The real 'reason for the season'....
SANTA SATAN
by Mr. Normal
(Xmas Eve, 2000)
Is it plausible that Santa is really Satan?"
Think about it, folks! It's not just that "Santa" is an obvious
anagram of Satan; that Santa wears a demonic red suit symbolic of the
fires of Hell; and that his huge hat must conceal horns. The clincher
is that Santa represents xmas, that time of year when christian greed
and phony sincerity reach their unctuous peak. It's the season when
braindead followers of the ultimate cult are whipped into frenzies that
leave them figuratively drained -- broke and exhausted.
Understandably, it's also the time of the year when depression and
suicides max out as the futility of achieving happiness sinks in at
least subliminally. A December, 2000 Gallup poll shows that 85% of us
think that xmas is too commercial, but Santa/Satan wouldn't have it any
other way! Our most respected institutions are in on the plot too.
Even the law of the land (U.S.A.) forbids a baby Jesus in the town
square, but who's there instead? You
guessed it! Santa! - Satan.
Lucifer/Satan once was one of God's angels. Satan's attempted
heavenly coup failed (Isa. 14:12-15), but he was given his very own
place to rule and called it Hell/Earth (Rev. 12:9) Satan also got free
reign to tempt as many people as he wanted (even Christ himself!) and
lots of fabulous stuff to tempt them with (like eternal youth and
Mercedes Benzes). However, Satan still was not satisfied. He worked
hard to make xmas the most important retail event of the year. A
recent survey showed that 60% of holiday spending occurs at xmas, and
another 20% at Satan's recognized holiday of Halloween. Think about
it, folks! Satan has locked up 80% of our holiday dollars! Who else
could be the "red dragon" of Revelation 12:3, ?. More important is
that asking Santa for something really is an unwitting pact with the
Devil, and parents are dooming their children's souls to Hell-Fire!
(Coming to your neighbourhood; soon - JAH.)
"Santa Satan's" devilish temptations have achieved what John Lennon
could only try to claim for the Beatles -- greater popularity than
Jesus! Indeed, "Santa Satan" truly is the reason for the season!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read the whole article, and the whole truth about Christ-mas, please
visit http://www.truth.fi/xmas.htm
Long live the fighters for Good & Truth.
Freeman
.
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
24 Dec 2006 12:22:02 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Steven Douglas wrote:
You mean like this? "In the four years since the
inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
members ..." like that?
Here on our planet, the inspectors returned to
Iraq BEFORE the war and uncovered... NOTHING.
In desperation they turned to the Bush administration,
asked them to point to *Any* of the WMDs which
Bush & cronies insisted that Iraq had.
Contrary to what you might claim, the Bush
administration DID NOT refuse to respond. Just
the opposite. They identified a short-range
wooden drone as one such "WMD." Another
"WMD" was a tactile missile which, as it turns
out, Iraq was allowed to have under the terms
of the cease-fire agreement signed after the first
Gulf war.
The "Sanctuary to terrorists" is a bunch of *****,
especially when you pretend that Al Qaida was
involved. The only militants with Al Qaida links in
Iraq were all fighting AGAINST Saddam, all fighting
to topple Saddam and create an Iranian-style
Islamic state.
The one "Terrorist" in Iraq the administration named
prior to the war had been granted amnesty as part
of the Arab-Israeli peace process:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/896121/posts
True, "amnesty" didn't mean he was free to kill
people and nobody could arrest him. It simply meant
he couldn't be prosecuted for anything he did BEFORE
1993.
Bush simply ignored the amnesty agreement, pretended
that it never took place, in order to claim that Iraq was
harboring terrorists.
You may be wasting your time. Stephen is about the most
confused individual I've met in years. I'm sure he voted
straight republican this last election just on the principle
that criminals and sex offenders (like Mark Foley) deserve
a voice too. This Stephen guy is dense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
24 Dec 2006 12:43:36 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Steven Douglas wrote:
You mean like this? "In the four years since the
inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
members ..." like that?
Here on our planet, the inspectors returned to
Iraq BEFORE the war and uncovered... NOTHING.
In desperation they turned to the Bush administration,
asked them to point to *Any* of the WMDs which
Bush & cronies insisted that Iraq had.
Contrary to what you might claim, the Bush
administration DID NOT refuse to respond. Just
the opposite. They identified a short-range
wooden drone as one such "WMD." Another
"WMD" was a tactile missile which, as it turns
out, Iraq was allowed to have under the terms
of the cease-fire agreement signed after the first
Gulf war.
The "Sanctuary to terrorists" is a bunch of *****,
especially when you pretend that Al Qaida was
involved. The only militants with Al Qaida links in
Iraq were all fighting AGAINST Saddam, all fighting
to topple Saddam and create an Iranian-style
Islamic state.
The one "Terrorist" in Iraq the administration named
prior to the war had been granted amnesty as part
of the Arab-Israeli peace process:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/896121/posts
True, "amnesty" didn't mean he was free to kill
people and nobody could arrest him. It simply meant
he couldn't be prosecuted for anything he did BEFORE
1993.
Bush simply ignored the amnesty agreement, pretended
that it never took place, in order to claim that Iraq was
harboring terrorists.
You may be wasting your time. Stephen is about the most
confused individual I've met in years.
Are you reduced to platitudes because you have run out of real
arguments?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
23 Dec 2006 11:45:18 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
You mean like this? "In the four years since the
inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
members ..." like that?
Here on our planet, the inspectors returned to
Iraq BEFORE the war and uncovered... NOTHING.
Yes, I know. If you'd been trolling this group earlier (instead of
trolling mulitple other groups all around usenet), you'd know that I
have documented Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to cooperate with the UN
inspectors when they finally returned after their four year absense.
Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that Saddam was not
cooperating, as Resolution 1441 required Saddam to do. The Washington
Post reported that worldwide street protests had actually emboldened
Saddam into withholding the cooperation that was required of him. It's
really a shame all those "peace" protestors didn't stand behind
Resolution 1441 and demand Saddam cooperate. If Saddam HAD cooperated,
the war would have been unnecessary.
The "Sanctuary to terrorists" is a bunch of *****,
Then you should grace Hillary Clinton with all your grand knowledge.
That's her quote above. She was in the White House for eight years
prior to making that statement.
especially when you pretend that Al Qaida was
involved. The only militants with Al Qaida links in
Iraq were all fighting AGAINST Saddam, all fighting
to topple Saddam and create an Iranian-style
Islamic state.
Are you at all familiar with the 9/11 commission report?
[quoting] In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that
reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public
fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went
to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation
traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with
Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these
meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy,
Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large
air attacks in December.
[...]
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides
may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with
the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin
Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that
his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi
alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some
common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. [end quoting]
http://www.9-11commssion.gov/
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
24 Dec 2006 11:56:55 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Here on our planet, the inspectors returned to
Iraq BEFORE the war and uncovered... NOTHING.
Yes, I know.
Then you're intentionally lying:
If you'd been trolling this group earlier (instead of
trolling mulitple other groups all around usenet),
seriously, sock puppet, what is the maximum number
of groups a person is allowed to follow?
Be precise. Be *Exact*.
you'd know that I have documented Saddam Hussein's
unwillingness to cooperate with the UN inspectors
when they finally returned after their four year absense.
Irrelevant. As I pointed out, the U.N. requested (again &
again) that the administration point them towards the
"WMDs" they kept insisting Saddam had. The administration
agreed. We know what happened. We all know for a fact
what the administration meant when it said "WMDs," and
we knew it BEFORE the war:
A short ranged probe. A tacticle missile that the peace
fire agreement said they could have.
This isn't guess work. This is what the administration
positively identified as "WMDs," the very "WMDs" they
said Saddam had.
The "Sanctuary to terrorists" is a bunch of *****,
Then you should grace Hillary Clinton with all your grand
knowledge.
All she had to go on was the cooked intel.
Duh.
"Blame Hillary because bush cooked the intel!!!!!"
You make no sense.
especially when you pretend that Al Qaida was
involved. The only militants with Al Qaida links in
Iraq were all fighting AGAINST Saddam, all fighting
to topple Saddam and create an Iranian-style
Islamic state.
Are you at all familiar with the 9/11 commission report?
Yup. Now how are you going to spin that one?
[quoting] In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq
that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after
Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two
al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with
Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to
Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with
Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both,
of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin
Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his
own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying
U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large
air attacks in December.
Let's accept this at face value (though the Democrats on
the committee did file minority reports)...
Saddam was FIGHTING them. So you're saying that contact
with the forces you're fighting is terrorism, but the more than
$2 billion the Republicans gave Osama Bin Laden was a
momentary -- and forgivable -- lapse in judgment?
Seriously, you damn partisan: If negotiating with the people
you're fighting is bad, then paying for the terrorist organization
that attacked you on 9/11 is far, *Far* worse.
You're making a grand case AGAINST the Republicans.
I'll help you out. Here's where you went wrong:
I pointed out that the only Al Qaida related groups in Iraq
were fighting to overthrow Saddam. A reality-based person
would have incorporated this knowledge into their interpretation
of the facts. Instead, you simply wished it away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
24 Dec 2006 02:27:15 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Here on our planet, the inspectors returned to
Iraq BEFORE the war and uncovered... NOTHING.
Yes, I know.
Then you're intentionally lying:
No -- as I've said here repeatedly, Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate
with the inspectors. Hans Blix said as much before the Security Council
several months after the inspectors had returned. Saddam was required
by Resolution 1441 to cooperate IMMEDIATELY, but he continued to behave
as if he had something to hide. If he had simply cooperated with the
inspectors, there is no way Bush and Blair could have conducted the
invasion.
If you'd been trolling this group earlier (instead of
trolling mulitple other groups all around usenet),
seriously, sock puppet, what is the maximum number
of groups a person is allowed to follow?
Be precise. Be *Exact*.
Uh, the operative word I used above is "trolling" -- you troll. I visit
other groups on occasion myself, but the difference is that you are
universally known as a troll. Posters on other groups know you for the
troll you are, and that's why I used the operative word "trolling"
twice in my comment above.
you'd know that I have documented Saddam Hussein's
unwillingness to cooperate with the UN inspectors
when they finally returned after their four year absense.
Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant. Saddam's refusal to cooperate (as required by 1441)
was the one single most important factor in bringing about the war.
The "Sanctuary to terrorists" is a bunch of *****,
Then you should grace Hillary Clinton with all your grand
knowledge.
All she had to go on was the cooked intel.
A woman who spent eight years in the White House was going on cooked
intel? But who cooked the intel? The Clinton appointed CIA director?
Take a hike, troll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 11:44:09 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Uh, the operative word I used above is "trolling"
I'm sorry, but to be truly effective a sock puppet must
be slightly different from the other puppets.
Your mistake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
27 Dec 2006 12:39:04 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Uh, the operative word I used above is "trolling"
I'm sorry
That's a good start. Demonstrate that you will no longer be a usenet
troll, and I'll be happy to accept your apology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
28 Dec 2006 02:06:07 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
That's a good start.
No. A "Good start" would be limiting your arguing to
conclusions. Maybe that way you wouldn't know
that you'v sunk so low that you've taken to pating
yourself on the back for a bit of mindless ad
hominem.
We know what the Bush administration itself identified
as "WMDs" in Iraq BEFORE the war. It was big news
at the time, BEFORE the war. It won headlines all
across the world, BEFORE the world.
We also know for a fact that the only Al Qaida linked
groups in Iraq were fighting to overthrow Saddam.
We also know that the Bush administration cooked all
the intelligence reports the Senators were getting.
You know these things, I know these things -- every
English speaking person on earth knows these things.
Yet, your "conclusions" ignore them.
So stick with the sock puppet act. Keep spewing the
same long-ago refuted nonsese you've always spewed.
Whatever. Just understand that nobody is buying it,
not even talking heads that you're parroting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hammondlover" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 02:54:51 AM |
|
|
mukyuk wrote:
"Hammondlover" <lordvader131@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166220860.964923.322880@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
Wrongo. Christmas is a victory for God-He took back the days from satan
(who makes the days?) that had been pagan holidays and now they are
God's again.
And exactly who created Satan and the pagans, and why did 'he' create
them,
if I may be so bold to ask?
By all means, be bold. God created Satan and Pagans with the expressed
desire to give them free will. He wants us to choose to love him. If
he forced us to love him, it would not be love anymore. God wants us to
love him for the sake of love, not out of fear.
I have a few philosophical problems with that proposition. It implies that
God is not all-powerful, since there are things outside his control, such as
the will of Satan, or even my will. If God knows all, he knows who will love
him and who will not (even before he created them).
Why did he bother to create the ones that he knew would not choose to love
him? It seems like a redundant step. It appears that God created Satan just
because he wanted someone to torment. If that's the case, is God really
Good?
These are indeed very common and perplexing questions that people ask. I never said that God did not have the power to affect free will, I said that he leaves us to choose. In fact, God is more powerful than us, but he cannot do EVERYTHING. He cannot tell a lie, he cannot break a promise. God created Satan to be his most powerful angel-his most beautiful angel (lucifer). But Satan thought he was better than God. And he fell from grace. While by no means a perfect answer the best one I can give at this time is that God creates those who are "unsavable" for the good of the many. God will use those who will not follow him to bring others to find God. If you were considering having child would you stop
just because you knew that child would always disobey you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 04:16:26 AM |
|
|
These are indeed very common and perplexing questions that people ask.
I never said that God did not have the power to affect free will, I said
that
he leaves us to choose. In fact, God is more powerful than us, but he
cannot
do EVERYTHING. He cannot tell a lie, he cannot break a promise. God
created Satan to be his most powerful angel-his most beautiful angel
(lucifer).
But Satan thought he was better than God. And he fell from grace. While by
no means a perfect answer the best one I can give at this time is that God
creates those who are "unsavable" for the good of the many. God will use
those
who will not follow him to bring others to find God. If you were
considering
having child would you stop just because you knew that child would always
disobey you?
I see things a bit differently. My intuition tells me that evil exists
simply because it must. I cannot imagine a world without evil. The moment
something is created, something else must be destroyed. The moment one
decides that something is good one also decides what is bad. You cannot have
one without the other. I see no mystery to it. Satan was obviously God's
glorious angel, because it was the first thing created that was not God.
From a certain perspective, evil and good are complementary forces. Niether
need to be shunned because they are both necessary and in a way booth good.
As an analogy, if you know about how computers work, try to imagine a
computer based on only 'zero's or only 'ones'. You can't do it. You need
them both. Once you have them both, you can rearrange those two numbers in
an infinite number of different patterns, creating everything a computer can
do. Physics is pretty much the same concept, a positive force and a negative
force. You need at least two different kinds of things in order to create a
third identifiable thing out of them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 05:47:25 PM |
|
|
Freeman wrote:
The real 'reason for the season'....
SANTA SATAN
by Mr. Normal
(Xmas Eve, 2000)
Is it plausible that Santa is really Satan?"
Think about it, folks! It's not just that "Santa" is an obvious
anagram of Satan; that Santa wears a demonic red suit symbolic of the
fires of Hell; and that his huge hat must conceal horns. The clincher
is that Santa represents xmas, that time of year when christian greed
and phony sincerity reach their unctuous peak. It's the season when
braindead followers of the ultimate cult are whipped into frenzies that
leave them figuratively drained -- broke and exhausted.
Understandably, it's also the time of the year when depression and
suicides max out as the futility of achieving happiness sinks in at
least subliminally. A December, 2000 Gallup poll shows that 85% of us
think that xmas is too commercial, but Santa/Satan wouldn't have it any
other way! Our most respected institutions are in on the plot too.
Even the law of the land (U.S.A.) forbids a baby Jesus in the town
square, but who's there instead? You
guessed it! Santa! - Satan.
Lucifer/Satan once was one of God's angels. Satan's attempted
heavenly coup failed (Isa. 14:12-15), but he was given his very own
place to rule and called it Hell/Earth (Rev. 12:9) Satan also got free
reign to tempt as many people as he wanted (even Christ himself!) and
lots of fabulous stuff to tempt them with (like eternal youth and
Mercedes Benzes). However, Satan still was not satisfied. He worked
hard to make xmas the most important retail event of the year. A
recent survey showed that 60% of holiday spending occurs at xmas, and
another 20% at Satan's recognized holiday of Halloween. Think about
it, folks! Satan has locked up 80% of our holiday dollars! Who else
could be the "red dragon" of Revelation 12:3, ?. More important is
that asking Santa for something really is an unwitting pact with the
Devil, and parents are dooming their children's souls to Hell-Fire!
(Coming to your neighbourhood; soon - JAH.)
"Santa Satan's" devilish temptations have achieved what John Lennon
could only try to claim for the Beatles -- greater popularity than
Jesus! Indeed, "Santa Satan" truly is the reason for the season!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read the whole article, and the whole truth about Christ-mas, please
visit http://www.truth.fi/xmas.htm
Long live the fighters for Good & Truth.
You better watch out, Freeman. You're going to get nothing but coal in
your stocking. Santa knows where you've been sleeping...he knows if
you've been bad or good...what do you think he's going to do when he
reads this long-winded pout of yours? You're on his list buddy. Ane
he is checking it--twice!
Santa Shasta
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Merlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 07:38:49 AM |
|
|
Indeed, it is well known within the Hermetic fraternity that Santa
represents Satan in disguise.
Saint Nicholas/Santa or should I say Old Nick/Satan!
Oh and this might get you thinking: http://www.luckymojo.com/devil.html
Merlin
Freeman wrote:
The real 'reason for the season'....
SANTA SATAN
by Mr. Normal
(Xmas Eve, 2000)
Is it plausible that Santa is really Satan?"
Think about it, folks! It's not just that "Santa" is an obvious
anagram of Satan; that Santa wears a demonic red suit symbolic of the
fires of Hell; and that his huge hat must conceal horns. The clincher
is that Santa represents xmas, that time of year when christian greed
and phony sincerity reach their unctuous peak. It's the season when
braindead followers of the ultimate cult are whipped into frenzies that
leave them figuratively drained -- broke and exhausted.
Understandably, it's also the time of the year when depression and
suicides max out as the futility of achieving happiness sinks in at
least subliminally. A December, 2000 Gallup poll shows that 85% of us
think that xmas is too commercial, but Santa/Satan wouldn't have it any
other way! Our most respected institutions are in on the plot too.
Even the law of the land (U.S.A.) forbids a baby Jesus in the town
square, but who's there instead? You
guessed it! Santa! - Satan.
Lucifer/Satan once was one of God's angels. Satan's attempted
heavenly coup failed (Isa. 14:12-15), but he was given his very own
place to rule and called it Hell/Earth (Rev. 12:9) Satan also got free
reign to tempt as many people as he wanted (even Christ himself!) and
lots of fabulous stuff to tempt them with (like eternal youth and
Mercedes Benzes). However, Satan still was not satisfied. He worked
hard to make xmas the most important retail event of the year. A
recent survey showed that 60% of holiday spending occurs at xmas, and
another 20% at Satan's recognized holiday of Halloween. Think about
it, folks! Satan has locked up 80% of our holiday dollars! Who else
could be the "red dragon" of Revelation 12:3, ?. More important is
that asking Santa for something really is an unwitting pact with the
Devil, and parents are dooming their children's souls to Hell-Fire!
(Coming to your neighbourhood; soon - JAH.)
"Santa Satan's" devilish temptations have achieved what John Lennon
could only try to claim for the Beatles -- greater popularity than
Jesus! Indeed, "Santa Satan" truly is the reason for the season!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read the whole article, and the whole truth about Christ-mas, please
visit http://www.truth.fi/xmas.htm
Long live the fighters for Good & Truth.
Freeman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Kat" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
15 Dec 2006 04:25:35 AM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2006 02:22:20 -0800, "Freeman" <jacques.freeman@gmail.com> wrote:
The real 'reason for the season'....
Dude, that is RETARED...
--
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home, Land & Planet Insecurity...
Remove XYZ to email me
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phoon Hencman" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
15 Dec 2006 06:41:38 PM |
|
|
On 2006-12-15 05:22:20 -0500, "Freeman" <jacques.freeman@gmail.com> said:
The real 'reason for the season'....
SANTA SATAN
by Mr. Normal
(Xmas Eve, 2000)
Is it plausible that Santa is really Satan?"
Think about it, folks! It's not just that "Santa" is an obvious
anagram of Satan; that Santa wears a demonic red suit symbolic of the
fires of Hell; and that his huge hat must conceal horns. The clincher
is that Santa represents xmas, that time of year when christian greed
and phony sincerity reach their unctuous peak. It's the season when
braindead followers of the ultimate cult are whipped into frenzies that
leave them figuratively drained -- broke and exhausted.
Understandably, it's also the time of the year when depression and
suicides max out as the futility of achieving happiness sinks in at
least subliminally. A December, 2000 Gallup poll shows that 85% of us
think that xmas is too commercial, but Santa/Satan wouldn't have it any
other way! Our most respected institutions are in on the plot too.
Even the law of the land (U.S.A.) forbids a baby Jesus in the town
square, but who's there instead? You
guessed it! Santa! - Satan.
Lucifer/Satan once was one of God's angels. Satan's attempted
heavenly coup failed (Isa. 14:12-15), but he was given his very own
place to rule and called it Hell/Earth (Rev. 12:9) Satan also got free
reign to tempt as many people as he wanted (even Christ himself!) and
lots of fabulous stuff to tempt them with (like eternal youth and
Mercedes Benzes). However, Satan still was not satisfied. He worked
hard to make xmas the most important retail event of the year. A
recent survey showed that 60% of holiday spending occurs at xmas, and
another 20% at Satan's recognized holiday of Halloween. Think about
it, folks! Satan has locked up 80% of our holiday dollars! Who else
could be the "red dragon" of Revelation 12:3, ?. More important is
that asking Santa for something really is an unwitting pact with the
Devil, and parents are dooming their children's souls to Hell-Fire!
(Coming to your neighbourhood; soon - JAH.)
"Santa Satan's" devilish temptations have achieved what John Lennon
could only try to claim for the Beatles -- greater popularity than
Jesus! Indeed, "Santa Satan" truly is the reason for the season!
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 06:53:26 AM |
|
|
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
We need to remove the Devinity aspect from cosmological thought, in
order to make an attempt at comprehension of the Universe.
Devinity pollutes the quality of the experiment and leads to false
conclusions. It's too easy..Simply say 'It's from God', or 'It's God's
will', and people, like the zealot poster in this thread, have the
'perfect' answer to any complex question.
Burn the Churches...rip up the catechisms. Start again without the
magic mumbo jumbo that Humanity has devised for it's own needs.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 09:34:02 AM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth originated?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phoon Hencman" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 08:22:57 PM |
|
|
On 2006-12-16 10:34:02 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth originated?
Certainly NOT from a unproveable entity hat snapped it's fingers....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
16 Dec 2006 09:19:04 PM |
|
|
Phoon Hencman wrote:
On 2006-12-16 10:34:02 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth originated?
Certainly NOT from a unproveable entity hat snapped it's fingers....
How do you know? Do you have another explanation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phoon Hencman" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
17 Dec 2006 07:02:39 PM |
|
|
On 2006-12-16 22:19:04 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
On 2006-12-16 10:34:02 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth originated?
Certainly NOT from a unproveable entity hat snapped it's fingers....
How do you know? Do you have another explanation?
You KNOW the answer to that question already. I KNOW you do and it's
FAR more believable than a snap of some unprovable entitie's
fingers......
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phoon Hencman" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
17 Dec 2006 06:59:50 PM |
|
|
On 2006-12-16 10:34:02 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth originated?
Like how the planets formed, the right materials came together to start
life as single celled organisms. Evolution did the rest. Maybe brought
here by asteroid impacts or comet impacts or both or just the right
materials were here when Earth was cooling off in the beginning.
Certainly those are FAR more realistic than a non proveable entity
magically making life appear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
17 Dec 2006 11:25:58 PM |
|
|
Phoon Hencman wrote:
On 2006-12-16 10:34:02 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is no
hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good luck
with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth originated?
Like how the planets formed, the right materials came together to start
life as single celled organisms.
But planets are inanimate objects. Life is something else. And you
actually believe it just started spontaneously? Could you please
describe exactly how you believe that happened? Since scientists have
never been able to recreate the conditions required to create life,
what makes you so sure it happened automatically all by itself?
Evolution did the rest. Maybe brought
here by asteroid impacts or comet impacts or both or just the right
materials were here when Earth was cooling off in the beginning.
And if life came here from elsewhere, how did it start elsewhere? Do
you have an explanation? Or just a guess? Is your theory something that
requires you to have *faith* in order to believe in it?
Certainly those are FAR more realistic than a non proveable entity
magically making life appear.
Your theory sounds EXACTLY like life magically appearing. In fact, it's
FAR more easy for me to believe in a creator than to believe in some
far fetched GUESS about "warm soup."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
18 Dec 2006 04:34:39 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Phoon Hencman wrote:
On 2006-12-16 10:34:02 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
said:
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is
no hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good
luck with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth
originated?
Like how the planets formed, the right materials came together to start
life as single celled organisms.
But planets are inanimate objects. Life is something else. And you
actually believe it just started spontaneously? Could you please
describe exactly how you believe that happened? Since scientists have
never been able to recreate the conditions required to create life,
what makes you so sure it happened automatically all by itself?
Evolution did the rest. Maybe brought
here by asteroid impacts or comet impacts or both or just the right
materials were here when Earth was cooling off in the beginning.
And if life came here from elsewhere, how did it start elsewhere? Do
you have an explanation? Or just a guess? Is your theory something that
requires you to have *faith* in order to believe in it?
Certainly those are FAR more realistic than a non proveable entity
magically making life appear.
Your theory sounds EXACTLY like life magically appearing. In fact, it's
FAR more easy for me to believe in a creator than to believe in some
far fetched GUESS about "warm soup."
So what you're saying is, it's so difficult to understand that we
should just give up now.
I really like that faith-based scientific approach.
It requires not ONE shred of proof. Explaining away the mysteries
of the universe could not be any simpler.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
18 Dec 2006 07:45:00 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Phoon Hencman wrote:
On 2006-12-16 10:34:02 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
said:
Werewolfy wrote:
Phoon Hencman wrote:
Get a freakin' life for Pete's sakes. There is no heaven, there is
no hell. If you can prove otherwise step right up and do so. Good
luck with that.....
Come on now, Phoon. Don't mince your words, say what you mean! ;)
I'm with you on this one. What 'Heaven?', What 'Hell?'. Just
fables...ideology needed to keep the people behaving in the manner
required by their (Earthly) leader.
Just as a point of interest, how do you think life on earth
originated?
Like how the planets formed, the right materials came together to start
life as single celled organisms.
But planets are inanimate objects. Life is something else. And you
actually believe it just started spontaneously? Could you please
describe exactly how you believe that happened? Since scientists have
never been able to recreate the conditions required to create life,
what makes you so sure it happened automatically all by itself?
Evolution did the rest. Maybe brought
here by asteroid impacts or comet impacts or both or just the right
materials were here when Earth was cooling off in the beginning.
And if life came here from elsewhere, how did it start elsewhere? Do
you have an explanation? Or just a guess? Is your theory something that
requires you to have *faith* in order to believe in it?
Certainly those are FAR more realistic than a non proveable entity
magically making life appear.
Your theory sounds EXACTLY like life magically appearing. In fact, it's
FAR more easy for me to believe in a creator than to believe in some
far fetched GUESS about "warm soup."
So what you're saying is, it's so difficult to understand that we
should just give up now.
No, I didn't say the theory is difficult to understand. What I said is
that it's more difficult for me to believe than to believe life was
created by a Creator.
I really like that faith-based scientific approach.
It requires not ONE shred of proof.
Show me your proof that life spontaneously sprang forth from "warm
soup."
Explaining away the mysteries
of the universe could not be any simpler.
Does it not require *faith* to believe in some hypothetical "warm soup"
proposition? Why is your *faith* so far superior to mine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
18 Dec 2006 12:23:28 PM |
|
|
Does it not require *faith* to believe in some hypothetical "warm soup"
proposition? Why is your *faith* so far superior to mine?
Because his knid of faith shows results. Have you noticed the cars,
computers, telesopes and microscopes, televisions, radio, microwave
ovens...... The list goes on forever...(or maybe you didn't notice)..!!!!
What does your faith in God allow you to predict or create? Show me!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
18 Dec 2006 08:12:18 PM |
|
|
mukyuk wrote:
Does it not require *faith* to believe in some hypothetical "warm soup"
proposition? Why is your *faith* so far superior to mine?
Because his knid of faith shows results. Have you noticed the cars,
computers, telesopes and microscopes, televisions, radio, microwave
ovens...... The list goes on forever...(or maybe you didn't notice)..!!!!
What does that have to do with life springing forth from "warm soup"?
What does your faith in God allow you to predict or create? Show me!!!
My faith in God gives me comfort. It has nothing to do with all those
"things" you mentioned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
18 Dec 2006 09:04:09 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166494338.433508.101180@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
Does it not require *faith* to believe in some hypothetical "warm soup"
proposition? Why is your *faith* so far superior to mine?
Because his knid of faith shows results. Have you noticed the cars,
computers, telesopes and microscopes, televisions, radio, microwave
ovens...... The list goes on forever...(or maybe you didn't notice)..!!!!
What does that have to do with life springing forth from "warm soup"?
What does your faith in God allow you to predict or create? Show me!!!
My faith in God gives me comfort.
What if it turned out to be false? How would you feel? What would you do?
It has nothing to do with all those
"things" you mentioned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
18 Dec 2006 11:27:29 PM |
|
|
mukyuk wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166494338.433508.101180@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
Does it not require *faith* to believe in some hypothetical "warm soup"
proposition? Why is your *faith* so far superior to mine?
Because his knid of faith shows results. Have you noticed the cars,
computers, telesopes and microscopes, televisions, radio, microwave
ovens...... The list goes on forever...(or maybe you didn't notice)..!!!!
What does that have to do with life springing forth from "warm soup"?
What does your faith in God allow you to predict or create? Show me!!!
My faith in God gives me comfort.
What if it turned out to be false? How would you feel? What would you do?
It's not false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phoon Hencman" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
19 Dec 2006 05:57:03 AM |
|
|
On 2006-12-19 00:27:29 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
mukyuk wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166494338.433508.101180@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
Does it not require *faith* to believe in some hypothetical "warm soup"
proposition? Why is your *faith* so far superior to mine?
Because his knid of faith shows results. Have you noticed the cars,
computers, telesopes and microscopes, televisions, radio, microwave
ovens...... The list goes on forever...(or maybe you didn't notice)..!!!!
What does that have to do with life springing forth from "warm soup"?
What does your faith in God allow you to predict or create? Show me!!!
My faith in God gives me comfort.
What if it turned out to be false? How would you feel? What would you do?
It's not false.
Prove it. Whoops, you can't!
Sorry but I don't buy into ANY religion. Blind faith is dangerous. PLUS
religion causes more wars and problems than anything else. Take this
thread for instance, it created many arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
19 Dec 2006 07:46:47 AM |
|
|
Phoon Hencman wrote:
On 2006-12-19 00:27:29 -0500, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> said:
mukyuk wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166494338.433508.101180@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
Does it not require *faith* to believe in some hypothetical "warm soup"
proposition? Why is your *faith* so far superior to mine?
Because his knid of faith shows results. Have you noticed the cars,
computers, telesopes and microscopes, televisions, radio, microwave
ovens...... The list goes on forever...(or maybe you didn't notice)..!!!!
What does that have to do with life springing forth from "warm soup"?
What does your faith in God allow you to predict or create? Show me!!!
My faith in God gives me comfort.
What if it turned out to be false? How would you feel? What would you do?
It's not false.
Prove it. Whoops, you can't!
Why don't you prove that life spontaneously popped out of "warm soup."
Whoops, you can't!
Sorry but I don't buy into ANY religion. Blind faith is dangerous.
Blind faith? Like your blind faith that life created itself in "warm
soup"?
PLUS religion causes more wars and problems than
anything else.
Yet you're willing to ignore the fact that a record number of people
died violent deaths, during the 20th century, at the hands of an
atheistic philosophy.
Take this thread for instance, it created many arguments.
That's what we do here. It's called discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
19 Dec 2006 08:42:41 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Why don't you prove that life spontaneously
popped out of "warm soup." Whoops, you
can't!
......yet.
You seem to be arguing that anything science
can't achieve TODAY can never be achieved.
Well. There was a time when people like you
were running Europe. We call it "The Dark Ages."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
