"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gu3vh1l1rnmbsnomuv8f2gvmdggab11cmi@4ax.com...

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:53:02 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:23:09 -0400, Sharky <shark@he!!sgates.org>
wrote:

Eris wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:22:13 -0400, Sharky <shark@he!!sgates.org>
wrote:

Eris wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:09:52 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:27:49 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:

Are the Uberchristians A.K.A. Chicken Hawks responsible for all of
the
wars and bigotry over the last 2,000 years?

I blame them totally for my involvement in Vietnam and the current
idiocy in Iraq.

Do you know how totally bigoted that sounds Eris?

Dismissed!

My parents are Christians, my brothers, friends and relatives are
Christian, I was raised as a Christian.

And that makes you? No one really cares what you believe, as you have
made it abundantly clear that you cannot abide by the principle that
people have a right to believe in whatever religion that wish too
WITHOUT persecution. You can take your anti-COTUS hatred and shove
it, bub.

An ***** is an ***** whether he is an Atheist, Christian, Jew,
Islamic, or Zoroastrians.

You are indeed.

I think it is O.K. if I hate certain Christians, It is not O.K. to
hate all Christians. Other Christians I have talked to hate the same
Christians I do.

Why hate anyone for what they believe? If you are against their
particular viewpoint, then by all means DISAGREE with it, don't hate
peoples' entire belief structure because you disagree with a portion
of it. My God! Why can't all people see how dissimilar we AREN'T!

Of course. We hated Communists, Socialist, Atheist, etc. for what they
believed, why can't we hate a group that hates everyone that disagrees
with them?

We can't hate the haters?

O.K. upon reflection, I don't actually hate anyone, except my ex
in-laws and I am seriously working on that.

As well you should. I'm sure that when you took their daughter from them
they might have had some initial trepidation that you were not suitable or
of sufficient stature to keep her in the manner in which she was accustomed.

But surely once they determined that she had made up her mind and decided to
stay with the wretch, they grudgingly accepted you as a "son".

Perhaps some
of their doubts were because they were fully aware of the "hat incident"
(the retelling of which shows an underlying resentment of authority).

You might wish to consider this:

In my former life, I had the opportunity to attend a training session given
by a contract head doctor for the Houston Police Department. The training
session revolved around the everyday stresses that law enforcement officers
deal with. In this session it was brought out that there is a large
proportion of law enforcement who have multiple marriages (ie lots of
divorce). One of the attendees posed a question - he said Dr.........(I
can't remember the head dr's name) - "I've been divorced three times. In
each of my marriages it started off great -we were so in love, but as the
marriages progressed every one of them turned into opponents, we argued all
the time, it got so bad that we finally stopped talking to each other and
then divorced. Each divorce left me with absolutely nothing - they got
everything"

The good doctor responded " don't blame it on the job. Apparently you have
the unique ability to take a beautiful women and turn her into a shrew."

But I do strongly disagree with that subset of religious people.
Be they Jew, Christian, or Muslim.

By "subset" are you speaking of the various denominations like 7th Day
Adventists, Episcopalians and the like?

Nigel Brooks
p.s. Do the atheists really give a ***** about this conversation anyway?