The mystery of the Holy Shroud



 Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > The mystery of the Holy Shroud

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 4

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 
Topic: Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User: ""
Date: 10 Jan 2008 12:17:32 AM
Object: The mystery of the Holy Shroud
The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle, as honestly
recognised by the manager of the most important of the three
laboratories which analysed the cloth by using the carbon 14. This
manager acknowledged a serious mistake in the dating.
The only means we have at disposal to solve the riddle is that of
recognizing that, without any doubt, in such Holy Linen happened
something that we cannot and never we'll be capable to explain : the
Resurrection of Christ.
Website : www.antoniobragadin.com/mystery.htm
E mail :

.

User: "Atheists Love Damnation"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 10 Jan 2008 12:54:11 PM
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008,
wrote:

The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I think that the only mystery remaining about the Shroud of Turin
is *Why* do antichrists (Atheists, CHRINOs, ad nauseam) refuse to
accept the incontrovertible evidence that this particular artifact
is the _actual_ shroud that the horribly beaten and crucified dead
physical body of Jesus Christ was wrapped in for more than seventy-
two contiguous hours before He physically resurrected, and neatly
folded up the cloth, and left it in the tomb for mortals to find?
Why do the Atheists refuse to accept that Jesus is their LORD and
Savior and reigning King and Master to the Ages of the Ages? Why?
That's an easy question to answer, not only because it's obvious,
but also because this question has been answered already in the
sacred scriptures. It's simply because of the Atheists' profane
vanity, their worldly arrogance, their self-aggrandizement, and
their mammon-worship, all ego and greed. It's as simple as that.
Thus begs the greater question Why do Atheists love to be damned
in Hellfire so much? I mean, it really sucks to be imprisoned in
dark Limbo, i.e. where the Immortal souls of mortal Atheists are
subjected to indescribably terrifying torments 24/7/365.2422. The
psychiatric diagnosis is that all Atheists are essentially psychic-
masochists. The souls of Atheists love to be punished in Hellfire,
which explains why they don't want to be saved. They _need_ their
punishment in Hell! It's like the only thing in eternity that the
Atheists can call their own, their Dark prison where the woodbine
twineth and the iceman cometh not. Atheists love to be God-Damned!
Atheists can't prevent their Damnation, so they've learned to love
it through long ages of practice, i.e. some 2000 discarnations over
the last 200,000 tropical years therearound (i.e., assuming average
of one mortal incarnation and one interim Immortal discarnation per
mundane solar century). Atheists have had plenty of practice being
without God, bit, banished, misled, born in sin, essentially born
to die, the first death to be discarnate in Hell, eventually into
the Light and Purgatory then abruptly cast down from heaven which
is the second death (you can read all about it in the Apocalypse),
born amid the crashing karmic waves of the fallen earth. Atheists
have had _plenty_ of practice. Thus they've learned to love their
damnation in both this world & in the world being eternally about.
Some believe and preach that God-hating Atheists should be pitied.
I don't subscribe to that pollyannaish philosophy at all any more,
although admittedly I used to (fool me once, but never twice). Yet
I have _always_ known that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy, i.e. God's Word is infallible and can't ever err at all.
Thus anyone who disagrees with Jesus is an Anti-Christian Atheist,
regardless of what these God-Damned Liars, Cowards and Murderers
call themselves (Catholic, Atheist, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist,
Hindu, etc. ad nauseam), it makes no difference whatsoever, since
they're all anarchists, antichrists Atheists, i.e. because that's
what they DO. And Praise God that's *EXACTLY* how they are Judged
in the Light! That's why the souls of Atheists always get trapped
in Dark Limbo when they die, where Atheists remain afraid, scared,
terrified of the Light in which awaits their future Judgment: for
each one every one *EXACTLY* according to their works of good and
works of evil, the latter of which Atheists don't want to be held
accountable for. But God doesn't care what Atheists want or don't
want, because God always holds men each one *EXACTLY* accountable
for their sins, this down to the very last subatomic particle bar
none. That's why Atheists don't want to believe in Limbo, because
that's where God *FORCES* Atheists to see their horrible Judgment
awaiting them in the Light: and Pay the Piper to every last penny
they shall--whether they like it or not! And Praise Jesus Atheists
do *NOT* like it in Hell, where God the Destroyer *DESTROYS* both
Immortal spirit-person and mortal body person. Praise God Almighty!
Thus I look forward to seeing the look on the God-hating Atheists'
collective face, when the greatest tribulation ever to befall the
world strikes, beginning with the betrayal and crucifixion of the
WOB's "In God We Trust" (thereby launching Armageddon) into where
the greater fiery region rapidly becomes the habitation of demons,
i.e., of the souls of dead Atheists, inhumane, monstrous, hideous,
demonic. This is why demonic spirits appear inhuman like the wild
beasts they are, with all manner of black cancers darkening their
psychic aura. Remember this prophecy about their Atheistic empire:
C8Q70
Il entrera vilain, mechant, infame
He will enter villain, malignant, infamous
Tyrannisant la Mesopotamie,
Tyrannizing the Mesopotamia,
Tous amis fait d'adulterine d'ame,
All friends makes of adulterine of heart,
Terre horrible, noir de phisonomie.
Earth horrible, dark of physiognomy.
So what are Atheists, essentially? Atheists are literally without
Theos, without Zeus, without God. Atheists are, to quote from the
Apocalypse: "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers,
and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" [Rev 22:15].
Thus it's no surprise that Atheists are always liars, cowards and
murderers, because Atheists are incapable of doing otherwise. See?
As any veteran exorcist can tell you, the Atheists especially hate
Latin quotes from the S. scriptures. Thus I love the Latin Vulgate
above all other translations (although the LXX is also a superior
translation of Old Testament scrolls), not only because the Vulgate
is the most accurate translation, but also because Atheists hate it,
and _everything_ the Atheists hate I devoutly love and worship with
all my heart, mind and soul. Contrarily, everything the Atheists do
I hate with all my heart, mind and soul. Thus I'll quote the Bible:
"...et dixit mihi haec verba
and he is saying to me These words
fidelissima et vera sunt et Dominus Deus
most faithful and veritable to be, and the Dominant one Zeus
spirituum prophetarum misit angelum suum
the spirits of the prophets he is sending off the angel of his
ostendere servis suis quae oportet
and he is showing to the servants of him what it is opportune
fieri cito et ecce venio velociter
and it is occurring in quickness, and behold. I am coming quickly.
beatus qui custodit verba prophetiae
beatific who he is keeping custody of the words of the prophecy
libri huius et ego Iohannes qui audivi et vidi
of the book this. and I John who I am hearing and I am seeing
haec et postquam audissem et vidissem cecidi
these things, and after I am hearing and am seeing, I am falling
ut adorarem ante pedes angeli qui mihi
in order to be adoring before the feet of the angel who to me
haec ostendebat et dicit mihi vide
these things he is showing. and he is saying to me Be you seeing
ne feceris conservus tuus sum et
that not you are doing. I the fellow-servant of yours to be, and
fratrum tuorum prophetarum et eorum qui servant
brethren of yours the prophets, and of them who they are guarding
verba libri huius Deum adora et dicit
the words of the book this. Zeus be you adoring. and he is saying
mihi ne signaveris verba prophetiae
to me that Not you should be sealing up the words of the prophecy
libri huius tempus enim prope est qui nocet
of the book this, the time for near to be. whom he is nocent
noceat adhuc et qui in sordibus est sordescat
he is nocent still. and who in sordidness to be he is sordid
adhuc et iustus iustitiam faciat adhuc et sanctus
still. and the just justice he is doing still. and the sanctified
sanctificetur adhuc ecce venio cito et merces
sanctifying still. behold. I am coming in quickness, and the wages
mea mecum est reddere unicuique
of me with me to be, and I am rendering to each and every one
secundum opera sua ego Alpha et Omega
according to the works of him. I the Alpha and the Omega,
primus et novissimus principium et finis beati
the first and the last, the principal and the finish. beatific
qui lavant stolas suas ut sit
who they are washing the stoles of them in order that to be
potestas eorum in ligno vitae et portis intrent
the potency of them in the tree of life, and the gates they are entering
in civitatem foris canes et venefici et inpudici
into the city. outside the dogs and the drug-abusers and the impudent
et homicidae et idolis servientes et omnis qui amat
and the homocidal and the idolaters and every one who he is loving
et facit mendacium ego Iesus misi angelum
and he is making mendacities. I Jesus I am sending the angel
meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego
of me to testify to you these things in the ecclesiae. I
sum radix et genus David stella splendida et
to be the root and offspring of David, the star splendid and
matutina et Spiritus et sponsa dicunt veni
matutinal. and the Spirit and the bride they are saying I am coming.
et qui audit dicat veni et qui sitit
and who he is hearing be you saying I am coming. and who he is thirsting
veniat qui vult accipiat aquam vitae
he is coming. who he is coming he is accepting the water of life
gratis contestor ego omni audienti verba
freely. I testify myself every one who is hearing the words of
prophetiae libri huius si quis adposuerit ad haec
the prophecy of the book this. if any one he is adding to this,
adponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro
will be adding Zeus upon him the plagues written in the book
isto et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri
this. and if any one he is diminishing from the words of the book
prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius
of the prophecy this, will be taking away Zeus that part of him
de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de
from the tree of life, and from the city sanctified, and from
his quae scripta sunt in libro isto dicit
that which is written to be in the book this. and is saying
qui testimonium perhibet istorum etiam
him whose testimony it is being presented at hand, Now too
venio cito amen veni Domine Iesu
I AM coming in quickness amen. Be you coming O Dominant one Jesus.
gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi ***** omnibus"
gratitude of the Dominant one of ours Jesus Christ be with all men.
--Apocalypsis 22:6-21, editio Vulgata
Armageddon Cometh,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBR4Zjx5ljD7YrHM/nEQICBACg90bYnjBAV1N6EGqXQymBihul57AAn0Wa
qsfF+TZ89b4cJySEH73wV+b3
=C2mW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
User: "Steve O"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 11 Jan 2008 12:14:15 AM
"Atheists Love Damnation" <atheists@hellfire.perdition> wrote in message
news:a9f9468200a5cc02420fb2f3d0588c72@nymkey.com...

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008,

wrote:

The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think that the only mystery remaining about the Shroud of Turin
is *Why* do antichrists (Atheists, CHRINOs, ad nauseam) refuse to

snip rest of amazing/confused/ridiculous/offensive twaddle.
This is the first time I've ever really bothered to read a full post from Mr
min.
Quite surprising, really - I never would have imagined that anyone could
reach such a high level of complete and utter barking mad lunacy!
Is he like this all of the time or was this a particularly exceptional post?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
Stop using Jesus as an excuse for being a narrow minded bigot.

.
User: "Michelle Malkin"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 11 Jan 2008 03:26:26 AM
"Steve O" <hooray@nospamhere.thanks> wrote in message
news:5uofpnF1j2m7aU1@mid.individual.net...



"Atheists Love Damnation" <atheists@hellfire.perdition> wrote in message
news:a9f9468200a5cc02420fb2f3d0588c72@nymkey.com...

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008,

wrote:

The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think that the only mystery remaining about the Shroud of Turin
is *Why* do antichrists (Atheists, CHRINOs, ad nauseam) refuse to

snip rest of amazing/confused/ridiculous/offensive twaddle.

This is the first time I've ever really bothered to read a full post from
Mr min.
Quite surprising, really - I never would have imagined that anyone could
reach such a high level of complete and utter barking mad lunacy!
Is he like this all of the time or was this a particularly exceptional
post?

All the time. That's why I call him Minnie Mouse.
.


User: "Lu R who"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 10 Jan 2008 06:42:30 PM
"Atheists Love Damnation" <atheists@hellfire.perdition> wrote in message
news:a9f9468200a5cc02420fb2f3d0588c72@nymkey.com...

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008,

wrote:

The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think that the only mystery remaining about the Shroud of Turin
is *Why* do antichrists (Atheists, CHRINOs, ad nauseam) refuse to
accept the incontrovertible evidence that this particular artifact
is the _actual_ shroud that the horribly beaten and crucified dead
physical body of Jesus Christ was wrapped in for more than seventy-
two contiguous hours before He physically resurrected, and neatly
folded up the cloth, and left it in the tomb for mortals to find?

Why do the Atheists refuse to accept that Jesus is their LORD and
Savior and reigning King and Master to the Ages of the Ages? Why?
That's an easy question to answer, not only because it's obvious,
but also because this question has been answered already in the
sacred scriptures. It's simply because of the Atheists' profane
vanity, their worldly arrogance, their self-aggrandizement, and
their mammon-worship, all ego and greed. It's as simple as that.

Thus begs the greater question Why do Atheists love to be damned
in Hellfire so much? I mean, it really sucks to be imprisoned in
dark Limbo, i.e. where the Immortal souls of mortal Atheists are
subjected to indescribably terrifying torments 24/7/365.2422. The
psychiatric diagnosis is that all Atheists are essentially psychic-
masochists. The souls of Atheists love to be punished in Hellfire,
which explains why they don't want to be saved. They _need_ their
punishment in Hell! It's like the only thing in eternity that the
Atheists can call their own, their Dark prison where the woodbine
twineth and the iceman cometh not. Atheists love to be God-Damned!

Atheists can't prevent their Damnation, so they've learned to love
it through long ages of practice, i.e. some 2000 discarnations over
the last 200,000 tropical years therearound (i.e., assuming average
of one mortal incarnation and one interim Immortal discarnation per
mundane solar century). Atheists have had plenty of practice being
without God, bit, banished, misled, born in sin, essentially born
to die, the first death to be discarnate in Hell, eventually into
the Light and Purgatory then abruptly cast down from heaven which
is the second death (you can read all about it in the Apocalypse),
born amid the crashing karmic waves of the fallen earth. Atheists
have had _plenty_ of practice. Thus they've learned to love their
damnation in both this world & in the world being eternally about.

Some believe and preach that God-hating Atheists should be pitied.
I don't subscribe to that pollyannaish philosophy at all any more,
although admittedly I used to (fool me once, but never twice). Yet
I have _always_ known that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy, i.e. God's Word is infallible and can't ever err at all.
Thus anyone who disagrees with Jesus is an Anti-Christian Atheist,
regardless of what these God-Damned Liars, Cowards and Murderers
call themselves (Catholic, Atheist, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist,
Hindu, etc. ad nauseam), it makes no difference whatsoever, since
they're all anarchists, antichrists Atheists, i.e. because that's
what they DO. And Praise God that's *EXACTLY* how they are Judged
in the Light! That's why the souls of Atheists always get trapped
in Dark Limbo when they die, where Atheists remain afraid, scared,
terrified of the Light in which awaits their future Judgment: for
each one every one *EXACTLY* according to their works of good and
works of evil, the latter of which Atheists don't want to be held
accountable for. But God doesn't care what Atheists want or don't
want, because God always holds men each one *EXACTLY* accountable
for their sins, this down to the very last subatomic particle bar
none. That's why Atheists don't want to believe in Limbo, because
that's where God *FORCES* Atheists to see their horrible Judgment
awaiting them in the Light: and Pay the Piper to every last penny
they shall--whether they like it or not! And Praise Jesus Atheists
do *NOT* like it in Hell, where God the Destroyer *DESTROYS* both
Immortal spirit-person and mortal body person. Praise God Almighty!

Thus I look forward to seeing the look on the God-hating Atheists'
collective face, when the greatest tribulation ever to befall the
world strikes, beginning with the betrayal and crucifixion of the
WOB's "In God We Trust" (thereby launching Armageddon) into where
the greater fiery region rapidly becomes the habitation of demons,
i.e., of the souls of dead Atheists, inhumane, monstrous, hideous,
demonic. This is why demonic spirits appear inhuman like the wild
beasts they are, with all manner of black cancers darkening their
psychic aura. Remember this prophecy about their Atheistic empire:

C8Q70

Il entrera vilain, mechant, infame
He will enter villain, malignant, infamous

Tyrannisant la Mesopotamie,
Tyrannizing the Mesopotamia,

Tous amis fait d'adulterine d'ame,
All friends makes of adulterine of heart,

Terre horrible, noir de phisonomie.
Earth horrible, dark of physiognomy.

So what are Atheists, essentially? Atheists are literally without
Theos, without Zeus, without God. Atheists are, to quote from the
Apocalypse: "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers,
and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" [Rev 22:15].
Thus it's no surprise that Atheists are always liars, cowards and
murderers, because Atheists are incapable of doing otherwise. See?

As any veteran exorcist can tell you, the Atheists especially hate
Latin quotes from the S. scriptures. Thus I love the Latin Vulgate
above all other translations (although the LXX is also a superior
translation of Old Testament scrolls), not only because the Vulgate
is the most accurate translation, but also because Atheists hate it,
and _everything_ the Atheists hate I devoutly love and worship with
all my heart, mind and soul. Contrarily, everything the Atheists do
I hate with all my heart, mind and soul. Thus I'll quote the Bible:

"...et dixit mihi haec verba
and he is saying to me These words

fidelissima et vera sunt et Dominus Deus
most faithful and veritable to be, and the Dominant one Zeus

spirituum prophetarum misit angelum suum
the spirits of the prophets he is sending off the angel of his

ostendere servis suis quae oportet
and he is showing to the servants of him what it is opportune

fieri cito et ecce venio velociter
and it is occurring in quickness, and behold. I am coming quickly.

beatus qui custodit verba prophetiae
beatific who he is keeping custody of the words of the prophecy

libri huius et ego Iohannes qui audivi et vidi
of the book this. and I John who I am hearing and I am seeing

haec et postquam audissem et vidissem cecidi
these things, and after I am hearing and am seeing, I am falling

ut adorarem ante pedes angeli qui mihi
in order to be adoring before the feet of the angel who to me

haec ostendebat et dicit mihi vide
these things he is showing. and he is saying to me Be you seeing

ne feceris conservus tuus sum et
that not you are doing. I the fellow-servant of yours to be, and

fratrum tuorum prophetarum et eorum qui servant
brethren of yours the prophets, and of them who they are guarding

verba libri huius Deum adora et dicit
the words of the book this. Zeus be you adoring. and he is saying

mihi ne signaveris verba prophetiae
to me that Not you should be sealing up the words of the prophecy

libri huius tempus enim prope est qui nocet
of the book this, the time for near to be. whom he is nocent

noceat adhuc et qui in sordibus est sordescat
he is nocent still. and who in sordidness to be he is sordid

adhuc et iustus iustitiam faciat adhuc et sanctus
still. and the just justice he is doing still. and the sanctified

sanctificetur adhuc ecce venio cito et merces
sanctifying still. behold. I am coming in quickness, and the wages

mea mecum est reddere unicuique
of me with me to be, and I am rendering to each and every one

secundum opera sua ego Alpha et Omega
according to the works of him. I the Alpha and the Omega,

primus et novissimus principium et finis beati
the first and the last, the principal and the finish. beatific

qui lavant stolas suas ut sit
who they are washing the stoles of them in order that to be

potestas eorum in ligno vitae et portis intrent
the potency of them in the tree of life, and the gates they are entering

in civitatem foris canes et venefici et inpudici
into the city. outside the dogs and the drug-abusers and the impudent

et homicidae et idolis servientes et omnis qui amat
and the homocidal and the idolaters and every one who he is loving

et facit mendacium ego Iesus misi angelum
and he is making mendacities. I Jesus I am sending the angel

meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego
of me to testify to you these things in the ecclesiae. I

sum radix et genus David stella splendida et
to be the root and offspring of David, the star splendid and

matutina et Spiritus et sponsa dicunt veni
matutinal. and the Spirit and the bride they are saying I am coming.

et qui audit dicat veni et qui sitit
and who he is hearing be you saying I am coming. and who he is thirsting

veniat qui vult accipiat aquam vitae
he is coming. who he is coming he is accepting the water of life

gratis contestor ego omni audienti verba
freely. I testify myself every one who is hearing the words of

prophetiae libri huius si quis adposuerit ad haec
the prophecy of the book this. if any one he is adding to this,

adponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro
will be adding Zeus upon him the plagues written in the book

isto et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri
this. and if any one he is diminishing from the words of the book

prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius
of the prophecy this, will be taking away Zeus that part of him

de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de
from the tree of life, and from the city sanctified, and from

his quae scripta sunt in libro isto dicit
that which is written to be in the book this. and is saying

qui testimonium perhibet istorum etiam
him whose testimony it is being presented at hand, Now too

venio cito amen veni Domine Iesu
I AM coming in quickness amen. Be you coming O Dominant one Jesus.

gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi ***** omnibus"
gratitude of the Dominant one of ours Jesus Christ be with all men.

--Apocalypsis 22:6-21, editio Vulgata

Armageddon Cometh,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBR4Zjx5ljD7YrHM/nEQICBACg90bYnjBAV1N6EGqXQymBihul57AAn0Wa
qsfF+TZ89b4cJySEH73wV+b3
=C2mW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

You are an evil doomsdaying fuckwit. I will appreciate EVERY DAY I am alive
and give thanks to God without the need to castigate others for being less
holier than thou.. I feel sorry for fools like you who hang on to every word
from a book that was written centuries after Jesus died, and put together
selectively by people with vested interests. Where is the gospel of Judas or
of Mary Magdeleine?
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 10 Jan 2008 06:24:22 PM
"Atheists Love Damnation" <atheists@hellfire.perdition> wrote in message
news:a9f9468200a5cc02420fb2f3d0588c72@nymkey.com...

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008,

wrote:

The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think that the only mystery remaining about the Shroud of Turin
is *Why* do antichrists (Atheists, CHRINOs, ad nauseam) refuse to
accept the incontrovertible evidence that this particular artifact
is the _actual_ shroud that the horribly beaten and crucified dead
physical body of Jesus Christ was wrapped in for more than seventy-
two contiguous hours before He physically resurrected, and neatly
folded up the cloth, and left it in the tomb for mortals to find?

Why do the Atheists refuse to accept that Jesus is their LORD and
Savior and reigning King and Master to the Ages of the Ages? Why?
That's an easy question to answer, not only because it's obvious,
but also because this question has been answered already in the
sacred scriptures. It's simply because of the Atheists' profane
vanity, their worldly arrogance, their self-aggrandizement, and
their mammon-worship, all ego and greed. It's as simple as that.

Thus begs the greater question Why do Atheists love to be damned
in Hellfire so much? I mean, it really sucks to be imprisoned in
dark Limbo, i.e. where the Immortal souls of mortal Atheists are
subjected to indescribably terrifying torments 24/7/365.2422. The
psychiatric diagnosis is that all Atheists are essentially psychic-
masochists. The souls of Atheists love to be punished in Hellfire,
which explains why they don't want to be saved. They _need_ their
punishment in Hell! It's like the only thing in eternity that the
Atheists can call their own, their Dark prison where the woodbine
twineth and the iceman cometh not. Atheists love to be God-Damned!

Atheists can't prevent their Damnation, so they've learned to love
it through long ages of practice, i.e. some 2000 discarnations over
the last 200,000 tropical years therearound (i.e., assuming average
of one mortal incarnation and one interim Immortal discarnation per
mundane solar century). Atheists have had plenty of practice being
without God, bit, banished, misled, born in sin, essentially born
to die, the first death to be discarnate in Hell, eventually into
the Light and Purgatory then abruptly cast down from heaven which
is the second death (you can read all about it in the Apocalypse),
born amid the crashing karmic waves of the fallen earth. Atheists
have had _plenty_ of practice. Thus they've learned to love their
damnation in both this world & in the world being eternally about.

Some believe and preach that God-hating Atheists should be pitied.
I don't subscribe to that pollyannaish philosophy at all any more,
although admittedly I used to (fool me once, but never twice). Yet
I have _always_ known that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy, i.e. God's Word is infallible and can't ever err at all.
Thus anyone who disagrees with Jesus is an Anti-Christian Atheist,
regardless of what these God-Damned Liars, Cowards and Murderers
call themselves (Catholic, Atheist, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist,
Hindu, etc. ad nauseam), it makes no difference whatsoever, since
they're all anarchists, antichrists Atheists, i.e. because that's
what they DO. And Praise God that's *EXACTLY* how they are Judged
in the Light! That's why the souls of Atheists always get trapped
in Dark Limbo when they die, where Atheists remain afraid, scared,
terrified of the Light in which awaits their future Judgment: for
each one every one *EXACTLY* according to their works of good and
works of evil, the latter of which Atheists don't want to be held
accountable for. But God doesn't care what Atheists want or don't
want, because God always holds men each one *EXACTLY* accountable
for their sins, this down to the very last subatomic particle bar
none. That's why Atheists don't want to believe in Limbo, because
that's where God *FORCES* Atheists to see their horrible Judgment
awaiting them in the Light: and Pay the Piper to every last penny
they shall--whether they like it or not! And Praise Jesus Atheists
do *NOT* like it in Hell, where God the Destroyer *DESTROYS* both
Immortal spirit-person and mortal body person. Praise God Almighty!

Thus I look forward to seeing the look on the God-hating Atheists'
collective face, when the greatest tribulation ever to befall the
world strikes, beginning with the betrayal and crucifixion of the
WOB's "In God We Trust" (thereby launching Armageddon) into where
the greater fiery region rapidly becomes the habitation of demons,
i.e., of the souls of dead Atheists, inhumane, monstrous, hideous,
demonic. This is why demonic spirits appear inhuman like the wild
beasts they are, with all manner of black cancers darkening their
psychic aura. Remember this prophecy about their Atheistic empire:

C8Q70

Il entrera vilain, mechant, infame
He will enter villain, malignant, infamous

Tyrannisant la Mesopotamie,
Tyrannizing the Mesopotamia,

Tous amis fait d'adulterine d'ame,
All friends makes of adulterine of heart,

Terre horrible, noir de phisonomie.
Earth horrible, dark of physiognomy.

So what are Atheists, essentially? Atheists are literally without
Theos, without Zeus, without God. Atheists are, to quote from the
Apocalypse: "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers,
and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" [Rev 22:15].
Thus it's no surprise that Atheists are always liars, cowards and
murderers, because Atheists are incapable of doing otherwise. See?

As any veteran exorcist can tell you, the Atheists especially hate
Latin quotes from the S. scriptures. Thus I love the Latin Vulgate
above all other translations (although the LXX is also a superior
translation of Old Testament scrolls), not only because the Vulgate
is the most accurate translation, but also because Atheists hate it,
and _everything_ the Atheists hate I devoutly love and worship with
all my heart, mind and soul. Contrarily, everything the Atheists do
I hate with all my heart, mind and soul. Thus I'll quote the Bible:

No need, Minnie Mouse. After all, most
people won't read Bible quotes written
by a Nazi. You say that everything
atheists hate you love. Well, this atheist
hates Nazis, fascists of all kinds, racists,
sexists,bigots of all kinds and child
abusers. So, you are saying, judging
from what you wrote above, that you
worship Hitler with all your heart and
soul and approve of child abuse. Also, you
hate donating to charities and research,
since I, as an atheist, do this. All this
by your own admission. You are not the
kind of person I would want in my house
or allowed around children.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
.

User: "David V."

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 10 Jan 2008 03:21:32 PM
wrote:


REPLY: If you go to the Shrouds Home Site and look at the exact
findings,

Not possible, you won't fine the "exact finding" on that site.

Dont dismiss Christ as a myth

I am not "dismissing" your jesus as a myth, he IS a myth.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
User: "David V."

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 14 Jan 2008 10:07:17 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 10, 1:21 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:


REPLY: If you go to the Shrouds Home Site and look at the
exact findings,


Not possible, you won't fine the "exact finding" on that
site.

Dont dismiss Christ as a myth


I am not "dismissing" your jesus as a myth, he IS a myth.


Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the
other who quotes the first fool as though he were wise.

It's obvious there is a third fool. One that thinks he's the
wiser fool. Are you really as much as a fool as you have shown
yourself to be?
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
User: "David V."

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 15 Jan 2008 09:54:22 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 14, 8:07 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

TerryCrosswrote:

On Jan 10, 1:21 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:


IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:


REPLY: If you go to the Shrouds Home Site and look at
the exact findings,


Not possible, you won't fine the "exact finding" on that
site.


Dont dismiss Christ as a myth


I am not "dismissing" your jesus as a myth, he IS a
myth.


Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the
other who quotes the first fool as though he were wise.


It's obvious there is a third fool. One that thinks he's the
wiser fool. Are you really as much as a fool as you have
shown yourself to be? -- Dave

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its
dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated
conformists. - Abbie Hoffman



How is democracy measured by freedom, or vice versa?

It seems that that quote is way above your head. Don't worry
about it and go back to playing with your Tinker Toys.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.


User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 14 Jan 2008 12:32:31 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman



Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the other who
quotes the first fool as though he were wise.

Where does anyone "equate democracy with liberty" in the quote above?
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
User: "David V."

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 14 Jan 2008 10:08:47 AM
Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman




Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the other who
quotes the first fool as though he were wise.



Where does anyone "equate democracy with liberty" in the quote above?

The third fool.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.

User: "David V."

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 14 Jan 2008 10:09:31 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 13, 10:32 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman


Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the other who
quotes the first fool as though he were wise.


Where does anyone "equate democracy with liberty" in the quote above?

--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House



"You measure a democracy by the freedom ..."

Goood Gawd that was hard!

Not hard, but moronic.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.

User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 14 Jan 2008 01:13:23 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman


Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the other who
quotes the first fool as though he were wise.


Where does anyone "equate democracy with liberty" in the quote above?

--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House



"You measure a democracy by the freedom ..."

Goood Gawd that was hard!

Apparently it was, since you either never made it to the end of the sentence
or you're being deliberately stupid.
The statement is about measuring democracy by the freedom it gives its
dissidents. I cannot possibly make it any clearer or more straightforward
for you to understand.
Nowhere in that sentence is democracy "equated" with liberty. Preferably a
society must be as free as possible from occupation and any other form of
enslavement in order for democracy to exist, but it is not *absolutely*
necessary.
The statement simply says that as a general rule of thumb, the level of
democracy in any given country is closely related to the freedom the
dissidents in that country enjoy. This can be shown simply by examining all
socio-political systems and countries that have ever existed - the rule
never fails.
What exactly are you arguing here? That the level of democracy in a
socio-political system is completely independent of the political
persecutions, arbitrary imprisonment, kangaroo trials, suppression of the
freedom of expression, etc? That a country can be democratic by a
declaration, rather than by deeds, like all those communist countries used
to be? What is your argument?
I don't understand your need to be deliberately stupid. What do you get from it?
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
User: "David V."

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 14 Jan 2008 10:12:45 AM
Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its
dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated
conformists. - Abbie Hoffman



Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and
the other who quotes the first fool as though he were
wise.



Where does anyone "equate democracy with liberty" in the
quote above?

-- Come down off the cross We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House




"You measure a democracy by the freedom ..."

Goood Gawd that was hard!



Apparently it was, since you either never made it to the end
of the sentence or you're being deliberately stupid.

The statement is about measuring democracy by the freedom it
gives its dissidents. I cannot possibly make it any clearer or
more straightforward for you to understand. Nowhere in that
sentence is democracy "equated" with liberty. Preferably a
society must be as free as possible from occupation and any
other form of enslavement in order for democracy to exist, but
it is not *absolutely* necessary. The statement simply says
that as a general rule of thumb, the level of democracy in any
given country is closely related to the freedom the dissidents
in that country enjoy. This can be shown simply by examining
all socio-political systems and countries that have ever
existed - the rule never fails. What exactly are you arguing
here? That the level of democracy in a socio-political system
is completely independent of the political persecutions,
arbitrary imprisonment, kangaroo trials, suppression of the
freedom of expression, etc? That a country can be democratic
by a declaration, rather than by deeds, like all those
communist countries used to be? What is your argument?

I don't understand your need to be deliberately stupid. What
do you get from it?

He's a christian. That explains it.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.

User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 15 Jan 2008 08:32:07 PM
Terry Cross wrote:

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman


Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the other who
quotes the first fool as though he were wise.


Where does anyone "equate democracy with liberty" in the quote above?


"You measure a democracy by the freedom ..."


Goood Gawd that was hard!


Apparently it was, since you either never made it to the end of the sentence
or you're being deliberately stupid.

The statement is about measuring democracy by the freedom it gives its
dissidents. I cannot possibly make it any clearer or more straightforward
for you to understand.
Nowhere in that sentence is democracy "equated" with liberty. Preferably a
society must be as free as possible from occupation and any other form of
enslavement in order for democracy to exist, but it is not *absolutely*
necessary.
The statement simply says that as a general rule of thumb, the level of
democracy in any given country is closely related to the freedom the
dissidents in that country enjoy.


OK, a sort-of equation. Democracy ~= Liberty. Still a fool of a
quote.

Look, child, first you have to learn to read, then you need to grasp the
concept of understanding what you read, then you need to look up logic and
reasoning. Then we can talk. Right now I'd get a better response from the
left tire on my automobile.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
User: "David V."

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 16 Jan 2008 10:16:22 AM
Terry Cross wrote:


Is this what passes for rational discussion among Atheists?

When dealing with freaks like you a rational discussion is not
possible.

Do you ever get around to addressing the subject?

The topic of this thread is the piece of cloth that was painted
long ago. Many brain dead christians firmly, psychotically,
believe it has some connection to a person that never existed.
YOU are the one that started posting off topic.

Why or how is the level of democracy related in any way to the
freedom of dissidents?

Why bother explaining something to you that you would refuse to
understand anyway?

Feel free to use the crayons to draw pictures.

You would still refuse to understand if we drew simple pictures
that you could understand.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.

User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 16 Jan 2008 08:39:59 PM
Terry Cross wrote:

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman


Two fools: One who equates democracy with liberty, and the other who
quotes the first fool as though he were wise.


Where does anyone "equate democracy with liberty" in the quote above?


"You measure a democracy by the freedom ..."


Goood Gawd that was hard!


Apparently it was, since you either never made it to the end of the sentence
or you're being deliberately stupid.


The statement is about measuring democracy by the freedom it gives its
dissidents. I cannot possibly make it any clearer or more straightforward
for you to understand.
Nowhere in that sentence is democracy "equated" with liberty. Preferably a
society must be as free as possible from occupation and any other form of
enslavement in order for democracy to exist, but it is not *absolutely*
necessary.
The statement simply says that as a general rule of thumb, the level of
democracy in any given country is closely related to the freedom the
dissidents in that country enjoy.


OK, a sort-of equation. Democracy ~= Liberty. Still a fool of a
quote.


Look, child, first you have to learn to read, then you need to grasp the
concept of understanding what you read, then you need to look up logic and
reasoning. Then we can talk. Right now I'd get a better response from the
left tire on my automobile.



Is this what passes for rational discussion among Atheists?

You are lecturing *me* on rational discussion??? This is rich.

Do you
ever get around to addressing the subject? Why or how is the level of
democracy related in any way to the freedom of dissidents? Feel free
to use the crayons to draw pictures.

First of all, democracy in the modern sense of the word doesn't mean simply
"the will of majority", but in the Western societies it includes strong
protection of all sorts of freedoms which are built into these societies'
foundation principles (i.e. Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc.)
Therefore, some of the elementary personal rights are the freedom of
expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, etc.
It follows from this that the society that allows and openly nurtures these
freedoms is on a higher degree of democratic development (democracy is a
fluid process, not a stasis) than the country that not only forbids them,
but also persecutes the people who attempt to exercise them (i.e. dissidents).
Since there are gradations in the level of democracy from country to
country, one of the best indicators of those gradations is the freedom the
dissidents enjoy.
Clear now?
I doubt it.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 17 Jan 2008 07:43:51 PM
Terry Cross wrote:

First of all, democracy in the modern sense of the word doesn't mean simply
"the will of majority",



But of course i never meant "the will of the majority." Democracy
always did and still does mean "rule by the people." Having taken off
on the wrong foot, no wonder you go spat! at the hurdle.

Are you really this fucking stupid or what? First of all, just what the hell
do you think the "rule by the people" is if not "the will of the majority"?
You think you can get the "rule by the people" by having a minority "rule"?
Second, I went out of my way down below to emphasize that we are talking
about democracy in the modern sense of the word, as practiced in the Western
hemisphere. Therefore, your "rule by the people" parochial definition is
completely inappropriate. There is no country in the world that has ever
been or will ever be ruled by the people. You can maybe have something
similar in a 10-member tribe somewhere deep in the Amazon, but not in a
million+ population.

but in the Western societies it includes strong
protection of all sorts of freedoms which are built into these societies'
foundation principles (i.e. Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc.)



Protection of individual rights has nothing to do with the mechanism
by which national rule is accomplished.

Magna Carta had nothing to do with Democracy. The famous Bill of
Rights is a document of the Federal Government of the United States,
which was at the time of its signing, not a democracy but a republic.

Jesus assballs christ, you are really fucked up. The sheer amount of
nonsense above definitely prevents me from further posting.
Go back to school. [snip rest of crap]
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
User: "Mike"

Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud 18 Jan 2008 07:59:50 AM
Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

First of all, democracy in the modern sense of the word doesn't mean
simply
"the will of majority",



But of course i never meant "the will of the majority." Democracy
always did and still does mean "rule by the people." Having taken off
on the wrong foot, no wonder you go spat! at the hurdle.


Are you really this fucking stupid or what? First of all, just what the
hell do you think the "rule by the people" is if not "the will of the
majority"? You think you can get the "rule by the people" by having a
minority "rule"?

40% of the folks vote for A. 35% vote for B. 25% vote for C. A becomes
the law. That was a "rule/vote by the people" but yet it was NOT "the
will of the majority." A democracy can be done where it takes a majority
vote for something to become law OR it can be done where it simply takes
a larger vote than all other options. But yes, "rule by the people"
does, often, become "the will of the majority" since, in most
situations, there's only a "yes" or "no" vote on any given issue.
<snip>
.
User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 30 Jan 2008 01:03:36 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.

The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!

Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.

It is amazing how retarded you are. All this time you argued against the
saying "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
All this time - it's been months now.
And now you present an example which not only does nothing to support your
idiotic arguments; just the opposite - it confirms the Hoffman's statement
to the last bit.
You would agree that in your example, "living among a Quaker majority" would
still qualify as democracy, in any sense of the word, provided some
elementary requirements are met (elections, etc).
You would also agree that any dissidents from this "democracy" would have
limited freedoms.
Therefore, it is only natural to say that the level of democracy in that
society would be on a very low level, compared to societies with more
personal liberties. Hence, the *measurement* bit.
Yet you still harp on this issue like a broken record. You are truly one of
the dumbest idiots I've exchanged posts with lately. Considering that your
other posts here are wasted on arguing for the authenticity of a medieval
piece of cloth, nothing is surprising.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
User: "David V."

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 30 Jan 2008 09:57:04 AM
Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. .....


It is amazing how retarded you are. All this time you argued
against the saying "You measure a democracy by the freedom it
gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated
conformists." All this time - it's been months now. And now
you present an example which not only does nothing to support
your idiotic arguments; just the opposite - it confirms the
Hoffman's statement to the last bit.

It also presents evidence that he has serious psychological
problems. No one takes those tag lines seriously. And for the
Hoffman quote; I don't care what else he had to say, he got that
one thing right. I use it because it fits what bush and the
NeoCons are doing - declaring anyone not agreeing with them is
unAmerican. They give no freedom to dissent and are whittling
away at our freedoms.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
User: "David V."

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 01 Feb 2008 10:02:24 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 30, 7:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:


Terry Cross wrote:


And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom.
.....


It is amazing how retarded you are. All this time you
argued against the saying "You measure a democracy by the
freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives
its assimilated conformists." All this time - it's been
months now. And now you present an example which not only
does nothing to support your idiotic arguments; just the
opposite - it confirms the Hoffman's statement to the last
bit.


It also presents evidence that he has serious psychological
problems.



Wow, the same old ad hominem? You fellows can't deal with
logic.

That wasn't an ad hominem. It's the truth. It's painfully obvious
that you're not running on all cylinders.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.


User: "raven1"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 30 Jan 2008 03:59:37 AM
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:59:37 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
<tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 11:03 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.


The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!


Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.


It is amazing how retarded you are. All this time you argued against the
saying "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
All this time - it's been months now.
And now you present an example which not only does nothing to support your
idiotic arguments; just the opposite - it confirms the Hoffman's statement
to the last bit.
You would agree that in your example, "living among a Quaker majority" would
still qualify as democracy, in any sense of the word, provided some
elementary requirements are met (elections, etc).
You would also agree that any dissidents from this "democracy" would have
limited freedoms.
Therefore, it is only natural to say that the level of democracy in that
society would be on a very low level, compared to societies with more
personal liberties.


And there you go wrong again. Such society could be among the most
"democratic" in the world. People could vote on what all families
everywhere should have for Wednesday night dinner, and any who
deviated could be flogged. And it would be perfectly democratic, with
full debate, secret balloting, rigorous polling station etiquette, and
the full circus.

Democracy and freedom are different vectors. Often a kingdom, such as
Great Britain, is more free than a parliamentary republic such as
Israel.

You just don't get it. But thanks for playing straight-man. You have
been useful.

"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son".
<plonk>
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.

User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 30 Jan 2008 03:27:49 PM
Terry Cross wrote:

Democracy and freedom are different vectors. Often a kingdom, such as
Great Britain, is more free than a parliamentary republic such as
Israel.

No *****? Even United Kingdom of Great Britain, with all the absolute power
centralized in the court and the queen, as well as the few knights of the
Round Table?
Bwahahahahahahahaha, what an *****...
Not to mention that in the same sentence, he again puts his foot in the
mouth by *measuring* the democracy by *freedom* ("...more free...").
Go join the AA or something, 'cause you need it.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.

User: "cactus"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 30 Jan 2008 11:01:38 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 29, 11:03 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.
The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!
Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.

It is amazing how retarded you are. All this time you argued against the
saying "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
All this time - it's been months now.
And now you present an example which not only does nothing to support your
idiotic arguments; just the opposite - it confirms the Hoffman's statement
to the last bit.
You would agree that in your example, "living among a Quaker majority" would
still qualify as democracy, in any sense of the word, provided some
elementary requirements are met (elections, etc).
You would also agree that any dissidents from this "democracy" would have
limited freedoms.
Therefore, it is only natural to say that the level of democracy in that
society would be on a very low level, compared to societies with more
personal liberties.


And there you go wrong again. Such society could be among the most
"democratic" in the world. People could vote on what all families
everywhere should have for Wednesday night dinner, and any who
deviated could be flogged. And it would be perfectly democratic, with
full debate, secret balloting, rigorous polling station etiquette, and
the full circus.

Democracy and freedom are different vectors. Often a kingdom, such as
Great Britain, is more free than a parliamentary republic such as
Israel.

You don't get it. Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy. The king
or queen has certain limited, mostly ceremonial, powers and duties, but
has very little to do with legislation and actually running the country.
Once again you manifest your bigotry. You will win very few arguments
when you drift with the overwhelming currents of your bile.
<snip>
.
User: "cactus"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 01 Feb 2008 02:24:30 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 30, 9:01 am, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 29, 11:03 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.
The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!
Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.

It is amazing how retarded you are. All this time you argued against the
saying "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
All this time - it's been months now.
And now you present an example which not only does nothing to support your
idiotic arguments; just the opposite - it confirms the Hoffman's statement
to the last bit.
You would agree that in your example, "living among a Quaker majority" would
still qualify as democracy, in any sense of the word, provided some
elementary requirements are met (elections, etc).
You would also agree that any dissidents from this "democracy" would have
limited freedoms.
Therefore, it is only natural to say that the level of democracy in that
society would be on a very low level, compared to societies with more
personal liberties.

And there you go wrong again. Such society could be among the most
"democratic" in the world. People could vote on what all families
everywhere should have for Wednesday night dinner, and any who
deviated could be flogged. And it would be perfectly democratic, with
full debate, secret balloting, rigorous polling station etiquette, and
the full circus.
Democracy and freedom are different vectors. Often a kingdom, such as
Great Britain, is more free than a parliamentary republic such as
Israel.

You don't get it. Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy.


Oh, but of course. And the moon is a litho-cheese - or is it a cheese-
o-lith?

You have no valid response because you know you are wrong. If you have
an intelligent response, make it.


The king
or queen has certain limited, mostly ceremonial, powers and duties, but
has very little to do with legislation and actually running the country.


No bill comes into law without her signature. Same like the
president.

There's no veto power. It's a formality


TCross

.



User: "Mike"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 30 Jan 2008 06:32:18 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.

The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!

Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.

Yes, I'd agree with that and that's why the constitution has many
provisions to actually protect some of the freedoms of the minority from
the tyranny of the majority.
.

User: "cactus"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 29 Jan 2008 11:52:41 PM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 18, 5:59 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

First of all, democracy in the modern sense of the word doesn't mean
simply
"the will of majority",

But of course i never meant "the will of the majority." Democracy
always did and still does mean "rule by the people." Having taken off
on the wrong foot, no wonder you go spat! at the hurdle.

Are you really this fucking stupid or what? First of all, just what the
hell do you think the "rule by the people" is if not "the will of the
majority"? You think you can get the "rule by the people" by having a
minority "rule"?

40% of the folks vote for A. 35% vote for B. 25% vote for C. A becomes
the law. That was a "rule/vote by the people" but yet it was NOT "the
will of the majority." A democracy can be done where it takes a majority
vote for something to become law OR it can be done where it simply takes
a larger vote than all other options. But yes, "rule by the people"
does, often, become "the will of the majority" since, in most
situations, there's only a "yes" or "no" vote on any given issue.


And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.

The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!

Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.

TCross

.

User: "cactus"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 29 Jan 2008 11:53:16 PM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 18, 5:59 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

First of all, democracy in the modern sense of the word doesn't mean
simply
"the will of majority",

But of course i never meant "the will of the majority." Democracy
always did and still does mean "rule by the people." Having taken off
on the wrong foot, no wonder you go spat! at the hurdle.

Are you really this fucking stupid or what? First of all, just what the
hell do you think the "rule by the people" is if not "the will of the
majority"? You think you can get the "rule by the people" by having a
minority "rule"?

40% of the folks vote for A. 35% vote for B. 25% vote for C. A becomes
the law. That was a "rule/vote by the people" but yet it was NOT "the
will of the majority." A democracy can be done where it takes a majority
vote for something to become law OR it can be done where it simply takes
a larger vote than all other options. But yes, "rule by the people"
does, often, become "the will of the majority" since, in most
situations, there's only a "yes" or "no" vote on any given issue.


And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.

The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!

Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.

One can always leave the Quakers. Muslims are often not that kind.
.
User: "cactus"

Title: Re: Fools Equate Democracy with Freedom 30 Jan 2008 12:49:39 AM
Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 29, 9:53 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

On Jan 18, 5:59 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

First of all, democracy in the modern sense of the word doesn't mean
simply
"the will of majority",

But of course i never meant "the will of the majority." Democracy
always did and still does mean "rule by the people." Having taken off
on the wrong foot, no wonder you go spat! at the hurdle.

Are you really this fucking stupid or what? First of all, just what the
hell do you think the "rule by the people" is if not "the will of the
majority"? You think you can get the "rule by the people" by having a
minority "rule"?

40% of the folks vote for A. 35% vote for B. 25% vote for C. A becomes
the law. That was a "rule/vote by the people" but yet it was NOT "the
will of the majority." A democracy can be done where it takes a majority
vote for something to become law OR it can be done where it simply takes
a larger vote than all other options. But yes, "rule by the people"
does, often, become "the will of the majority" since, in most
situations, there's only a "yes" or "no" vote on any given issue.

And even beyond that, democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy
still results in being "ruled." The most vivid image would be for Mr.
Duckman to imagine living among a Quaker majority. No Sunday movies,
no racy movies, no evening shopping, no guns, no pornography, no short
skirts, no lipstick, no perfume, no swearing, no bikinis, no flirting,
no overt Atheism, no secular schools, no freedom of opinion, and no
automobiles; Church on Sunday whether he likes it or not, Bible
training for his children, and starched collars on his shirts.
The will of the majority, right? Oh, what a paradise!
Yes, democracy among the Quakers might be no better than dictatorship
among the Muslims.

One can always leave the Quakers. Muslims are often not that kind.


Of course they are. Saddam Husein had turned his whole country and
government secular in a single generation. Let's note here that you
watch too much television.

I don't, as it happens. Saddam "secularized" his country the way that
Stalin and Pol Pot did - by murdering anyone who disagreed with him.
I can see where you would like that.
.