The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
AC is a lefty?[/quote]
I was quoting Severiano.[/quote]
I know. CB made the comment that lefties only forget the past when it suits them but AC is the one who criticized religion first and he is no lefty and, he based it upon the past history of religions when it comes to how they spread it and why (hence: world domination). [/quote]
I suppose you could of read into Angry’s post that way, although, I did not.
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
AC is a lefty?[/quote]
I was quoting Severiano.[/quote]
I know. CB made the comment that lefties only forget the past when it suits them but AC is the one who criticized religion first and he is no lefty and, he based it upon the past history of religions when it comes to how they spread it and why (hence: world domination). [/quote]
I suppose you could of read into Angry’s post that way, although, I did not. [/quote]
I doubt his criticism of religion is based on current events exclusively.
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
AC is a lefty?[/quote]
I was quoting Severiano.[/quote]
I know. CB made the comment that lefties only forget the past when it suits them but AC is the one who criticized religion first and he is no lefty and, he based it upon the past history of religions when it comes to how they spread it and why (hence: world domination). [/quote]
I suppose you could of read into Angry’s post that way, although, I did not. [/quote]
I doubt his criticism of religion is based on current events exclusively. [/quote]
It’s hard to tell when phrases like “agenda of world domination” are used.
I guess I just don’t immediately think about what a groups predecessors did about a million years ago. Seems pretty dumb to me.
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
Of course. This is hardly a hallmark of the left however. Right wing people on this very forum have plenty of posts defending Bush for certain actions and damning Obama for actions that are basically the same. You go back and read some 2004-2007 posting and see the people defending Bush now attack Obama with vigor on the same questions.
It’s always about who you cheer for. We’re always willing to forgive our team.
I don’t think AC is lefty at all though…he’s just angry. He’s way more right leaning than anything else.
“That is what they are supposed to do , all the other is not what Christ intended.”[/quote]
I that what you mean for the thx ? And if so , do you agree or is that sarcasm ?
[/quote]
No, I disagree completely. Alms is not all Christians should do. In fact, Christ’s reformation of the Jews was the exact opposite. If you really want to get to the heart of the teaching, Charity, not alms is the real command and they ARE NOT the same thing. The Christian teaching of Charity is love of God and hence neighbor. The RESULT of charity is things like alms. Modern English has confused the 2. The Christian goal is not to give alms. It is to love well enough that things like alms happen naturally. Focus on and equating God’s teaching with the physical act of doing things like alms is the exact legalistic approach Jesus came to call bullshit on.
But, the fact that you are forcing me to justify my beliefs, by telling me what a Christ’s teachings are when you don’t even believe in Christianity is bigotry. You are ignorant on the subject and keep trying to tell everyone else their own beliefs are wrong and what the right ones are.
[/quote]
Alms is almost synonymous with money and you brought up that term.
You also were on the offense by defending a statement that I was a bigot
I really believe I have made no statements in RE: to any one’s belief .
I have however brought up the political and criminal aspects to organized religion
most of your tea billies are the biggest supporters of Religion (notice I did not say Jesus) that is the difference you want me to buy the shit that is pedaled as religion is some how better than what I practice
[/quote]
You are a bigot Pitt, you and Chicken both. You always have been on these boards.
The good news is that being a religious bigot is acceptable and widely celebrated these days. You can’t say anything negative about a race, you cannot say anything negative about a sexual orientation, you cannot say anything negative about the female gender, it does not matter if it’s true, false or otherwise. You cannot say it.
But it’s open season on religion, particularly Christianity and more particularly Catholicism. Again it does not matter if it’s true or false you can say it and it is celebrated, cheered, adored by many. Just because it’s socially acceptable does not mean it’s not bigotry.
You hate religion. You have a preconceived notion that religions are bad and that the people practicing them are stupid.
It’s an opinion you have expressed many, many times. You hate religion and religious people, you have no respect for it or us at all.
Just fucking admit it. I am sure chicken has no problem admitting he is an anti-religious bigot. He may be an asshole, but he’s an honest asshole. So at least be an honest asshole.
The only person you are fooling is yourself if you claim different.
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
[/quote]
lol, leftist only forgive/forget the past when it is their team’s faults in question.
For example, slavery and segregation. [/quote]
Of course. This is hardly a hallmark of the left however. Right wing people on this very forum have plenty of posts defending Bush for certain actions and damning Obama for actions that are basically the same. You go back and read some 2004-2007 posting and see the people defending Bush now attack Obama with vigor on the same questions.
It’s always about who you cheer for. We’re always willing to forgive our team.
I don’t think AC is lefty at all though…he’s just angry. He’s way more right leaning than anything else. [/quote]
He’s very hateful, very angry and perhaps really a chicken.
You are a bigot, as is AC, when it comes to religion.
Just an FYI. [/quote]
why am I a bigot ?
[/quote]
“having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.”[/quote]
If saying that some social or political institution does more harm than good is bigotry, then we are all bigots and not a single one of us should be ashamed to be labeled so.
It’s no coincidence that those most hostile to an international institution like the United Nations know the least about it. It isn’t an independent body; rather, it is constituted of the member states who are party to it. Besides, it is very often a tool for the great powers (the UN Security Council) to promote their interests. Not exactly a despotic utopia promoting entity.
[quote]H factor wrote:
While I personally believe religion has caused a whole shit pot full of bad things throughout time,
[/quote]
Yeah, like worshiping Baal, Amon, erecting Asherah poles consort of El, Ashteroth, Baal-Zebub, Bel; the chief ‘diety’ of Babylon, Chemosh; the chief ‘god’ of the Moabites{no wonder Ruth wanted to stay with her mother in law), defiling the temple and worshiping false ‘gods’ in the high places, sacrificing one’s children to ‘worthless stone and wood’, Dagon, Molech and Tamoz. Yeah, it’s pretty clear that whenever the Israelites abandon the God of the fathers that things don’t go well for them.
Don’t we? Should we submit? Should the Israelites submitted to Ramesses II? Should the house of Judah submitted to the Northern kingdoms idolatry? Should the Babylonian exiles submitted to their masters’ ‘gods’? Should the Maccabees have submitted to the Seleucids?
Should they have resisted Pompey? What about Trajan? Hadrian? I could go on but time does not permit?
Are you going to offer an explanation for why you believe this? Should Sidonians, Tyreans, Canaanites and Carthaginians be left to sacrifice their own children? Should East African muslims be left to savagely mutilate their daughters and sell them to old men?
Well at least you’re not pushing the ‘I’ve read the bible’ bullshit that wafts around here amongst the heathens. Good for you. You have no need to read the bible anyway.
How profound. Did you come up with that yourself without actually reading the bible or without any understanding of the ancient world?
[quote]
And this is coming from a non religious man. [/quote]
Maybe you should rip your clothes, put on sack cloth and sprinkle dust on your head.
Sure, we don’t need a defensive pact against Russia. It’s not like they’ve been actively undermining us since before the Crimean War.
I guess you’re one of those guys who’ve ‘read the bible’ huh?
‘Control the world huh?’ Watch out for their anal probes!
Well I can’t argue with that but Russia, China and North Korea for example would have a field day. You don’t know much about foreign policy do you?
Really? Jews actively discourage converts. I don’t see and Sihks, Hindus or Buddhists knocking door to door either. Maybe they’re too busy ‘taking over the world’ Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah!
[quote]show up at the big building on whatever day to sing songs and believe their bullshit (and donate!) and breed more little XYZ zealots.
[/quote]
Yeah, you wouldn’t want that money to feed homeless people or fund charities would we?
Well I’m sorry they did all that to you. Get well soon fella.
Finally, a moment of clarity. So you’re not always delusional and paranoid.
And how is the US going to get the will of the people to do this? The US would never have entered WWII if Pearl Harbor hadn’t united them against Japan. It’s one thing to plan to do what’s right. It’s another to have the manpower willing to do it.
Have you considered anti-psychotic medication? It could really help with the ‘taking over the world’ via weekly collection plates.
I think Y’all confuse being a bigot with being a heretic . If I am a bigot every one on this board is ,maybe with the exception of Florious
and if I really am, so what couldn’t happen to a nicer group of Bigots (Christians)
The UN has exactly zero soldiers. Those assigned to peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations are members of the armed forces of the respective sovereigns states that constitute the UN. The conception of utopian stormtroopers infringing upon state sovereignty is naive to an alarming degree.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The UN has exactly zero soldiers. Those assigned to peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations are members of the armed forces of the respective sovereigns states that constitute the UN. The conception of utopian stormtroopers infringing upon state sovereignty is naive to an alarming degree.[/quote]
Well, no if you understand the failure and utter tragedy of WWI, the stalemate and loss of mobility that went on for nearly five years, the millions of dead, the near loss of Western civilisation, social contract theory, starvation, disease, displacement of millions and the utter failure of the league of nations you might get a better undertstanding.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The UN has exactly zero soldiers. Those assigned to peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations are members of the armed forces of the respective sovereigns states that constitute the UN. The conception of utopian stormtroopers infringing upon state sovereignty is naive to an alarming degree.[/quote]
Well, no if you understand the failure and utter tragedy of WWI, the stalemate and loss of mobility that went on for nearly five years, the millions of dead, the near loss of Western civilisation, social contract theory, starvation, disease, displacement of millions and the utter failure of the league of nations you might get a better undertstanding.[/quote]
The UN was formed in 1948, which is beside the point. Your post is nothing more than a string of non sequiturs. If you wish to dispute my argument, address it in a relevant manner. You studied history I presume? If you had taken an international organizations course, it would be clear to you that my position is very much in line with reality.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There is not a “better” source of an ultimately imaginary goodness.
Edit: Seriously though, in a Godless universe, how is there a “better” source? It wouldn’t matter what your source is. Or, what your definition of “goodness” is.
[/quote]
It’s pretty easy. We are wired, 95% of us are wired from birth with a direction of good justice… There’s an article from the NY times that I have referenced here called The Moral Life of Babies.
All I’m saying is, we don’t need to have rewards or good feelings as a reward to do good. Doing good things is an end in itself. Doing good because you want to please God is not, it makes goodness a means to an end rather than an end in itself…
There are people who are godless, who don’t experience joy or happiness, who do good things, just because they are good. They are morally superior to those who do good for the sake of God, or happiness.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
They do things about injustice and suffering when it suits them.
[/quote]
Ya, and I think this is utterly ridiculous.
How does a weekly soup kitchen “suit them?” How do mission trips into war torn areas “suit them?”
So what?
They believe in one thing and stand by that belief. That makes them want to control the world? Or makes them evil?
Again, silly.
Again so what? While they save those souls they also save lives…
I wasn’t aware Christians forces conversions in the 21st century.
Because they believe they are saving their eternal soul. Isn’t that pretty nice of them?
The Spanish Mission complex? Pandemics? That was a long time ago in a church far far in the past. I mean, we’ve forgiven the Japanese and they kill a whole bunch of Americans less than a century ago. I think it’s time to let go of the past.
It’s a matter of looking at the Church for what it is as an institution. I could go on and on about specific Popes and how difficult it has historically been for certain minority men of the cloth to gain positions within the church. Only within the past 20 years when it was calculated that Latino’s would become the minority of Catholics did the Church really make an effort to start giving Latino’s more prominent roles within the Church. I can go on, but it’s not really my goal to bash the Church, I just see it as a very old institution that decides to be moral when it’s convenient. They haven’t had a superior moral conduct as a whole through their existence, so how the heck are they going to tell me right from wrong?
If I had grown up Islamic and ended up an agnostic I’d have plenty more ammo for Islam. One of the other things I HATE about some of the culture in Islam is how people, wives and children are property… And yeah, the old dirt bag holy-men having sex with their buddy’s sons, and that shit flies out in places like Afghanistan, it’s disgusting. But we see people in the Church doing the same thing. I’ve had peers and muslim friends that were incredibly great students, never flaked when making plans to study and open minded as I’ve ever seen anyone.
I think people are better capable of telling right from wrong with a little education. We don’t need these ancient businesses which started off as all about power and have evolved to be something better, telling us right from wrong. They’ve had it mostly wrong for 2000 years… I’m not buying it.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you can be a good person for it’s own sake, it’s better than being a good person for the sake of some religion or God. It’s an outright better form of goodness.
[/quote]
There is not a “better” source of an ultimately imaginary goodness.
Edit: Seriously though, in a Godless universe, how is there a “better” source? It wouldn’t matter what your source is. Or, what your definition of “goodness” is.
[/quote]
It’s pretty easy. We are wired, 95% of us are wired from birth with a direction of good justice… There’s an article from the NY times that I have referenced here called The Moral Life of Babies.
All I’m saying is, we don’t need to have rewards or good feelings as a reward to do good. Doing good things is an end in itself. Doing good because you want to please God is not, it makes goodness a means to an end rather than an end in itself…
There are people who are godless, who don’t experience joy or happiness, who do good things, just because they are good. They are morally superior to those who do good for the sake of God, or happiness. [/quote]
Oh, you mean infant studies showing that babies punish “others,” not like them? Or, did the NYT article forget to mention the “dark” side of baby KKK? Well, ok, “bigotry” is “good.”
"Infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who punish those who are not like them, and this seemingly innate mean streak grows stronger in the next five months of life, a study by researchers at Yale University has found.
Babies, like adults, prefer individuals who like the same things they do. A new study reports that they want individuals who share their tastes to be treated well by others, but want those whose tastes differ from their own to be treated badly. The study of 200 nine- and 14-month-old infants was published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science…
…As expected babies of both ages preferred the helper over the meanies when the puppet being assisted liked the same food they did. But the next finding surprised the researchers: When the puppet that dropped the ball did not share the babiesâ?? taste in food, the infants preferred the mean puppet to the helper. In other words: Babies prefer someone who is nice to an individual similar to themselves, but they also prefer someone who is mean to a dissimilar individual."
couldn’t happen to a nicer group of Bigots (Christians)