Religion: Real or Fake

[Felch]

Catholic upbringing, so it's very plausible that he was a Christian

George Carlin and Rosie O'Donnell had Catholic upbringings. Are they the same religion as Hitler?

[giblets]

George Carlin and Rosie O'Donnell had Catholic upbringings. Are they the same religion as Hitler?

I'm not saying Catholics are Nazis. And Hitler talked about God in speeches, so he doesn't strike me as an avowed atheist.

[Elok]

I'm not saying Catholics are Nazis. And Hitler talked about God in speeches, so he doesn't strike me as an avowed atheist.

I've read a little on Hitler's religious beliefs, and the firmest conclusion I found was that he believed in something, but it wasn't terribly coherent and didn't conform to any orthodox creed. Even leaving out the occult crap, he seems to have been "theist--other."

[Wezil]

George Carlin and Rosie O'Donnell had Catholic upbringings. Are they the same religion as Hitler?

I don't know about Rosie but Carlin (although raised Catholic) was very public in adulthood about his lack of belief.

So in his case, the answer would be no.

[Ben Kenobi]

You like that Texas is slashing education spending? Does your idea of 'liberty' involve kids going to crappy schools?

Considering that I work in private education, I'm all for slashing education spending. We do a better job than the public schools anyways. Per head spending is 5500 a year. For a class of 30, that means they are spending 165k a year. Too much. Average starting salaries are around 35k in TX.

What kind of schools could you get for your kid for 460/month?

[Lonestar]

Considering he created them in the first place, the question as to why he asked Noah to save them is an interesting question.



The passage right before talks about how the world was entirely evil. What do you think are the prospects for children in such world?

"Kill them all and let God sort 'em out"

Oh wait that is how it happened! Except it was God doing the mass murder.

Guess God never heard of social services.

(oh wait you're against that too)

Pharaoh already ignored repeated pleas to free the Jews from bondage. Don't want YHWH killing your firstborns? Don't enslave other people, and don't ignore the 6 other plagues that he sends. Hello Pharaoh, rains of frogs that the Jewish High Priest predicted? Maybe the Jewish God is angry with you, eh?

So some Egyptian farmer mook gets to suffer because the .5% of the population the runs the country are slaveholders? Is that what I'm getting from you? God is precise enough to kill all the first born but not precise enough to just kill the leadership? God has a hard on for mass murder.

The same Romans destroyed the Second Temple?

You mean when the Jews rebelled? I didn't know that "crushing a rebellion=suppressing a religion".

By the By, you completely dodged acknowledging that the Persians had the whole concept of "religious freedom" down before the Christians did.

Edict of Milan.

The edict that was designed specifically for the Christian faith, huh? It allowed the Christian faith to grow to the point that the Edict of Thessalonica could be handed down. Let's see what those good Christians said in the edict:

"EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.
GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS"

Let's see what Saint Ambrose said:
"What real wrong is there, after all, in destroying a synagogue, a 'home of perfidy, a home of impiety,' in which Christ is daily blasphemed?"

Or the catalyst/founder for the Protestant Reformation("Catholics aren't real Christians" ):

"As to the common people, ... one has to be hard with them and see that they do their work and that under the threat of the sword and the law they comply with the observance of piety, just as you chain up wild beasts."


Boy those Christians were all about religious tolerance...so long as it was THEIR religion being tolerated.

Depends on who you talk to. Never enacted on a statewide basis, although you'd probably convince me and others that some of the cities, (Athens in particular), had a reasonably strong provision for it. I'll concede the point. Hellenistic world was generally tolerant by both necessity and design.

Persians? Well considering as they conquered and exiled the Jews in the first place, YMMV. Depended on who was in charge.

No they didn't you twit, they are the ones who allowed the Jews to return from the Babylonian Captivity.

The first thing they did was declare the Edict of Milan which permitted religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire.

This doesn't prove that the concept of religious freedom originated with the Christians, dum-dum. It proves that once they were in power they wanted to create an environment to make sure no pagan emperors or administrators would be able to take action. And that's if you take it at face value. Within 80 years Christians emperors were flat out declaring other religions illegal.

Actually wrote an essay on that synod council, which was an elevation. Peter was a big fan of the Third Rome theory, it suited his general western outlook.

That being said, if you weren't Orthodox, you were persecuted in the Soviet union and those who spoke out, particularly Catholics, and Baptists, were sent to the gulags. I have plenty of accounts first hand.

There were plenty of secularlist folks that were sent to the gulag too, does that mean the Bolshies were a anti-secularist force?

Also, interesting that you are now moving the goal post from "Christians" to "some Christians".

That the problem is *people*, not God. That's my thesis, lonestar. Atheists are intolerant and that to me says that people and not God are the source of much of the suffering in the world today.

I completely agree that people are responsible for suffering, as God does not exist, or at least if a Divine Progenitor does exist it is not the Yahweh that revealed himself to a bunch of bronze age mooks in the desert.

And you can bet that Religious people(the kind that go to church/temple/Mosque once a week) are less tolerant of others than atheists. How many atheists are out there protesting gay marriage, demanding that public office holders swear that "there is no god" in order to hold that position, pitching a fit about mosques being built in the CHRISTIAN country?

Which is why he executed Catholic priests for speaking out against his regime?

I'm guessing because they spoke "out against his regime". Christians have been killing Christians for thousands of years.

Who was his confessor?

Dunno

Which parish did he attend?

Christianity is defined as "going to church"? How do you define Christianity? If you were to define it with ONE SENTENCE how would you do so?

Just because he claims to be a Christian, doesn't mean that he was one.

Ah yes, the good old "New True Scotsman" Fallacy. How would you define a Christian? I would define one as someone who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and Hitler certainly did that.

He was heavily into the occult, and wanted to restore pre-Christian pagan Germany.

Bull**** You watch too many Indiana Jones movies. A Pagan State would not make school children pray to Jesus or have the head of the Secret police attend mass on a regular basis.

Thank you. So you admit that the primary atheist regime in the world today is hostile and persecutes Christians. That's all I was after here.

The problem is that the regime persecutes everyone, not just Christians, unless you are willing to put in writing that the regime exempts atheists from persecution?

But glad to see that you are firmly on the "if they can do it so can we" side.



[quote[But he acceded to your wishes? I'd probably have done the same, depending on how well I'd known you. It's not a choice or a decision to be taken upon lightly. If you want to walk away from God, that is entirely your choice. [/quote]

He acceded my wishes after I made it clear I would be filing a complaint and making sure there was a paper trail when I did so. His job was to handle a personnel file in the ship's office, not to ****ing proselytize.

But I'm glad to see that you admit would use every tool at hand, include those in your official capacity, to influence others into living your religious view. It's something I've been saying the God Squad does in this country and a bunch of you go "nu-uh", even as you just admitted that you would.

I sympathize with the loyalty oath issue, as that hits me too. I think it's unwise to swear an oath to the state.

It isn't a loyalty oath issue. Loyalty oaths(I am thinking of Presidential oaths, or the one I took in the Navy) are important because they very clearly lay out what is expected of you. Read the actual section in the Texan Constitution, which says I have to profess a belief in a Supreme Being(the Surpeme Being could be the Noid for all I know). This means if I don't believe in ANY supreme being I am excluded from holding public office. A crazy person that thinks a fern is God would be allowed to hold public office before me.

(although I doubt he would get elected)

As for selling on Sunday, I personally believe that it should be up to the retailer. If the retailer wishes to sell on Sunday, then that should be his decision. However, the community has the right to set community standards, including opening times. If the community as a whole wishes to vote on it and pass it, then they should be free to do so as well.

Interesting, and in other places you talk about how the United States is the "most free" on the basis of low taxes(and presumably) low government interference into how one conducts his business. So what you REALLY mean "except in cases where it directly conflicts with religious belief". In other words, you are all for the Tyranny of the Majority.

I wouldn't support a national ban, or a state ban, as I believe that would impose significant hardship on non-Christians such as yourself. I think people should be able to go into a liquor store on Sunday and buy booze.

I am reasonably indifferent to the availability of hard liquor, being a beer man, but I am just showing how state control of liquor access is because of the heavily conservative Christian nature of Virginia outside of Fairfax County.

(there is a joke about the Three Great Religious Truths in there somewhere)

They were for the most part Episcopalian and Quaker as opposed to Evangelical and Pentecostal. Different religious traditions do not make them less Christian, and you can't gage them all by some of the things that Jefferson said.

"They may have said that they were Christians but they were not REALLY Christians" *smug*.

Of course, the US ratified a Treaty in 1796 that said that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;". The great thing about this is that many of the Founding Fathers were in Congress at the time, and yet it passed muster by a pretty good margin(unanimously in the Senate).

Good question. Personal experience. I'd rate Switzerland, Australia and Singapore up there too. All have fairly low tax regimes, a general tradition of stable democratic governance, fairly high decentralization (Switzerland is the only one that comes close to the US in that regard, etc). I believe the US has the whole package. Many of the things that you take for granted are not present in other countries. I don't rank the Scandinavian countries as high, because their personal taxes are far higher than in the US, and they believe that the welfare state is a sign that their state is strong, not weak. Which is the opposite for many parts of the US. YMMV though, California gets low marks from me on the 'freedom' scale.

Hold on, you are basically ranking personal freedom on Taxes? Are you ****ing kidding me? But the United States, where several states prohibit you from holding public office if you don't believe in God or prohibit you from getting married(or civil unionized) if you are gay rates higher because of Taxes?

By the by, I've been to Singapore twice while making port calls. It is a nice place to live, very clean, almost no crime....it is certainly not "Free", not in the sense that a westerner would call it. 80%+ of the housing there is government housing, which greatly restricts your liberty(since you talked about "well just move" a lot). You need to pay exorbitant fees in order to get demonstration permits, which limit public protest avenues. And I don't mean "Million Man rally outside Orchard tower", I mean just to have one guy standing on a box with a sign and yelling into a megaphone.

True, but if they mandate that you close shop at 7, you are also forced to abide by the community standards such as they are. There are all kinds of community standards, and closing shop at certain hours or on sunday is just one of them.

"If you are an atheist it is okay for the community to instruct you not to buy and sale on days that 'the community' perceives as 'holy'."

So really, you DO support restricting allowing people to engage in commerce based solely on their belief(or lack there of).

Yep. Plan ahead. Wouldn't hike personally without the camping gear. Something to do with the weather being cold where I am from.

I'm thinking more in terms of abruptly realizing that the canister of fuel you have is half empty.

I never said that you did, I'm curious as to why you have a problem with what they teach, but not that they teach at all. You're willing to pay for them, why? So that they can push your beliefs? Interesting.

Because, at the very least, there should be a door open to letting kids succeed in life. Education is how you increase your marketability. To use a common phrase, a rising tide lifts all boats.

If, on the other hand, you teach religion in a science class then you are hindering the critical thinking process. You don't know what a child is going to do with his or her life and teaching against what the scientific consensus is is a terrible handicap. Teachign outright lies in history classes skews the context of how we got here. Crap, you're spewing BS about the US legal system being founded on "The Bible".

If you are on the side of getting rid of them entirely, then I'm on your side. If you want to pay and fund them so that they can push your beliefs, then you aren't any different from the religious folks.

Nonsense. If you get rid of public education then only the rich get educated, or we have our very own (Christian) versions of Madrassas in the states.

And the difference in pushing my "beliefs" (i.e. science in science courses) is that I am not forcing a religion on anyone. I am saying that in a science class the scientific consensus should be taught. Otherwise my tax dollars are going to support a religious viewpoint that is not my own.

Please note that teaching the scientific consensus in public school science classes doesn't attack the existence of a Divine Progenitor, it is explaining theories that bets fit the evidence at hand. If any K-12 public school teacher said in an official capacity that one religions was better or worse than the other then he would be out of line. Religion should not be taught in public schools unless it is in, well, a class about religion.

(Ideally in History courses as well, but there is only so much you can cram into HS history classes)

Which comes from where?

Roman Law and Norman Law, you twit. English Common Law curbed religious legal power.

"If you can obtain your freedom, do so." "God-given rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Ever read the 10 Commandments?

The 1st commandment instructs us to worship God, thus condemning religious freedom. The 2nd commandment forbids the creation of and worship of idols, thus condemning religious freedom again. The 3rd commandment instructs us not to take his name "in vain", thus condemning freedom of speech. The 4th commandment instructs us to observe his sabbath day, thus condemning religious freedom for a third time.

So Freedom of religion and speech are right out.


Elsewhere Yahweh states that the Israelites must kill the inhabitants of Canaan because they might teach competing religious ideas. So Yahweh supports genocide. He prohibits the children of Abraham from marrying Canaanites, so Yahweh is a racial supremacist. He advocated enslaving enemies of the Israelites, so more racial superiority.

And remember, Jesus NEVER ONCE rebuked Yahweh's actions in the Old Testament, and very carefully stated that the Old Law was still in effect.

So you are ok with forcing people to pay for things that they do not want to pay for? Then why are you complaining about private enterprise soliciting you? You have the option of saying no, whereas I do not have the option of saying no.

I'm okay with forcing people to pay for things that uniformly improve the standard of living or quality of life across all races and creeds, I think it is really crass(at best) for someone to solicit so their religious group gets one more [s]sucker[/s] believer and enriches their specific group...often at the expense of the individual who joins.

The Texas which is chopping things down so that the deficit and debt will be paid off. Yeah, I'm on board with it. The state doesn't grant you freedom.

Texas that is so unwilling to implement even the most basic of taxation (Hurr hurr "free") that they are in the process of burning down public education and law enforcement. I'm sure that nothing but good things will come to the state that chops public education by 13%, the agency that supervises parolees by 21%, and legal aid for the poor by 15%. ****, we could suck it up and implement a sane tax policy(I mean Texas is 49th in spending per capita in the country), but we gotta be free as we ride this death spiral.

And oh, I'm sorry, who is it that grants civil liberties if not the government? The non-existent(or otherwise AWOL) God? Or the one that wants to kill you dead for insufficient brown nosing?

And it's not my problem that solicitors apparently aren't sufficient motivation for you to exercise your liberty. If I don't like something I spend the money to do something about it, which is why I live where I do. I like that TX doesn't put their hand in my paycheck.

Yeah, okay buddy. My county has under 6% unemployment, what's the average rate for Texas? At least 2% more, and the salaries, schools, and crime rate suck. It is the promised land.

What about real life?

I mind my own ****ing business in real life, something the God Squad doesn't.

Freedom of speech permits them to harass people in public with their speech. Same right you have. I wouldn't stop you, and I wouldn't stop them.

It's pretty amazing how you just put your fingers in your ear and go LA LA LA while acting as if the only reason why I care about whether or not other people believe in God is because of one thing(solicitors). My tax dollars being spent to support a religion not my own? Nope, I'll just pretend that isn't there. My ability to buy and sell restricted thanks to my religion or lack thereof? "Well you just have to deal with the tyranny of the majority".

"I know! I'm Ben Kenobi and make it into a free speech issue! He is only really pissed about solicitors, he should just spend more money to get into a gated community rather than having a reasonable expectation of not being harassed in his own ****ing home!"

Someone called Hitler a Christian. Why continue the thread any longer?

How would you define a Christian Kid? I would define it as someone who accepts Jesus as the Messiah, which Hitler certainly did.

[giblets]

Considering that I work in private education, I'm all for slashing education spending. We do a better job than the public schools anyways. Per head spending is 5500 a year. For a class of 30, that means they are spending 165k a year. Too much. Average starting salaries are around 35k in TX.

What kind of schools could you get for your kid for 460/month?

The standards in private education must not be very high if you were hired. And I find the idea that $5500 is too much to spend on a child's education to be ridiculous.

[Lonestar]

The standards in private education must not be very high if you were hired.

It's probably why he's for doing away with Public education. What he doesn't realize is that if that were done all the (now jobless)teachers who were at least modestly competent in logic would get hired before he would, as he mostly works for rich folks who don't want little Jimmy going to the same school as Juan.

[Docfeelgood]

I thought Hitler was Jewish?

[Lonestar]

I thought Hitler was Jewish?

Catholic.

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."

[Docfeelgood]

I saw a documentary about the lineage of Hitler and he was of Jewish blood line.
Maybe I'm mistaken?

[Lonestar]

I saw a documentary about the lineage of Hitler and he was of Jewish blood line.
Maybe I'm mistaken?

Doesn't mean he can't be Catholic.

[Docfeelgood]

Doesn't mean he can't be Catholic.

True

[Ben Kenobi]

The standards in private education must not be very high if you were hired.

Higher then public education, that's for sure. All my students can read.

And I find the idea that $5500 is too much to spend on a child's education to be ridiculous.

Then why do they have to force people to pay in order to fund them? If a teacher came up to you, and told you that you could sponsor a student and their education for the low price of 460 a month, would you do it?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's probably why he's for doing away with Public education. What he doesn't realize is that if that were done all the (now jobless)teachers who were at least modestly competent in logic would get hired before he would, as he mostly works for rich folks who don't want little Jimmy going to the same school as Juan.

Doubtful. Unlikely they would want to work where I work.