oct 2003 02:21:09 -0700, (AlEvan)
wrote:
Many religion infested cranks have to imagine that those who don't
believe what they do are miserable.
Then why do you sound so angry and miserable?
Snippet: [Where are]
the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion?
They supported secular religions which just like your brand is based
on dogma. They were unlike the dogmas of present western religions
which no longer have the power to kill people who question them.
I see, so Socialism is a religion?
Ill informed remark I didn't mention socialism.
--but, now you're also saying the
problem is not religion: it's dogma? Is that, religion, per se?
Religion is the problem because it is dogma.
snippet:
Oh, I think know: It says, "I am the Lord, your God, you shall
have no other gods before me."
Which is pure *****.
Please explain further: Which part is "*****?" "I am the Lord
your God", or "You shall have no other Gods before me?"
Because there is no such animal.
snippet:
because it [religion] tells you
that there is someone who says to you: "You can't do this because I
said so! Stop with the "But...But...But." Do what I say because I'm
God, and you're not!"
Yes, Mani, I can tell that you are a Mr. Happy Face: Full of the Joy
of just being alive. And, I can tell you want to spread that joy
everywhere men gather. You are like a modern day St. Paul-a
missionary to the gentiles of religion.
I think you have a painful godon. and are marinated gospel doubltalk.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
*************************************************************<
Mani,
read the following snippets:
Me: [Where are] > >> >the Lenins, and Maos, and Hitlers, and
Stalins, and Pol Pots of religion?
You:> >> They supported secular religions which just like your brand
is based
on dogma. They were unlike the dogmas of present western religions
which no longer have the power to kill people who question them.
Me: > >I see, so Socialism is a religion?
You: > Ill informed remark I didn't mention socialism.
My response:
What are you, a High School sophomore? The only "Ill informed remark"
is your own. You have no concept of Economics and History--or, you
simply can't put two and two together and come up with four.
Explanation why your remark is "Ill informed":
The historic and economic principle that underlies Lenin, Stalin,
Hitler, Musselini, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, and just about every 20th
Century principled murderer--notice the word "principled": They did
not commit their crimes against humanity for non-logical
(unprincipled) reasons--They were completely logical! It is that they
were, and, in the case of those still living, are, Socialists--This is
what THEY claim.
Furthermore, They base their claim to hold, and exercise, power on
Socialism--and all the ramifications associated with it: Like,
"Religion is the opiate of the people"; Ministers and priests, and
nuns, and teachers, and parents and relations who teach anything other
than total power belonging top the state, and Liberally educated
people, and entrepeneurs and capitalists are all "enemies of the
people" who need to be eliminated so that the state can move the world
on toward its predetermined historical end.
Furthermore, again: Don't you find it interesting that they all came
up with the same methods for handling "enemies of the people?" They
imprison and torture and kill them. Furthermore, again, brother, not
a single one of them believe in any God--Christian or
otherwise--outside the state. They, and Socialism, and historical
necessity, are "God."
What I am saying is called "Direct Evidence" from facts that everyone,
who bothers to read any history of the world in the 19th and 20th
Centuries, knows to be true. Therefore, my conclusion to your
statement is not hard to understand--even if you don't believe in
God--because it follows from the historical facts known about the,
aforementioned, personalities.
Regards,
Al Evan
.
|
|
|
| User: "David K. Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
10 Oct 2003 01:11:42 PM |
|
|
(AlEvan) writes:
...
Explanation why your remark is "Ill informed":
The historic and economic principle that underlies Lenin, Stalin,
Hitler, Musselini, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, and just about every 20th
Century principled murderer...
Sorry to jump in the middle of this Al, but I wanted to point
out a couple of things and mistake you made.
Furthermore, again: Don't you find it interesting that they all came
up with the same methods for handling "enemies of the people?"
They imprison and torture and kill them.
No, I don't find that interesting, they are using the same
methods people (religious or non-religious) have used from
the dawn of time to deal with enemies. I mean you just have
to look to the Inquisition for religious imprisioning,
torture, and death. Some would include the Crusades as
well, and I'm sure a countless number of others from other
religions throughout history...
Nothing special, interesting, nor non-religious specific...
Furthermore, again, brother, not
a single one of them believe in any God--Christian or
otherwise--...
Here's my correction, there's plenty of evidence to show
that Hitler believed he was a christian and believed
in god. Here's a page of quotes from him as a starting
point, but I must admit that I recalled this from my
own readings (but not from where), but a quick google
search found this page:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
My recollection jives with these including his belief
(misguided or not) that he was fullfulling god's plan...
Don't know about the others you mention, but I suspect
that some of them believed in god(s) as well...
What I am saying is called "Direct Evidence" from facts that everyone,
who bothers to read any history of the world in the 19th and 20th
Centuries, knows to be true. Therefore, my conclusion to your
statement is not hard to understand--even if you don't believe in
God--because it follows from the historical facts known about the,
aforementioned, personalities.
What are you trying to conclude about the religious
belief's, or lack thereof, of political leaders?
Be careful, because history is rife with injustice on behalf
of god(s)...
Personally I think bad stuff is bad regardless of the motivations
of the person involved (religious or otherwise)...
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlEvan" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
14 Oct 2003 01:02:22 PM |
|
|
(David K. Lewis) wrote in message news:<bm6sou$f4d$1@srv38.cas.org>...
adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com (AlEvan) writes:
...
Explanation why your remark is "Ill informed":
The historic and economic principle that underlies Lenin, Stalin,
Hitler, Musselini, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, and just about every 20th
Century principled murderer...
Sorry to jump in the middle of this Al, but I wanted to point
out a couple of things and mistake you made.
Furthermore, again: Don't you find it interesting that they all came
up with the same methods for handling "enemies of the people?"
They imprison and torture and kill them.
No, I don't find that interesting, they are using the same
methods people (religious or non-religious) have used from
the dawn of time to deal with enemies. I mean you just have
to look to the Inquisition for religious imprisioning,
torture, and death. Some would include the Crusades as
well, and I'm sure a countless number of others from other
religions throughout history...
Nothing special, interesting, nor non-religious specific...
Furthermore, again, brother, not
a single one of them believe in any God--Christian or
otherwise--...
Here's my correction, there's plenty of evidence to show
that Hitler believed he was a christian and believed
in god. Here's a page of quotes from him as a starting
point, but I must admit that I recalled this from my
own readings (but not from where), but a quick google
search found this page:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
My recollection jives with these including his belief
(misguided or not) that he was fullfulling god's plan...
Don't know about the others you mention, but I suspect
that some of them believed in god(s) as well...
What I am saying is called "Direct Evidence" from facts that everyone,
who bothers to read any history of the world in the 19th and 20th
Centuries, knows to be true. Therefore, my conclusion to your
statement is not hard to understand--even if you don't believe in
God--because it follows from the historical facts known about the,
aforementioned, personalities.
What are you trying to conclude about the religious
belief's, or lack thereof, of political leaders?
Be careful, because history is rife with injustice on behalf
of god(s)...
Personally I think bad stuff is bad regardless of the motivations
of the person involved (religious or otherwise)...
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
*******************************************************************<
Dave,
I went to the site, and read all the quotes from "Mein Kampf", etc. I
still don't see where I made a mistake in refering to Hitler as an
non-christian.
The quotes that SJG has on his site all point to a Christ who has
never, in so as I know,l existed--except in Hitler's mind: A warrior
prince leading a warrior race, and cleansing the world. Hitler was
mad, and so is his Christ.
Furthermore, just because someone claims they are something or other,
does not make them so. Hitler is no Christian. The races he
attempted to cleanse are the very races that Christ's followers sent
apostles and deciples to convert: the Semetic, the Slavs, Africans,
etc.
Furthermore, again: The first people Hitler imprisoned were christian
clerics-in fact, Catholics.
I can tell you this, Dave: I know Catholics, and Hitler is no
Catholic. Just the opposite: He is anally parochial.
The Crusades were not a war of aggression. Just the opposite, they
were a defensive war. They attempted to wrest from the Muslims lands
which were Christian; and from which the Muslim had driven the
Christians.
On the other hand, it is true that the Crusades were diverted to
objectives, such as the Sack of Constantinople, that had nothing to do
with the persuit of the stated mission. This is facinating history,
because it indicates just how weak the Popes themselves actually were:
They could not lead armies themselves, or assign their Cardinals or
Bishops to lead, but had to depend on the political leaders of the
time; and, the way they got them to go was to promise them land.
In the scale of things of that time, the Crusaders were no more
violent than anyone else...including the Muslims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
14 Oct 2003 03:26:39 PM |
|
|
"AlEvan" <adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com> wrote in message
Dave,
I went to the site, and read all the quotes from "Mein Kampf",
etc. I still don't see where I made a mistake in refering to
Hitler as an non-christian.
The quotes that SJG has on his site all point to a Christ who
has never, in so as I know,l existed--except in Hitler's mind:
A warrior prince leading a warrior race, and cleansing the
world. Hitler was mad, and so is his Christ.
What does that prove? So Hitler's view of Christ is different
than yours. Christianity doesn't have just one view of Christ.
For years Catholics and Protestants have been accusing each other
of worshipping a false god.
Personally, I believe that Saul/Paul's Christ existed only in his
head. It was certainly not the Jesus whom the Apostles followed.
Furthermore, just because someone claims they are something
or other, does not make them so. Hitler is no Christian. The
races he attempted to cleanse are the very races that Christ's
followers sent apostles and deciples to convert: the Semetic,
the Slavs, Africans, etc.
Christians have hated Jews, Slavs and Africans for hundreds of
years. Jews are still hated. Polish jokes didn't die out until
we we got a Polish Pope. Christians used Africans as slaves.
Furthermore, again: The first people Hitler imprisoned were
christian clerics-in fact, Catholics.
And the Vatican was the first state to sign a treaty with Hitler.
Look up the the 1933 Concordat. The main effect of that was to
let Hitler do what he want with the Jews as long as he left the
Catholic clergy alone.
I can tell you this, Dave: I know Catholics, and Hitler is no
Catholic. Just the opposite: He is anally parochial.
Many Christians anally parochial.
The Crusades were not a war of aggression. Just the opposite,
they were a defensive war. They attempted to wrest from the
Muslims lands which were Christian; and from which the
Muslim had driven the Christians.
The major object of the Crusades was the "Holy Land." That is
Palastine. Christians were always a minority there. Islam did
not drive the Christians out. "People of the Book", i.e. Jews
and Christians, were never forced to convert and were allowed to
remain in the land.
On the other hand, it is true that the Crusades were diverted
to objectives, such as the Sack of Constantinople, that had
nothing to do with the persuit of the stated mission. This is
facinating history, because it indicates just how weak the
Popes themselves actually were: They could not lead armies
themselves, or assign their Cardinals or Bishops to lead, but
had to depend on the political leaders of the time; and, the
way they got them to go was to promise them land.
Christian leaders have always tried to use governments to do
their dirty work.
In the scale of things of that time, the Crusaders were no more
violent than anyone else...including the Muslims.
The belief was that if you kill a Moslem, you will go to heaven.
Unfortunately, many of the Jews and Christians who lived in the
Holy Land looked just like Moslems.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlEvan" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
15 Oct 2003 06:36:58 AM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<3_Yib.178446$0v4.13719074@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"AlEvan" <adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com> wrote in message
Dave,
I went to the site, and read all the quotes from "Mein Kampf",
etc. I still don't see where I made a mistake in refering to
Hitler as an non-christian.
The quotes that SJG has on his site all point to a Christ who
has never, in so as I know,l existed--except in Hitler's mind:
A warrior prince leading a warrior race, and cleansing the
world. Hitler was mad, and so is his Christ.
What does that prove? So Hitler's view of Christ is different
than yours. Christianity doesn't have just one view of Christ.
For years Catholics and Protestants have been accusing each other
of worshipping a false god.
Personally, I believe that Saul/Paul's Christ existed only in his
head. It was certainly not the Jesus whom the Apostles followed.
Furthermore, just because someone claims they are something
or other, does not make them so. Hitler is no Christian. The
races he attempted to cleanse are the very races that Christ's
followers sent apostles and deciples to convert: the Semetic,
the Slavs, Africans, etc.
Christians have hated Jews, Slavs and Africans for hundreds of
years. Jews are still hated. Polish jokes didn't die out until
we we got a Polish Pope. Christians used Africans as slaves.
Furthermore, again: The first people Hitler imprisoned were
christian clerics-in fact, Catholics.
And the Vatican was the first state to sign a treaty with Hitler.
Look up the the 1933 Concordat. The main effect of that was to
let Hitler do what he want with the Jews as long as he left the
Catholic clergy alone.
I can tell you this, Dave: I know Catholics, and Hitler is no
Catholic. Just the opposite: He is anally parochial.
Many Christians anally parochial.
The Crusades were not a war of aggression. Just the opposite,
they were a defensive war. They attempted to wrest from the
Muslims lands which were Christian; and from which the
Muslim had driven the Christians.
The major object of the Crusades was the "Holy Land." That is
Palastine. Christians were always a minority there. Islam did
not drive the Christians out. "People of the Book", i.e. Jews
and Christians, were never forced to convert and were allowed to
remain in the land.
On the other hand, it is true that the Crusades were diverted
to objectives, such as the Sack of Constantinople, that had
nothing to do with the persuit of the stated mission. This is
facinating history, because it indicates just how weak the
Popes themselves actually were: They could not lead armies
themselves, or assign their Cardinals or Bishops to lead, but
had to depend on the political leaders of the time; and, the
way they got them to go was to promise them land.
Christian leaders have always tried to use governments to do
their dirty work.
In the scale of things of that time, the Crusaders were no more
violent than anyone else...including the Muslims.
The belief was that if you kill a Moslem, you will go to heaven.
Unfortunately, many of the Jews and Christians who lived in the
Holy Land looked just like Moslems.
**************************************************************<
Dave,
Sorry about using you name in Vain. I meant "Weatherwax", although
how I mixed the two of you up I find hard to understand.
Please excuse me.
Al Evan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlEvan" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
15 Oct 2003 06:35:02 AM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<3_Yib.178446$0v4.13719074@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"AlEvan" <adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com> wrote in message
Dave,
I went to the site, and read all the quotes from "Mein Kampf",
etc. I still don't see where I made a mistake in refering to
Hitler as an non-christian.
The quotes that SJG has on his site all point to a Christ who
has never, in so as I know,l existed--except in Hitler's mind:
A warrior prince leading a warrior race, and cleansing the
world. Hitler was mad, and so is his Christ.
What does that prove? So Hitler's view of Christ is different
than yours. Christianity doesn't have just one view of Christ.
For years Catholics and Protestants have been accusing each other
of worshipping a false god.
Personally, I believe that Saul/Paul's Christ existed only in his
head. It was certainly not the Jesus whom the Apostles followed.
Furthermore, just because someone claims they are something
or other, does not make them so. Hitler is no Christian. The
races he attempted to cleanse are the very races that Christ's
followers sent apostles and deciples to convert: the Semetic,
the Slavs, Africans, etc.
Christians have hated Jews, Slavs and Africans for hundreds of
years. Jews are still hated. Polish jokes didn't die out until
we we got a Polish Pope. Christians used Africans as slaves.
Furthermore, again: The first people Hitler imprisoned were
christian clerics-in fact, Catholics.
And the Vatican was the first state to sign a treaty with Hitler.
Look up the the 1933 Concordat. The main effect of that was to
let Hitler do what he want with the Jews as long as he left the
Catholic clergy alone.
I can tell you this, Dave: I know Catholics, and Hitler is no
Catholic. Just the opposite: He is anally parochial.
Many Christians anally parochial.
The Crusades were not a war of aggression. Just the opposite,
they were a defensive war. They attempted to wrest from the
Muslims lands which were Christian; and from which the
Muslim had driven the Christians.
The major object of the Crusades was the "Holy Land." That is
Palastine. Christians were always a minority there. Islam did
not drive the Christians out. "People of the Book", i.e. Jews
and Christians, were never forced to convert and were allowed to
remain in the land.
On the other hand, it is true that the Crusades were diverted
to objectives, such as the Sack of Constantinople, that had
nothing to do with the persuit of the stated mission. This is
facinating history, because it indicates just how weak the
Popes themselves actually were: They could not lead armies
themselves, or assign their Cardinals or Bishops to lead, but
had to depend on the political leaders of the time; and, the
way they got them to go was to promise them land.
Christian leaders have always tried to use governments to do
their dirty work.
In the scale of things of that time, the Crusaders were no more
violent than anyone else...including the Muslims.
The belief was that if you kill a Moslem, you will go to heaven.
Unfortunately, many of the Jews and Christians who lived in the
Holy Land looked just like Moslems.
******************************************************************<
Dave,
Protestants and Catholics don't have a different view of who Christ
is- They differ in their mode of expression of their faith. The
point is, that both Catholics and Protestants believe that He is God,
born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died and resurrected on the
third day.
We all believe that His death and Ressurection freed All men (Generic)
from the weight of the law and sin. But, of course, there are
differences that, in the past, led to much pain and suffering.
However, we hope and pray that, in the future, those differences will
be overcome and we will be united in our belief in the Triune God.
What's your point in saying that the Vatican was the first to sign a
peace treaty with Hitler to attempt to protect its members? I thought
your argument is that, "Hitler was a Catholic." My argument is that
he was not! If he was, then why did the Catholic Church leaders feel
the need to sign a treaty protecting Catholics under his control from
comming to harm--just because they were Catholics?? Your argument is
not sensitive to the facts.
The fact that Christian's used Africans as slaves proves what?
Muslims used, and still use, Africans as slaves. Pagan Romans, and
probably some early Christians, used Slavs and Germans and Africans
and Levantines--and who knows who else--as slaves. The ancient Greeks
held slaves, as did the Russians and Chinese. Native Americans
(before, and after Columbus) held slaves. In fact, there may have
been peoples who did not hold slaves, but there were not many.
The important historical fact is that Christians, and Europeans, and
Americans, Russians, and most of the world no longer hold anyone as a
slave. The only slave nations that I know of at this time are Muslim.
And, the overwhelming number of Muslim nations condemn the practice,
so that those who still practice it do so in some secrecy--to prevent
outright condemnation by their fellow muslims.
Catholics hate Slavs? That's just too blind to warrent a response.
Peace,
Al Evan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
15 Oct 2003 08:22:39 PM |
|
|
"AlEvan" <adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com> wrote in message
news:c3317e8d.0310150335.6a1768e9@posting.google.com...
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:<3_Yib.178446$0v4.13719074@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
t>...
"AlEvan" <adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com> wrote in message
Dave,
I went to the site, and read all the quotes from "Mein
Kampf",
etc. I still don't see where I made a mistake in refering
to
Hitler as an non-christian.
The quotes that SJG has on his site all point to a Christ
who
has never, in so as I know,l existed--except in Hitler's
mind:
A warrior prince leading a warrior race, and cleansing the
world. Hitler was mad, and so is his Christ.
What does that prove? So Hitler's view of Christ is
different
than yours. Christianity doesn't have just one view of
Christ.
For years Catholics and Protestants have been accusing each
other
of worshipping a false god.
Personally, I believe that Saul/Paul's Christ existed only in
his
head. It was certainly not the Jesus whom the Apostles
followed.
Furthermore, just because someone claims they are something
or other, does not make them so. Hitler is no Christian.
The
races he attempted to cleanse are the very races that
Christ's
followers sent apostles and deciples to convert: the
Semetic,
the Slavs, Africans, etc.
Christians have hated Jews, Slavs and Africans for hundreds
of
years. Jews are still hated. Polish jokes didn't die out
until
we we got a Polish Pope. Christians used Africans as slaves.
Furthermore, again: The first people Hitler imprisoned
were
christian clerics-in fact, Catholics.
And the Vatican was the first state to sign a treaty with
Hitler.
Look up the the 1933 Concordat. The main effect of that was
to
let Hitler do what he want with the Jews as long as he left
the
Catholic clergy alone.
I can tell you this, Dave: I know Catholics, and Hitler is
no
Catholic. Just the opposite: He is anally parochial.
Many Christians anally parochial.
The Crusades were not a war of aggression. Just the
opposite,
they were a defensive war. They attempted to wrest from
the
Muslims lands which were Christian; and from which the
Muslim had driven the Christians.
The major object of the Crusades was the "Holy Land." That
is
Palastine. Christians were always a minority there. Islam
did
not drive the Christians out. "People of the Book", i.e.
Jews
and Christians, were never forced to convert and were allowed
to
remain in the land.
On the other hand, it is true that the Crusades were
diverted
to objectives, such as the Sack of Constantinople, that had
nothing to do with the persuit of the stated mission. This
is
facinating history, because it indicates just how weak the
Popes themselves actually were: They could not lead
armies
themselves, or assign their Cardinals or Bishops to lead,
but
had to depend on the political leaders of the time; and,
the
way they got them to go was to promise them land.
Christian leaders have always tried to use governments to do
their dirty work.
In the scale of things of that time, the Crusaders were no
more
violent than anyone else...including the Muslims.
The belief was that if you kill a Moslem, you will go to
heaven.
Unfortunately, many of the Jews and Christians who lived in
the
Holy Land looked just like Moslems.
****************************************************************
**<
Dave,
Protestants and Catholics don't have a different view of who
Christ is- They differ in their mode of expression of their
faith. The point is, that both Catholics and Protestants
believe that He is God, born of the Virgin Mary, was
crucified, died and resurrected on the third day.
We all believe that His death and Ressurection freed All
men (Generic) from the weight of the law and sin. But, of
course, there are differences that, in the past, led to much
pain and suffering. However, we hope and pray that, in the
future, those differences will be overcome and we will be
united in our belief in the Triune God.
You are closing your eyes to facts. You know that most
Protestants do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. That has
been a major point of conflict for years. You also know that
Protestants do not deify Mary, the mother of Jesus. The doctrine
of Imaculate conception is Catholic, not Protestant. The
Protestant emphasis on the Bible is also a major separation
between the two. And it is a fact that Catholics and Protestants
have accused each other of worshipping false gods.
What's your point in saying that the Vatican was the first
to sign a peace treaty with Hitler to attempt to protect its
members? I thought your argument is that, "Hitler was a
Catholic." My argument is that he was not! If he was, then
why did the Catholic Church leaders feel the need to sign
a treaty protecting Catholics under his control from
comming to harm--just because they were Catholics??
Your argument is not sensitive to the facts.
By signing the Concordat, the Catholic Church gave Hitler
legitimacy. They were in effect recognizing Hitler's moral right
to rule. This was done dispite the fact that Hitler's attitude
towards Jews was well known from his book and from his many
speeches. If the Catholic church was worried about its own
clergy, why wasn't it also worried about the Jews?
Hitler was baptized Roman Catholic. There is no known occasion
of Hitler renouncing his Roman Catholicism, and the Catholic
church has never excommunicated him. Looks like he is still a
Catholic. Both Catholics and Protestants followed him, partly
because he was able to suppor much of what he said about Jews
from the Bible.
The fact that Christian's used Africans as slaves proves
what?
Muslims used, and still use, Africans as slaves. Pagan Romans,
and probably some early Christians, used Slavs and Germans
and Africans and Levantines--and who knows who else--as
slaves. The ancient Greeks held slaves, as did the Russians
and Chinese. Native Americans (before, and after Columbus)
held slaves. In fact, there may have been peoples who did not
hold slaves, but there were not many.
The important historical fact is that Christians, and
Europeans, and Americans, Russians, and most of the world
no longer hold anyone as a slave. The only slave nations that
I know of at this time are Muslim. And, the overwhelming
number of Muslim nations condemn the practice, so that
those who still practice it do so in some secrecy--to prevent
outright condemnation by their fellow muslims.
Christians claim that the Bible is the basis for morality. You
have just proven that Christian morality is no better than any
other morality. Including Hitler's.
Catholics hate Slavs? That's just too blind to warrent a
response.
I said, "Christians have hated Jews, Slavs and Africans for
hundreds of years." Hitler did not have to invent the hate. He
merely used it. Although the Slavs were Christians, there was a
sharp line between the Western churches and Slavonic churches
which are a part of the Greek Orthodox tradition.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
15 Oct 2003 09:03:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:22:39 +0000, Weatherwax wrote:
You are closing your eyes to facts. You know that most
Protestants do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. That has
been a major point of conflict for years. You also know that
Protestants do not deify Mary, the mother of Jesus. The doctrine
of Imaculate conception is Catholic, not Protestant. The
Protestant emphasis on the Bible is also a major separation
between the two. And it is a fact that Catholics and Protestants
have accused each other of worshipping false gods.
As a former Roman Catholic and now a Protestant, I offer the following.
Most Protestants _do_ accept the doctrine of the Trinity. This was _not_
one of the disputed points of the Reformation.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8029_1.html
Catholics do not deify Mary. Admitedly, many Protestants argue this,
but in Catholic belief, Mary is honored for her role in Salvation by being
God's vessel for the Incarnation of Jesus.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Customs/rosary/mary_worship.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
16 Oct 2003 02:57:41 AM |
|
|
"Ron B." <zypher@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.16.02.03.15.844070@spamcop.net...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:22:39 +0000, Weatherwax wrote:
You are closing your eyes to facts. You know that most
Protestants do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. That
has
been a major point of conflict for years. You also know that
Protestants do not deify Mary, the mother of Jesus. The
doctrine of Imaculate conception is Catholic, not
Protestant. The Protestant emphasis on the Bible is also
a major separation between the two. And it is a fact that
Catholics and Protestants have accused each other of
worshipping false gods.
As a former Roman Catholic and now a Protestant, I offer
the following.
Most Protestants _do_ accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
This was _not_ one of the disputed points of the Reformation.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8029_1.html
Catholics do not deify Mary. Admitedly, many Protestants
argue this, but in Catholic belief, Mary is honored for her
role
in Salvation by being God's vessel for the Incarnation of
Jesus.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Customs/rosary/mary_wors
hip.asp
I may have been wrong when I said that most Protestants do not
accept the doctrine of the Trinity, but I do know that it has
been a major point of conflict with many denominations for years.
The Roman Catholic Church has elevated Mary as the Mother of God,
creating dogmas about her conception and other attributes.. She
is prayed to and is assumed to be able to answer those prayers.
Normally, it is only gods who are prayed to in that manner. The
differentiation is something that would only be meaningful to a
Catholic.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- VIRGIN BIRTH STORIES |
16 Oct 2003 07:34:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:57:41 +0000, Weatherwax wrote:
I may have been wrong when I said that most Protestants do not accept
the doctrine of the Trinity, but I do know that it has been a major
point of conflict with many denominations for years.
Of course, why do you think the Nicene Creed wa | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
