|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Stop the hate="Page 2, Dumbass"? 
Faith and logic are polar opposites--faith requires devotion, logic requires questioning. Your attempt (not the first) to marry the two is puzzling; you aren't stupid. Yet you use the same hackneyed arguments ("indisputable proof") that you so rudely decry. Everything you posted assumes what you are trying to prove.
If a scientist (or anyone really) approaches a mysterious situation with the answer in mind, objectivity is lost. Now, if one's aim is to prove that the Wall of Jericho existed, it isn't that hard (nevermind that proving the Wall of Jericho ever happened doesn't independently prove the existence of God). On a more banal level, if I watch everyone and assume that they're spies from the government, or private detectives hired by my wife to make sure I'm not cheating on her, then my mindset becomes my reality independent of reality. Do you think the people who fund these digs do so with the goal of attaining knowledge? That simply isn't how funded research works; whoever pays the purse gets to decide the slant through which lens the project results will be shown.
My only point on the Catholic Church (and as a tangent all organized religion) is that religious morality is often trumped by politics and a contentious desire to maintain the status quo. There are numerous examples of this throughout history, and the Nazi Germany is one. My opinions of religion are what they are, but the facts before you are undeniable; what was distressing was the way in which you danced around the parts that couldn't be explained away.
You're young, and religion has provided you with the answers to questions about the world. Cool. But nevertheless, it represents only an opinion, and the vicious way in which you try to alchemize your opinion into some factual truth is fairly boring. I've seen people on both sides of the religious issue do this, and it is always distasteful no matter who's doing it. Rather than looking for facts to support a truth, you look for facts to support your truth. In that sense, it is the reason why talking to you has become a waste of my time.
Should you have something level-headed to say, I'm all ears.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 193
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 193 |
[url=http://www.robkamphausen.com/ubbthreads/...e=0&fpart=2 ]the G-man said[/url]
Wednesday and I have an open relationship. And we believe in sharing.
G-Man "G-gay" points: 2,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
unrestrained id said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Christianity was used as his smoke-screen to appeal to the Christian majority. Thus their mentions. Do you really think he was a practicing Christian? By the time of the war, he had forsaken any mentions of Christianity since he'd succeeded in using it to accomplish his War Macht.
Be that as it may, that wasn't the assertion made. This was.
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Hitler did not in any way promote Catholicism or Christianity. His stated purpose, and that of his Nazi party, was to extinguish Christianity.
Which is patently false.
It's absolutely not false to say that Hitler was anti-Christian. The evidence is overwhelming.
Hitler's own writings, Nazi documents, and statements from Hitler's innermost circle in the Nazi party, all confirm unquestionably that Hitler wanted to wipe Christianity completely out of German culture.
You can point to clips from his speeches where Hitler gives lip service to Christianity.
But it is well documented that these speeches by Hitler were ONLY lip service, and Hitler's intent all along was to wipe out Christianity.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
I will admit that after the second page I only read parts of posts because they have become too long winded to follow. That, and r3x keeps losing end quote tags, and that's really annoying.  A couple of things from page two stood out to me. The first has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but since I started the thread, I'm delving into it. The second sort of does. Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Solomon. And it was a standard practice for lords of houses in the Bible to take many wives.
Solomon was a book of poems that were describing the women, and the names of those women, who were devoted to Christ. “Married to the Lord”. As for “standard practice”: Whilst I’m aware of some people in the Bible being described as polygamous, I don’t remember any Biblical lesson telling us specifically that it’s okay to marry multiple women.
Pariah, what the fuck are you talking about? 
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
With a big difference. It’s in the doctrine of Muslims to do what they’ve done.
if that were true then why aren't all muslims terrorists?
I know a few very religious muslims. they can be touchy sometimes, but they're non-violent and believe in a peaceful way of life.
jihad has many meanings. it is mainly a struggle to maintain one's faith and purity of being (hence the Isalmic belief in not eating certain animals and never drinking alcohol).
its been misinterpreted to mean soley an act of violence.
Quote:
According to their majority, we’ve offended them somehow, and now they want retribution based on their teachings.
muslims do believe in defending themselves from invasions. and we have butt ourselves into their countries and fucked them up in many ways.
My understanding is that there are extremists within Islam who hate all infidels. And infidel to Muslims is a person who does not believe in what Islam considers a monotheistic religion. Muslims do not consider Christianity to be monotheistic. That's why historically, Jews have been able to live relatively understerbed within Muslim society, while Christians have been consistantly persecuted. Muslims believe that the Jews have it backwards, that Ishmael was the son who was almost sacrificed, and that inheritence is through him. As long as the Jews don't start claiming inheritance (i.e., the land of Istael), then there is no conflict.
But that's only between Jews and Muslims. The same reasoning does not apply between Christians and Muslims. Muslims will never respect Christians. There is nothing Christians can do to change this. Muslims view Christians to be inferior in the same way that WASPS and Chatholics viewed Africans at the hight of slavery.
The argument that the Christian world must have done something to piss the Islamic world off is simply invalid. They have always been pissed off, and they always will be. They will not be happy until everyone believes in Allah or dies for being infidels.
Of course, there are millions of peaceful Muslims. It has been argued before on these boards that there are two sects of Islam. One is tolerant of the world and does not believe in any sort of violence as a means to an end. The other, which is dominant in the Mideast, cries Jihad and means to whipe all those who are not like them off the face of he planet.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
    You can say all you want about how privately they really hated each other and it was all lip service, but the fact of the matter is they publically didn't oppose Hitler. And in failing to do so they might as well as supported the Holocaust. And if you think its outlandish to say that, then why did the Pope make an apology for turning a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
You can say all you want about how privately they really hated each other and it was all lip service, but the fact of the matter is they publically didn't oppose Hitler.
And in failing to do so they might as well as supported the Holocaust.
And if you think its outlandish to say that, then why did the Pope make an apology for turning a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Are there photographs of American leaders visiting Hitler?
Of British ?
Of Russians ?
Of French ?
And because they are photographed with Hitler, does that make them allies of Hitler ?
No. It doesn't.
As in many political situations both before and after World War II, these nations, and many others, tried diplomatic negotiation with Hitler as a way to prevent war, and/or to protect their own interests as long as they could.
You could argue that any or all of these nations and their political leaders contributed just as much to Hitler's rise to power, by their diplomacy, or their silence, their action, or their inaction.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
But it's not trendy to criticize them! Especially since there was a Democrat in the White House at the time! Pay attention, Wonder Boy! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
I though Noe was a valley where lots of lesbian couples lived. 
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
Quote:
Pariah said:So you're saying their insults weren't directed at l'il ol' me?
Maybe I missunderstood your post, but I felt you were a little more general than just the posts made in direct reply to yours.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
You can say all you want about how privately they really hated each other and it was all lip service, but the fact of the matter is they publically didn't oppose Hitler.
And in failing to do so they might as well as supported the Holocaust.
And if you think its outlandish to say that, then why did the Pope make an apology for turning a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Are there photographs of American leaders visiting Hitler?
Of British ?
Of Russians ?
Of French ?
And because they are photographed with Hitler, does that make them allies of Hitler ?
No. It doesn't.
As in many political situations both before and after World War II, these nations, and many others, tried diplomatic negotiation with Hitler as a way to prevent war, and/or to protect their own interests as long as they could.
You could argue that any or all of these nations and their political leaders contributed just as much to Hitler's rise to power, by their diplomacy, or their silence, their action, or their inaction.
well, if you'd read what I wrote instead of just shitting your pants and running around in a circle shouting eggman, then you'd notice that the catholics NEVER spoke out against the Nazis and ended up apologising for it later.
FDR, Stalin, and Churchil actually fought this thing called a World War when they realized Hitler was going to bow to diplomacy.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
I though Noe was a valley where lots of lesbian couples lived.
I saw that too. 
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
You can say all you want about how privately they really hated each other and it was all lip service, but the fact of the matter is they publically didn't oppose Hitler.
And in failing to do so they might as well as supported the Holocaust.
And if you think its outlandish to say that, then why did the Pope make an apology for turning a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Are there photographs of American leaders visiting Hitler?
Of British ?
Of Russians ?
Of French ?
And because they are photographed with Hitler, does that make them allies of Hitler ?
No. It doesn't.
You have any pics of any British, Russian, or French leaders displaying the Nazi salute to Hitler?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
well, if you'd read what I wrote instead of just shitting your pants and running around in a circle shouting eggman, then you'd notice that the catholics NEVER spoke out against the Nazis and ended up apologising for it later.
FDR, Stalin, and Churchil actually fought this thing called a World War when they realized Hitler was going to bow to diplomacy.
Nice ad hominem tactics, personally attacking me with a set of misleading charicatures and insults, with nothing to back them up.
But they present nothing to support your argument that the Pope and the Catholics he reigned over weren't persecuted and non-supportive of the Nazis.
Catholics were persecuted by Hitler.
Catholics did voice opposition to Hitler.
And before FDR, Stalin and Churchill "fought a little thing called a World War", the United States sold military hardware to Nazi Germany to help it rebuild its military arsenal and prepare for war, Stalin signed a Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler in 1939 (which Hitler later broke), and Churchill's predecessor Chamberlain pursued peaceful negotiation with Hitler right up to the point that World War II began.
And way after they saw that Hitler was a threat, they acquiesced to Hitler and gave him the Rhineland, all of Austria, the Sudetenland, and then all of Czechoslavokia, hoping these would be enough to appease him, before Hitler went on to take all of Poland in September 1939 (in partnership with Stalin, in the Pact of Non-Aggression that they both signed, by the way).
You might try checking your historical facts before you condescend to others with your innaccuracies.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Catholics NEVER spoke out against the Nazis...
Ohh, really...
If you'd read my previous post, you'd see that sweeping remark was disproven before you made it.
Since you didn't read it before (even though you quoted it, here it is again : )
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
From INSIDE HITLER'S GERMANY: Life Under the Third Reich, by Matthew Hughes and Chris Mann, pages 80-84
PEOPLE AND RELIGION
Quote:
The Nazis were forced to tolerate religion in Germany, but as Martin Bormann exclaimed:
"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."
Hitler supported this view, stating:
"One day we want to be in a position where only complete idiots stand in the pulpit and preach to old women."
The Nazis viewed Christianity as a faith tainted by Jews.
In response, the Nazis offered the German people a new religion based on blood, soil, Germanic folklore and the Thousand-Year Reich.
The Nazis were no different here [from] earleir revolutionaries who tried to offer the people a brave new secular world. It was no surprise that racial supremacy played a large part in this new "religion".
Nazis who still wanted a spiritual home were offered a new faith called Gottglaubig ( God believing ) as an alternative to the established churches.
The movement was heavily tainted with peculiar pagan practices. It was given official sanction by the Nazi authorities, and by 1939 the number of "God believers" exceeded three million.
The Nazis stressed romantic notions of the pagan past, while simultaneously repressing the established churches.
The Nazis were unwilling to tolerate (as with the family ) an alternative power center [existing] in the Christian religion. The rituals of life associated with the Church --birth, marriage and death-- were all criticized.
As part of this attack, the Nazis also changed the calander to downplay Christian celebrations, and emphasize non-Christian Ceremonies. Thus in 1938, carols and the Nativity play were forbidden in schools; at the same time, Christmas was replaced with the new term "Yuletide".
PROTESTANTISM AND GLEICHSCHALTUNG
Quote:
The more extreme Nazis looked to extend the Nazi policy of Gleichschaltung ( Coordination ) to the churches.
This policy of coordination aimed to fuse all areas of German life together into a supreme Nazi machine. Anything or anyone that opposed this process was suspect, and a collection of Nazi organizations tried to bring together all aspects of German life under Nazi authority.
A series of laws passed by the Nazis after 1933 were designed to destroy the traditions and priveleges of the old German states and create a centralized one-party state. From the mass of new legislation, new power groups developed: Labour Front, SS, SD and Gestapo.
The churches were an obvious target, and in April 1933 hard-line Nazis demanded immediaate Gleichschaltung of all Evangelical churches.
The response of the two major denominations in Germany ( Roman Catholic and Protestant) was mixed: some acquiesced Nazi demands, others met the new threat with determined opposition.
Nazi Protestants ( often called "Positive Christians" ) believed that Jesus Christ had been sent to them in the form of Hitler, that God had sanctified the Aryan way of life and that racial mixing was wrong.
With this in mind, "Positive Christians" attempterd to pass a motion that required Aryan origin as a basis for clerical office.
Pastor Martin Neimoller took over leadership of the Confessional Church and formed a Pastors' Emergency League ( Pfarrbund ) to oppose the [pro-Nazi]hardliners.
Neimoller was an ex-World War I submarine captain, awarded the Pour le Merite decoration, who subsequently studied theology and was ordained in 1924.
Some 7000 pastors joined Neimoller's opposition, but Nazi persecution decimated their ranks.
Meanwhile, "Positive Christians" attacked the Old Testament and those parts of the New Testament considered tainted by Judaism.
The policies of the "Positive Christians" were heavily criticized by many in the Protestant Churches. And were attacked by those such as Neimoller.
In the end, The Nazis' attempts at Gleichschaltung for Protestantism failed.
But this did not stop the Nazis from persecuting religious opponents, including Neimoller, who was imprisoned in 1937, and subsequently sent to a concentration camp.
When the Protestant Churches went on record in 1935 to say that the entire Nazi racial folk Weltanschaung was nonsense, 700 ministers were arrested, humiliated, and their civil liberties restricted.
Ultimately, while the Nazis failed to absorb these churches, by the late 1930's the policies of repression had effectively stifled open opposition within the Protestant movement.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Quote:
The Catholic Church represented more formidable opposition for the Nazis.
The Catholics had two advantages over the Protestants:
1) theirs was a truly international faith, under the central leadership of the Vatican:
2) Catholics had a political party in Germany, the Centre Party, to represent their interests.
The Catholic Church hoped to use its political influence to deflect Nazi interference in Church matters.
Therefore, the Centre Party supported the Enabling Law of 1933 ( a sweeping measure to enable the Nazi gobvernment to make laws without the approval of the [legislative] Reichstag ) that formed the constitutional basis of Nazi rule, in the hope that this support would paay dividends in the Nazi policy toward Catholics.
Hitler was careful not to antagonize the Catholic Church, and his conciliatory phrases lulled them into a false sense of security.
It was also the case that most German Catholics ( and Protestants) were indifferent to the all-embracing Nazi ideology that made complete claim on all Germans, and they failed to see its potential to threaten the established religions.
By 1936, the Catholic Church was making official representations to Hitler about Nazi interference in its affairs.
When Cardinal Faulhaber, the Church's representative, complained about new laws for sterilization of those with genetic diseases, Hitler lost his temper and told the Cardinal not to interfere.
Five months after Faulhaber's encounter with the Fuhrer, Pope Pius XI issued an extraordinary encyclical entitled With Deep Anxiety that condemned Nazi attacks on the Church. The Pope reminded Hitler that man as a human being possessed rights that must be preserved against every attempt by the community to deny, suppress or hinder them.
This encyclical was read from the pulpit in all of Germany's Catholic churches.
The Nazis responded by making attacks on priests, monks, and nuns in the state-controlled press, and then arresting and charging a number of them on trumped-up accusations of financial and sexual impropriety.
Gobbels, himself a former Catholic, orchestrated these attacks and sent hundreds of nuns and priests to the concentration camps.
In the end, both Christian Churches [Protestant and Catholic] failed to understand the threat the Nazis represented. While many individual clergy acted heroically, the Churches as organized bodies did little to impede the Nazi takeover of Germany; their response was to issue feeble objections rather than organize mass protest.
The Churches (and all Germans) would have done well to heed the famous comment by Paster Neimoller:
First the Nazis went after the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not object. Then they went after the Catholics, but I wasn't a Catholic, so I did not object. Then they went for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade-unionist so I did not object. Then they came after me, and by then there was no one left to object."
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
The argument against religion here seems to hinge upon pure science. Well, guess what, folks. Science isn't any more pure than religion. Yes, the best scientests don't test for a certain conclusion or desired effect; but that is not always true. Just like there are Christians and Jews and etc., etc. who fall short of their religion's goals, there are scientest that do the same. Scientists argue over the meaning of findings as well as their implications. They look for specific answers to certain questions. Science has it's fallibilities and unanswered questions just as religions do. Neither is perfect; therefore, I believe, any point of view that hinges out the flaws of one and does not address the flaws of the other is lacking.
the argument isn't based on science but on common sense and observation.
Scientists can be proven wrong and then move on and redevelop their theories.
Religion can not. Religion is set in stone (the Bible) and is seen as true and unalterable.
Science is being used here more as a comparision to modern thought versus ancient thought.
True and untrue. Science also has that loophole that nothing can ever be proven. There are still many scientists out there who hold onto their theories no matter the opposing evidence. Same goes for religion. That's why you have so many denominations and sects of the same religions around the globe. People tend to focus on the parts of the religion they like best.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
You can say all you want about how privately they really hated each other and it was all lip service, but the fact of the matter is they publically didn't oppose Hitler.
And in failing to do so they might as well as supported the Holocaust.
And if you think its outlandish to say that, then why did the Pope make an apology for turning a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Are there photographs of American leaders visiting Hitler?
Of British ?
Of Russians ?
Of French ?
And because they are photographed with Hitler, does that make them allies of Hitler ?
No. It doesn't.
You have any pics of any British, Russian, or French leaders displaying the Nazi salute to Hitler?
You can google them up if you want, I don't feel like spending the time.
I've seen photos of Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop meeting with the Russians for the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact.
I've seen many photos of Chamberlain meeting with the Nazis.
I've also seen photos of Joseph Kennedy (JFK, RFK and Ted's father) with Nazis, openly praising the efficiency and grandeur of the Nazi state ( which put an end to his political life and Presidential ambitions, ambitions later realized through his sons in 1960. )
The photo of Catholics in the above photo is a nice spectacle, but it really proves nothing. It isn't a picture of the Pope making a Nazi salute.
It might be Cardinals.
It might be two local priests.
It might be two non-catholic SS men posing for a propaganda photo the Catholic church had no part of.
It might have been a photo taken in 1933 or so, early on before the Nazis made manifest their threat to Catholicism and Christianity in general.
I'm in the odd position of defending the Catholic Church here. Which I'd rather not do, because I'm not a Catholic.
(As I've said in previous topics, I'm Protestant, specifically Presbyterian, and have attended Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian and catholic churches.)
And many things that Catholics believe, I know to be non-biblical.
As I've said in prior topics.
(Pergutory, confession to a priest, the fact that Priests and Nuns cannot marry, a focus on the Virgin Mary rather than Christ, the Apocryphal books of the Bible, etc. )
I also see Catholicism as more political than Protestantism, although Protestantism as well can be argued to have similar political influence.
Pope John Paul II apologized for the Catholic Church's part in the Holocaust during the Nazi era, for not objecting strenuously enough, and for anti-semitism that has long been associated with the Catholic Church, and is now disappearing, replaced by solidarity with Jews.
But the Vatican's contribution to Nazism and the Holocaust is largely the same as that of the United States, Britain, France, Russia and the rest of the world, of cooperating for too long, until Nazi Germany became a great threat to Jews and the rest of the world.
And protests on the Vatican's part coming too little, too late. Which they, commendably, have acknowledged and apologized for.
The British, French and Americans likewise knew by late 1943 that genocide was being done at Auschwitz and elsewhere, flew bombing missions over these places every day, and did nothing to stop them, letting the genocide continue.
I find it partisan and unfair to single out Catholics or "Christians" to blame for these atrocities.
Early on, the Vatican didn't see the threat, later on they raised objections, too late.
Like everyone else.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
I didn't say anything about just meeting them.
I know full well that Chamberlain met Hitler. "Peace in our times."
My question was, do you have pictures of these leaders SALUTING DER FUHRER????!!!
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Just because I think it's worth pointing out that Pariah actually got something right, I bring forth the issue of "The Cradle of Civilization." Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
First of all, Jerusalem is not considered by anyone to be the cradle of civilization.
Ancient Greece is. You remember them? Pesky little pre-judeo christians who created democracy? And what about wacky Socrates? Or zany Plato? Those pre-judeo christian guys who were the first philosophers to discuss values and ethics?
They don't count do they? Why? Because it was Zues instead of Jesus? Or because if you admit they were the foundation of moral societies (instead of slave-owning, inquisition-starting christian societies) then you'd have to also admit that a moral society could accept homosexuality.
Wikipedia says:
The Fertile Crescent is a region in the Middle East incorporating present-day Israel, West Bank, and Lebanon and parts of Jordan, Syria, Iraq and south-eastern Turkey. The term "Fertile Crescent" was coined by University of Chicago archeologist James Henry Breasted.
Watered by the Jordan, Euphrates and Tigris rivers and covering some 400-500,000 square kilometers with a population of 40-50 million, the region extends from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea around the north of the Syrian Desert and through the Jazirah and Mesopotamia to the Persian Gulf.
The Fertile Crescent has an impressive record of past human activity. As well as possessing many sites with the skeletal and cultural remains of both pre-modern and early modern humans (e.g. at Kebara Cave in Israel), later Pleistocene hunter-gatherers and Epipalaeolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers (the Natufians), this area is most famous for its sites related to the origins of agriculture. The western zone around the Jordan and upper Euphrates rivers gave rise to the first known Neolithic farming settlements (referred to as Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)), which date to around 9,000 BC (and includes sites such as Jericho). This region, alongside Mesopotamia (which lies to the east of the Fertile Crescent, between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates), also saw the emergence of early complex societies during the succeeding Bronze Age. There is also early evidence from this region for writing, and the formation of state-level societies. This has earned the region the nickname "The Cradle of Civilization."
You know what they say. Even a broke watch is right twice a day.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
The British, French and Americans likewise knew by late 1943 that genocide was being done at Auschwitz and elsewhere, flew bombing missions over these places every day, and did nothing to stop them, letting the genocide continue.
True.
There's blame enough for the Holocaust to go around. Anti-Semitism is an ugly thing.
My own boss, a Catholic, today said he wouldn't do business with a possible investor because the guy's Jewish.
I was appalled.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I've seen photos of Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop meeting with the Russians for the 1939 Non-Afggression Pact. I've seen many photos of Chamberlain metting with the Nazis.
which by wars end they'd obviously realized the mistake of. What with the whole them going in an fighting a war with the Nazis.
It took the Catholics 50 years to admit they were wrong and apologize.
Quote:
I've also seen photos of Joseph Kennedy (JFK and RFK's and Ted's father) with Nazis and openly praising the efficiency and grandeur of the Nazi state ( which put an end to his political life and Presidential ambitions, which were later realized through his sons in 1960. )
A. Sins of the father don't carry over. Joe Kennedy was an ass. He built his fortune on bootlegging.
His son Jack broke his back (yes that rhymes) in WWII saving the lives of his fellow soldiers when their PT-Boat was destroyed.
And JFK and RFK championed civil rights, desgregated the federal government, and went after the mob.
B. If you want to look at what dads did. Prescott Bush did plenty of business with the Nazis.
Quote:
The photo of Catholics in the above photo is a nice spectacle, but it really proves nothing. It isn't a picture of the Pope making a Nazi salute.
It might be Cardinals.
It might be two local priests.
It might be two non-catholic SS men posing for a propaganda photo the Catholic church didn't authorize.
It might have been a photo taken in 1933 or so, early on before the Nazis made manifest their threat to Catholicism and Christianity in general.
yes. its all faked. the Catholic church is perfect.
Quote:
I find it partisan and unfair to single out Catholics or "Christians" to blame for these atrocities. Early on, they didn't see the threat, later on they raise objections too late. Like everyone else.
I wasn't blaming them for the holocaust, just pointing out their mistakes and "blind eye."(I actually forget how we got onto the nazis in the first place).
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
This region, alongside Mesopotamia (which lies to the east of the Fertile Crescent, between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates), also saw the emergence of early complex societies during the succeeding Bronze Age. There is also early evidence from this region for writing, and the formation of state-level societies. This has earned the region the nickname "The Cradle of Civilization."[/LIST]
You know what they say. Even a broke watch is right twice a day.
were they Judeo-Christian? because thats the point I was countering Pariah on.
And Greece is also known as the "Cradle of Western Civilization." At least its more popularly known as that.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Just because I think it's worth pointing out that Pariah actually got something right, I bring forth the issue of "The Cradle of Civilization."
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
First of all, Jerusalem is not considered by anyone to be the cradle of civilization.
Ancient Greece is. You remember them? Pesky little pre-judeo christians who created democracy? And what about wacky Socrates? Or zany Plato? Those pre-judeo christian guys who were the first philosophers to discuss values and ethics?
They don't count do they? Why? Because it was Zues instead of Jesus? Or because if you admit they were the foundation of moral societies (instead of slave-owning, inquisition-starting christian societies) then you'd have to also admit that a moral society could accept homosexuality.
Wikipedia says:
The Fertile Crescent is a region in the Middle East incorporating present-day Israel, West Bank, and Lebanon and parts of Jordan, Syria, Iraq and south-eastern Turkey. The term "Fertile Crescent" was coined by University of Chicago archeologist James Henry Breasted.
Watered by the Jordan, Euphrates and Tigris rivers and covering some 400-500,000 square kilometers with a population of 40-50 million, the region extends from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea around the north of the Syrian Desert and through the Jazirah and Mesopotamia to the Persian Gulf.
The Fertile Crescent has an impressive record of past human activity. As well as possessing many sites with the skeletal and cultural remains of both pre-modern and early modern humans (e.g. at Kebara Cave in Israel), later Pleistocene hunter-gatherers and Epipalaeolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers (the Natufians), this area is most famous for its sites related to the origins of agriculture. The western zone around the Jordan and upper Euphrates rivers gave rise to the first known Neolithic farming settlements (referred to as Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)), which date to around 9,000 BC (and includes sites such as Jericho). This region, alongside Mesopotamia (which lies to the east of the Fertile Crescent, between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates), also saw the emergence of early complex societies during the succeeding Bronze Age. There is also early evidence from this region for writing, and the formation of state-level societies. This has earned the region the nickname "The Cradle of Civilization."
You know what they say. Even a broke watch is right twice a day.
I agree with you to the extent that the Fertile Croissant is the Cradle of WESTERN civilization. Pariah claims that it's the foundation of ALL civilizations. There were cultures developing independently in the Far East and the Pre Columbian Americas. Those facts don't fit in well with a world that's only 12,000 YO.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
A Picture is Worth 1000 Words
 
Piss ChristChrist@Abu_Gharib.gov
 Heaven and Hell
Oedipus Rex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Hehe. No.
The founding religions of Judeoism and Christianity created society. More than that, it gave future secular societies more stability by actually giving us the concept of morals. The only reason the conclusion about religion being detrimental was formed is because people simply didn't like it. It was the rage directed at religion that caused the persecuation and execution of so many Christians and Jews, not religion itself.
Can religion be used as a smoke-screen for people who simply have an agenda? Yes. However, the same can be said for anything and any movement--Even the most secular. Thus, trying to abollish it is not the answer.
I'd rather not, but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with the above
 Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
This region, alongside Mesopotamia (which lies to the east of the Fertile Crescent, between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates), also saw the emergence of early complex societies during the succeeding Bronze Age. There is also early evidence from this region for writing, and the formation of state-level societies. This has earned the region the nickname "The Cradle of Civilization."[/LIST]
You know what they say. Even a broke watch is right twice a day.
were they Judeo-Christian? because thats the point I was countering Pariah on.
And Greece is known as the "Cradle of Western Civilization." Forgive me for forgetting that one word.
Well, Judaism definetly started there. Christianity would follow up a few years later. What started here definetly spread and influenced the thought of the Eastern Hemisphere of the ancient world including Greek thought. I won't go into defense of Pariah's position beyond that since I consider a great deal of the Old Testament (especially concerning creation and the flood) to be allegories and steeped in Hebrew tradition that many of us are unaware of.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
either you misunderstood the ninja analogy or you think god would lose a fight with me and need you to defend him.
The ninja?
Quote:
okay, then did the Pope condemn slavery outright in the 1700's when it was perverted from the initial practice?
I dunno. Europe didn't have segregated slavery back then. I'm not even sure if it Italy had slaves at all.
Quote:
so you're making up stuff to fill in gaps in the bible, thus admitting that there are huge gaps there which means the bible isn't perfect?
So what you're saying is: You don't find it insanely convenient that God told Moses to outlaw sex between family members at the time when anymore such unions would be detrimental to offspring?
Quote:
again, how does it hurt you that two gay guys are fucking, Mr. Transvestite porn.
Sodomy has proven, in the past, to be not only detrimental to the individual body, but also cause a spread of mutative diseases (gonorreah, UTI, hepatitis, damaged bowels). Furthermore, sodomy was the reason for the past AIDs outbreaks in America being so swift and brutal. With straight sex, there's actually more of a chance that you won't catch it--Although, that doesn't mean straight people with AIDs should have sex. In the end, it's not just "two gay guys", it's a large precentage of a society feeling justified in participating in a known detrimental and unhealthy act simply because "two gay guys" can do it.
Quote:
Quote:
First of all, Jerusalem is not considered by anyone to be the cradle of civilization.
which invalidates your point about judeo-christians being the foundation of morality.
the cradle of civilization, laws, the first human philosophy of ethics and values came from the Greeks.
A non-christian society that was tolerant of gays.
Actually, you said that part. Jerusalem being considered cradle of society was you. I forgot to take it out.
Quote:
And the Romans adapted it later and used it successfully long before they were Christian.
Upon further inspection you're correct, but I fail to see how you can equate democracy to "moral" or "ethical" with such snap judgement. One could argue the fact that a democracy carries scenarios of an over-abundance of ignorant people who, in the end, wouldn't know what's best for them when they vote for whoever. In which case, it would be detrimental to society.
"Giving everyone a voice" is all good and fine and technically ethical to a degree. However, in the context of democracy, it's not truly moral. No political system can be called "moral". The only chance of any government system being referred to in the same sentence with "morality" would be in relation to the administrator of the current system.
Quote:
A. It wasn't your God, it was Zeus. Your argument has been based on Judeo-Christian being the foundation of morals.
B. That doesn't prove there is a god, just that they believed in one.
My point wasn't to show that it was my God. My point was that Socrates and Plato, two of the first founders of logic, had come to the conclusion that there is a creator. The fact that you were trying to rub their use of logic in my face and label it as a juxtaposition to Christianity, a mono-theistic religion, simply had me laughing.
Quote:
Hasn't your whole point been about morals, not ethics. Morals are eternal concepts that go to the core of every person based upon compassion and empathy (not based on god, but based on a common understanding).
Ethics shift from culture to culture.
Yeah. That's exactly what I said. Thus you made my point for me. Socrates and Plato's ideals were ground in ethics and not morals.
Quote:
Just because he had creation views, doesn't mean it was your god doing the creating in his stories.
I never said it was. I simply said you don't know history. At all.
Quote:
The point I was making was that he discussed morals and values and WAS NOT Judeo-Christian.
You had argued that morality came from the foundation set down by Judeo-christian religions.
And I'm correct in that notion, since the philosophers of Greece didn't actually come up with "values and morals" but rather the use of ethics within society.
Quote:
you're getting into semantics.
I think because you know your argument is running out of steam.
You see I have facts to support me, not one little old book and a pocket full of faith.
No. You're trying to divert from the fact that there's a clear distinction between "morals" and "ethics".
Quote:
I don't hate christians. please stop saying that, its annoying.
what I hate is organized religion and the members of said religions who think they are literally holier than thou (or thee or hell, me).
Sure r3x, suuuurrre.
Quote:
you do realize that you quoted me saying "yes" and then typed this. I've forgotten the original thing you said that I was saying yes to.
Then look it up. Don't make excuses simply because you're running out of last minute arguments. I also included the context within the argument, so there's even less reason for you to complain.
Quote:
Slavery was a somewhat humane and governed practice until we (yes WE, Americans) needed more slaves to cultivate all the new American tobacco crops than indentured servitude could provide.
This isn't true. While it would have been more logical to keep the indentured servants healthy, there was a good amount of beatings from the masters. Slave ownership in the 17-1800s is more comparable to past slave-owning societies than you'd care to admit.
Quote:
have you ever taken a history class?
did you read what I typed before?
I didn't say all slavery, I said slavery in the 1700's and beyond was vastly more cruel than any before it.
r3x previously said:
It was only in christian countries where slavery became about imprisoning an entire race for life based on them not being "god's people."
No. Slavery in America wasn't the most cruel there is, nor was it Christian-based. Was it used by Christians? Yes. But it wasn't root of Christianity.
Quote:
You can prove a city was there. You can prove it fell. Show me the proof that a horn caused it to fall.
The cause of it falling was "mysterious". No one can figure out how such a well reinforced barrier fell and scattered the debris flat. If it was somehow blasted into or broken through, the bricks would have been fragmented, yet they weren't. More than that it wasn't somehow propelled to fall over by some force since the black to scatter far enough away.
It's seemingly unbelievable that Josue and his troops could have brought down that wall on their somehow and had its pieces remain intact. There is, however, one account that tells how....
We know it happened, we know it would have been impossible for him to do it on his own, and we know of the how by an eye-witness describing what happened. That's just short of witnessing the happening yourself. Would you believe it if the story was in the NY Times?
Quote:
You can prove evidence of a massive flood.
Show me the evidence of one man building a massive ark to contain every species on earth (even ones not indigenious to his homeland) and enough of his family to repopulate the earth.
It's true that Noe's tale falls shorter of full proof than Jericho in that we don't have the ark. However, I think we'll find it soon enough. It's been discovered and lost over and over during the past century, I have hope it'll turn up again. However, attributed to the argument of Noe is the fact that the flood was a reality and yet there's still land roaming animals on the planet as well as humans. Back then, the only way they could have survived was with a massive boat...
Quote:
Quote:
Sodom and Gommorah = Proven
I've never heard any proof of it existing, but lets say you can prove the city existed.
Go to page one and read over my post addressing MagicJay.
Quote:
And lets say you can prove it was destroyed suddenly.
Show me proof that two angels caused brumstone to rain down and destroy it.
The angels came to warn Lot. God was the one that rained fire on the cities. The brimstone, raw petrol components, was already proven to by the cause of their destruction. There was also a salt deposit at a certain spot outside of the cities (Lot's wife turned to salt when she looked back at the cities). I can't actually prove that God did these things. But one would be foolish not to find it insanely convenient. In all of the desert, fiery destruction raining from the sky decided to hit the two cities of Sodom and Gommorah and nothing else. And then there's a life-size pillar of salt at an isolated spot outside of these cities...
Quote:
because I was raised christian and I remember there being no witnesses to the actual ressurrection.
There were many witnesses to his death. And trust me, He was dead. The Romans knew how to kill people. After three days, He showed Himself to the apostles and a large open crowd. Forty days later, there's also witnessed an ascension into the sky.
I find it very hard to believe that someone claiming to be this logical can be so stubborn. You have everything short of being there yourself.
Quote:
it seems like your whole argument is based on this anger because I don't believe the same thing you do. you've accepted the bible as truth, as the word of god. I haven't.
why get so bent out of shape?
if you look at what I'm saying and what your saying, my words are peppered with light hearted banter and you seem to be losing your mind here.
just calm the fuck down and look at it this way:
if i'm right then who knows what happens after death. if you're right, then i go to hell.
in the end this debate won't change the course of religion. and if you believe so strongly in your faith nothing i say should shake your belief. however your anger does come off as a bit too defensive.
I’m not bent out of shape. Just pointing out the satire here; you’re ignorant. More than that, I’ll take this as a concession on your part that modern secularity has accepted the Bible as historically correct and people simply don’t want to admit it off hand.
Quote:
but you said its accepted by most of the people of the world. there are about 2 billion christians out there, leaving 4 billion non-christians. that means 2/3 of the world don't believe fully in christianity.
just because you think their reasons for not believing in the bible are wrong doesn't change the fact that they don't believe in it.
My point was not that they believe in it, but rather they have take it under consideration due to the Bible’s authenticity.
Quote:
then how did Noah build?
He had a full century and half head start to build and finish the arc. More than that, he was given specific instructions on what to build it out of. Even if others had created boats, they wouldn’t have known to create them out of “Gopher Wood”, which was a type of cypress that’s incredibly sturdy and holds well against water.
Quote:
but this was a world wide flood, right? were there no fishing villages anywhere? no places where someone knew how to build a boat to save even just their family?
Civilization was still localized in one place at that time.
Quote:
no one in the whole "world wide" flood could make a decent boat, but simple Noah gets a crash course in boat building and suddenly builds a boat capable of holding millions of creatures.
Precisely. And Noah was not simple
There prolly were many transients, who wandered more of the globe, but there’s nothing that says they were good at building boats—More than that, the specific design of the ark was a roof shelter specifically designed to repel water making its way onto/into the boat. If there were other boats, the ark was unlike any other water faring craft ever built at that time.
Quote:
A. matters of opinion don't count in terms of being corrected (anti-bush posts)
This isn’t about Bush. This about your assertions regarding history—Especially history regarding religion. Half the shit you said was wrong and the other half was half truth. Even when you tried to teach people a lesson in Greek prefixes for fuck’s sake!
Quote:
B. I stand by my posts, Poopy Pants. I grew up on the history channel and PBS and read whenever I get the chance. When I'm online, I'm glued to sites like wikipedia for the constant new information I can gain.
Yeah, it…It really shows……Yeah…………………Yeah.
Quote:
You're some fuck who holds the bible in one hand and transvestite porn in the other (that's a sin, right) and then preaches to me like you're some great guru.
“Preaches” to you? I’m trying to correct you on the policies and past policies of a religion you’re trying to interpret and are failing to do so. Not once have I ever tried to convert you.
Quote:
No offense to Rob. But I don't really think of these boards as anything but casual conversation. This whole thread is just a fun little debate when I'm bored.
Riiiiight.
Quote:
I never said it was about slavery, just that it turned a blind eye to it.
The Vatican? In the 1700s? I haven’t heard of it.
Quote:
I'm a whore now? please explain the logic behind that. or is this one of those times where you don't have logic, just faith in my being a whore?
You’re selling your intellect (whatever resembles it anyway) to its use. You’re using ad hominem to confuse the issue like so many of the civil rights storm troopers.
Quote:
wait. clarify that.
you think the terrorists deny their doctrine or that the peaceful muslims deny their doctrine?
Strawman. You know what I meant. If I’m referring to non-terrorists, as is what I made clear, then it means I’m not referring to terrorists. The peaceful Muslims who don’t agree with the Jihad simply don’t agree with their doctrine.
Quote:
have you ever known a muslim?
Yes. Foreign exchange student.
Quote:
they will describe daily life as a "jihad" to maintain purity. A struggle to maintain the strict diet and teetotaler standards, and to maintain their cycle of daily prayers.
In their religion they must pray for a certain length at different times throughout the day.
That is a jihad.
That is patently inaccurate. Muslims shy away from the use of the word “Jihad” because they know of its past uses and religious implications. “Jihad” doesn’t have a consistently metaphorical context, as you assert. In which case, they use the more standard wording for illustrating life as being a struggle. By all intents and purposes they simply use the word “battle”, or, I should say, their word for “battle”, to describe a work day or something: “Mowing the lawn's a “battle”.”
Quote:
If a foreign army invades their land, they are required to fight them and defend their home and family and religion.
And by the consistent views and mannerisms of Islamic history, going on raids and terrorism is its legitimate use. The reason they didn’t bother the Jews was because they weren’t over-shadowing their religion and raking in converts, in which case, they would have slaughtered them. And that, again, has always been considered proper etiquette. Right now, Westerners, non-Muslims, are occupying their land and perverting its holiness. In which case, a “jihad” (terrorist attack) is totally appropriate.
Quote:
The terrorist Jihad is a perversion on one hand and an interpretation of our actions as an invasion.
There’s no indicator of this being true.
Quote:
if you don't trust me, then look it up. That's what I do with your "facts."
go to the library or save time and check out wikipedia.org (a damn good site by the way).
You’re the one who made the assertions, it’s your job to back it up.
Quote:
And Muslims in America are living in a land that violates some of their purity standards. But the "jihad" of that is to abstain from beer at a ballgame, to keep their diet free of pork and whatnot at restaurants.
to schedule in their prayer ritual.
Again, you’re lip-service, but I’ve seen things to the contrary and you’ve failed to back it up.
Quote:
I think he had his reasons, I think we (the CIA) put the gun in his hands.
I'll never agree with the murder of any person for revenge purposes or misguided senses of justice.
I think the money and influence he used for 9/11 would've worked out better by building political and public support for his views. He could've waged a public campaign to discredit Bush and his cronies that would've had him coming out looking better and his enemy looking worse (same with every terrorist act, violence begets violence).
You don’t agree with him, but there’s nothing here that says you object to it or would feel any anger towards it. Meaning, you think this is a legitimate war.
Quote:
I do not believe a civilized country invades another on what if theories.
I do not believe intelligent leaders invade a country they do not intend to conquer without an exit strategy.
I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean.
Quote:
I believe people will fight for their homeland when it is threatened or invaded.
Their homeland has inhabitants other than themselves. Their festering their fellow countrymen’s wounds and making them suffer without cause. If you really think there’s no need for violence, even whilst you justify their actions, then the smartest way to get American troops out of Iraq would be to use political science and diplomacy.
Quote:
Bush and his people are squarely to blame for the current deaths in Iraq. Due to piss poor planning and a focus on oil money over human life.
Right. The game of shifting blame. Rather despicable if you ask me. Whatever your (lies) reasoning for saying Bush was wrong to go into this war, the fact of the matter is that these insurgents are the ones who are continuing the death. The war’s long over but they still feel the need to kill needlessly.
Quote:
see above.
I ask again, do you know anyone of the Islamic faith or are you basing this information on some "analysis of Islam" you read on Anne Coulter's website?
My knowledge is first hand. I wonder though, what has Ann Coulter said on the subject that was wrong—According to you.
Quote:
tomato tomatoe
No “tomato tomatoe” about it. Asking someone to convert isn’t the same as forcefully converting.
Quote:
how can something that's 100% accurate be open for interpretation?
Wizen up. Something can be 100% percent accurate in its own context yet still be interpreted differently from different sides of the equation.
Quote:
you never went to a museum as a child?
they're kind of fun, you should try one out.
Considering you didn’t offer a link, I’ll take this to mean that you have none.
Quote:
I outright refuse to believe any religion that says you're condemned simply for not believing.
A person’s not forsaken for simply “not believing”, they’re condemned for being ignorant. If they have the knowledge of understanding God within their grasp and dismiss it as fantasy or some shit rather than actually looking it over and forming an honest opinion before you cast it aside, that’s foolishness.
Quote:
And argue that point all you want but you know as well as I that a person isn't "saved" by being good, they're "saved" by believing in christ.
Wrong.
Quote:
i also find it ridiculous that the christians don't even use a correct image or pronunciation of their saviors name.
they use an english translation of a greek word, and a white washed middle ages redesign.
What does it matter!? Simply because the pronunciation is off and we’re going on historical probability rather than confirmable fact that He was white, that doesn’t dispel the fact that we refer to Him.
Quote:
explain your definition of the word "saved."
Heaven.
Quote:
created from dust and a rib? then why was it so hard to map the human genome?
I’m not sure whether or not the rib was metaphorical, but I do know that dust is an assorted mass and variety of particles that are found in our physiology, but merely greater amass.
Quote:
I'll ask again. Outside of the Bible/Torrah where are the records of the Judeo-Christian god in other cultures?
Again, God used the Middle East and Europe as His catalyst for spreading His Word after humans had broken up into different groups and cultures.
Quote:
If its the one true god then it should be referenced elsewhere.
Explain this reasoning. Simply because He’s the “one true God”, that doesn’t mean He showed himself to everyone.
Quote:
how about all those bones they found in Africa.
or the artifacts in china that predate many western civilizations.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I’m gonna need a specific reference so I can address it properly.
Quote:
wouldn't it matter to the people who weren't saved and went to hell?
God gave us rudimentary instincts for a reason. Whilst people outside of the religious circles had no true concept of morals or ethics, they did have an idea of what it means to hurt others and be apathetic. In which case, to be proponent of such actions would prolly warrant hell. But they still retained ability to use basic logic, meaning they’re not precisely exempt from judgment due to every humans understanding of empathy amongst one another.
They may or may not go to hell, but they don’t all go to hell.
Quote:
and why have christ be born then? if god was smart he'd have christ be born today so all the miracles could be televised.
Two reasons that have been figured for the date of Christ’s birth:
One: Using his presence as a baseline. Even today, we say “before Christ”.
Two: Faith is a test that we should find our self. We shouldn’t have to be dazzled by constant bouts of tricks simply to be convinced of His divinity. “Do not test the Lord our God”.
Quote:
did he wear a swastika on his arm as Jews were put in ovens?
Are you judging a kid for being scarred?
Quote:
alive only millions of years ago was sighted alive during the time of Noah.
I'm a big believer in cryptozoology.
Quote:
and we've already proven that it was a very non-judeo christian culture that first had discussions of value systems and morality.
Not morality. Ethics.
Quote:
someone above posted Hitler's various pro-Christian remarks.
Which were used purely as propaganda. Hitler wasn’t Christian.
Quote:
and Hitler's anti-semetic views were picked up by the culture he came from.
Quote:
Quote:
Pau Pot was raised secular. I guess that means secularity inspires mass genocide.
yes. yes it does.
I guess this means you concede the point.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
were they Judeo-Christian? because thats the point I was countering Pariah on.
No. You weren't. Your entire statement was:
"Jerusalem is not considered the Cradle of Civilization."
The use of "Jerusalem" was misplaced, however the context is very clear--Which had nothing to do with religion.
Quote:
And Greece is also known as the "Cradle of Western Civilization." At least its more popularly known as that.
Popularity doesn't dictate fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Quote:
PenWing said:
Solomon was a book of poems that were describing the women, and the names of those women, who were devoted to Christ. “Married to the Lord”. As for “standard practice”: Whilst I’m aware of some people in the Bible being described as polygamous, I don’t remember any Biblical lesson telling us specifically that it’s okay to marry multiple women.
Pariah, what the fuck are you talking about?
*shrug* Solomon's a book of Canticles. And I've never read up on the Bible being proponent of polygamy.
Quote:
magicjay said:
I agree with you to the extent that the Fertile Croissant is the Cradle of WESTERN civilization. Pariah claims that it's the foundation of ALL civilizations. There were cultures developing independently in the Far East and the Pre Columbian Americas. Those facts don't fit in well with a world that's only 12,000 YO.
Just so's you know: Those "facts" you allude to aren't actually "facts".
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-07-19 3:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Quote:
PenWing said:
Solomon was a book of poems that were describing the women, and the names of those women, who were devoted to Christ. “Married to the Lord”. As for “standard practice”: Whilst I’m aware of some people in the Bible being described as polygamous, I don’t remember any Biblical lesson telling us specifically that it’s okay to marry multiple women.
Pariah, what the fuck are you talking about?
*shrug* Solomon's a book of Canticles. And I've never read up on the Bible being proponent of polygamy.
Are you talking about the Song of Solomon, literally translated as the Song of Songs?
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Faith and logic are polar opposites--faith requires devotion, logic requires questioning. Your attempt (not the first) to marry the two is puzzling; you aren't stupid. Yet you use the same hackneyed arguments ("indisputable proof") that you so rudely decry. Everything you posted assumes what you are trying to prove.
Your essentially saying that God can't logically exist, which is fallacy.
Quote:
If a scientist (or anyone really) approaches a mysterious situation with the answer in mind, objectivity is lost. Now, if one's aim is to prove that the Wall of Jericho existed, it isn't that hard (nevermind that proving the Wall of Jericho ever happened doesn't independently prove the existence of God).
The dig-site in Telles wasn't actually looked for. But moreover, simply because the digger can have a bias, that doesn't mean he can't make legitimate discoveries. I can even admit that for evolutionist archeologists, geologists, and paleontologists--Although, as I've pointed out in the past, it's not simply bias motivations that make me dubious of their discoveries, but also their methods of discovery. They're mostly unreliable. Anyway, your statement is pretty much implying that discoveries made through a bias outlook aren't real discoveries at all, and that's patently false. The evidence from the sites indicating flood and miraculous historical events aren't fake. Secularist scientists even admit to that (although, they don't believe miracles happened). Hell! In the case of Jericho, there was more shown bias on the part of a secularist archeologist than than the Creationist ones. Dr. Kenyon, a secularist, concluded that the rehabitation site in Telles wasn't as old as Garstang or Wood proclaimed (6000 years) because there wasn't a certain type of pottery present that was popular around that era. I don't think I need to tell you how weak that argument is. But what makes this situation warrant more scrutiny is the fact that the pottery from that time was present and she simply "missed" it in her findings until Wood came around 40 years later and found it.
Quote:
Do you think the people who fund these digs do so with the goal of attaining knowledge? That simply isn't how funded research works; whoever pays the purse gets to decide the slant through which lens the project results will be shown.
The exact same thing could be said for evolutionists.
Quote:
My only point on the Catholic Church (and as a tangent all organized religion) is that religious morality is often trumped by politics and a contentious desire to maintain the status quo. There are numerous examples of this throughout history, and the Nazi Germany is one.
I can agree with the Catholic Church falling victim of this to some extent in the past. However, there's simply no proof of this happening with Nazi Germany.
Quote:
My opinions of religion are what they are, but the facts before you are undeniable; what was distressing was the way in which you danced around the parts that couldn't be explained away.
I didn't dance around anything, I simply said it didn't happen and that the sources you provided were based on inconclusive evidence. So Pope Pius shook hands with Der Furor and gave a Nazi salute. Big deal. So did half the people who visted Germany at that time--Especially foreign diplomats present in the country.
Quote:
You're young, and religion has provided you with the answers to questions about the world. Cool. But nevertheless, it represents only an opinion, and the vicious way in which you try to alchemize your opinion into some factual truth is fairly boring.
You know, I could say exactly the same thing for secularist scientists--The one's you agree with. I've already tried to express exactly how they're on no higher a level than you say I'm on.
Quote:
I've seen people on both sides of the religious issue do this, and it is always distasteful no matter who's doing it. Rather than looking for facts to support a truth, you look for facts to support your truth. In that sense, it is the reason why talking to you has become a waste of my time.
This is speculative on your part. Simply because I've provided evidence regarding what I believe does not mean I've only looked towards that evidence, and futher claim it to be the only evidence worth noting. I've studied evolution as well as creationism and I've tried to express the elements of evidence that either provide. Simply because I find one has offered more than another and come to a conclusion that creationsim makes more sense, that does not mean I have a bias.
Quote:
Should you have something level-headed to say, I'm all ears.
And you create the standard for what is and is not level-headed. Thus, I call bullshit. I find I have been very level-headed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Are you talking about the Song of Solomon, literally translated as the Song of Songs?
I.......Believe so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
Are you talking about the Song of Solomon, literally translated as the Song of Songs?
I.......Believe so.
This is where one of those Hebrew traditions that Doc was talking about comes into play. The Song of Songs is a poem written about God's (the husband) love for the nation if Israel (the wife).
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,919 Likes: 28
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,919 Likes: 28 |
I thought Psalm was translated as "song", not Solomon?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Quote:
PenWing said:
Solomon was a book of poems that were describing the women, and the names of those women, who were devoted to Christ. “Married to the Lord”. As for “standard practice”: Whilst I’m aware of some people in the Bible being described as polygamous, I don’t remember any Biblical lesson telling us specifically that it’s okay to marry multiple women.
Pariah, what the fuck are you talking about?
*shrug* Solomon's a book of Canticles. And I've never read up on the Bible being proponent of polygamy.
Well, Dickwad, we're all progeny of incest. Since the world was repopulated after the not so great flood by Noe's daughters lying with him after the old geezer had drunk too much T-bird!
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
This is where one of those Hebrew traditions that Doc was talking about comes into play. The Song of Songs is a poem written about God's (the husband) love for the nation if Israel (the wife).
O I C.
Gotcha.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,919 Likes: 28
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,919 Likes: 28 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
Well, Dickwad, we're all progeny of incest. Since the world was repopulated after the not so great flood by Noe's daughters lying with him after the old geezer had drunk too much T-bird!
It was actually Lot who got drunk. Since he and his daughters were living in a cave out of fear of living in Zoar (after the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah), his daughters had no men to continue the family line, so they got Lot drunk and had sex with him. Genesis 19: 30-32
Maybe you were joking about that, I don't know. But I figured in case somebody saw that and took it as canon I'd correct it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
I thought Psalm was translated as "song", not Solomon?
The poem in Hebrew is called Shir hashirim. Shir is a song. Without going into detail about Hebrew grammar, the root of hashirim is shir, so the phrase means Song of Songs.
Psalm in Hebrew is Tehilim, which is what we call sacred hymns/songs/poems. These were written by King David throughout his life. It's quite fascinating to study the psalms in conjuction with the book of Samual (I and II). They give increadible insight into what King David was really like.
The Song of Songs is a Megillah, a sacred scroll, like the Book of Esther.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,919 Likes: 28
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,919 Likes: 28 |
huh. thats cool to know. danke, pen!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
It was actually Lot who got drunk. Since he and his daughters were living in a cave out of fear of living in Zoar (after the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah), his daughters had no men to continue the family line, so they got Lot drunk and had sex with him. Genesis 19: 30-32
Maybe you were joking about that, I don't know. But I figured in case somebody saw that and took it as canon I'd correct it.
I was left puzzled after I read that. I wanted to know Lot's reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Quote:
R3X said:
again, how does it hurt you that two gay guys are fucking, Mr. Transvestite porn.
Pariah said:
Sodomy has proven, in the past, to be not only detrimental to the individual body, but also cause a spread of mutative diseases (gonorreah, UTI, hepatitis, damaged bowels). Furthermore, sodomy was the reason for the past AIDs outbreaks in America being so swift and brutal. With straight sex, there's actually more of a chance that you won't catch it--Although, that doesn't mean straight people with AIDs should have sex. In the end, it's not just "two gay guys", it's a large precentage of a society feeling justified in participating in a known detrimental and unhealthy act simply because "two gay guys" can do it.
I'm starting a pool here: 1. How long before Pariah comes out? 2. When will he become leader of the Log Cabin Republicans?
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
*sigh*
1. I never said God can't logically exist. However, God cannot be logically proven. For any argument about the existence of God to be successful, one would have to grant your whole argument, i.e. one would have to assume what you're trying to prove. Logic exists as a step by step process of examining evidence about the physical world; if God is said to exist, it is beyond these boundaries. If one claims that the physical world is God, where does this evidence come from? The Bible? Epiphanies? Any argument that proves God's existence assumes his existence, and the philosopher closest to marrying logic and faith (Aquinas) gave up this enterprise.
2. The Bible is not proof of God's existence. I willingly grant that large portions of the Bible are probably historically accurate, but that doesn't prove the existence of God in any reasonable fashion.
3. Please, stop trying to put words in my mouth--its the straw man argument you cling to so desperately. I never said the sites were faked, only that the threshold for legitimate evidence is higher when you consider conventional possibilities.
4. I have already provided extensive proof of the Catholic Church's "oversights" during WWII; scholars have exhaustively verifed that that Catholic Church committed aforementioned oversights. You are simply too weak to acknowledge the truth. I never mentioned Pius--the Catholic Church is bigger than one man.
5. Just like morality/ethics, being respectful and level-headed contains objective standards. Most of the things you say here ("jackass", "dumbass" and others) are things that simply wouldn't say during the course of a legitimate argument, because it weakens your position. You've found a lot of things that simply don't stand up in the face of real debate skills. Good luck, kid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
However, God cannot be logically proven.
That's debatable.
Quote:
Logic exists as a step by step process of examining evidence about the physical world;
No law of logic limits logic to observing the phisical world. Even if it did it wouldn't negate proving something transendant of the natural world.
Quote:
Any argument that proves God's existence assumes his existence, and the philosopher closest to marrying logic and faith (Aquinas) gave up this enterprise.
That's just not true. Unless you've heard all the arguments made to prove god's existence you can't even hope to make that claim. Most of the classical arguments for the existence of God don't assume his existance. Take the cosmological of "first cause" arguments. Also to say that Aquinas gave up the enterprise of marrying logic and and the existence of God is untrue. I don't know how much Aquinas you've read but your claim about him is wholy contrary to what he taught. It was Aquinas after all who said that the Christian should endevor to learn all he can (refering the the sciences as well as all other disciplines) because ALL truth leads to God.
Quote:
The Bible is not proof of God's existence.
Agreed. I would also take a step further and say that the specific God of the scriptures can't be proven to exists using logic alone.
Quote:
Most of the things you say here ("jackass", "dumbass" and others) are things that simply wouldn't say during the course of a legitimate argument, because it weakens your position. You've found a lot of things that simply don't stand up in the face of real debate skills. Good luck, kid.
This IS the RKMBS, remember.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
New Evidence Suggests Noah's Sons Rode Flying Dinosaurs
