OpenMind;1329714 wrote: I'll go and give myself a slap then shall I?
ST PAUL
The apostle held a deep hatred for the flesh
(Photo courtesy of Cecil B De Mille)
~o0o~
Hell's Angel
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
MASTERPIECES OF RELIGIOUS ‘REASONING’ (No. 2)
‘Several million years for a monkey to turn into a man?
Oh, ain’t that right!
Monkeys don’t live several million years.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
gmc wrote: YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
‘Several million years for a monkey to turn into a man?
Oh, ain’t that right!
Monkeys don’t live several million years.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
gmc wrote: YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1329808 wrote: MASTERPIECES OF RELIGIOUS ‘REASONING’ (No. 2)
‘Several million years for a monkey to turn into a man?
Oh, ain’t that right!
Monkeys don’t live several million years.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
You like that site don't you
If you don't have the intellectual capacity to think for yourself the last speaker can be the most convincing.
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
‘Several million years for a monkey to turn into a man?
Oh, ain’t that right!
Monkeys don’t live several million years.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
You like that site don't you
If you don't have the intellectual capacity to think for yourself the last speaker can be the most convincing.
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
OpenMind wrote: At the end of the day, people with or given power within any religious order, have used their religion to exact the most heinous crimes on people.
The fact that the crimes, atrocities and horrors engendered by Religion are so numerous as to be beyond all calculation must give rise to the following question in the mind of the rational and civilized human being: How is it possible for believers in a ‘loving and merciful God’ to have produced Religion’s ocean of blood? For example, how is it possible for the followers of Jesus who preached ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you’ to have done precisely the opposite?
We do not have to look any further than Religion itself for the answer to why its history is so bloodstained. The record of Religion has been almost uniformly dark because it not only provides its adherents with an ideology which allows them to indulge their most primitive and sadistic impulses - it allows them to do so with a clear conscience as well. This damnable truth was conceded by the Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, when he wrote:
‘Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.’
Thus, the Christians who tortured and burned alive thousands of men, women and children during the Witch Holocaust in Europe may have felt their conscience being stirred at times, and some of them may even have experienced a flicker of pity for their victims. But whenever momentary guilt or compassion of this sort arose in them it was easily dealt with by their religion. For it could be quickly rationalised away as an attempt by the ‘Evil One’ to deflect them from carrying out their Christian duty to exterminate the enemies of God.
And so it continues today with ’God’s children’ the world over.
~o0o~
THE SUPREME BEING
'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’
The fact that the crimes, atrocities and horrors engendered by Religion are so numerous as to be beyond all calculation must give rise to the following question in the mind of the rational and civilized human being: How is it possible for believers in a ‘loving and merciful God’ to have produced Religion’s ocean of blood? For example, how is it possible for the followers of Jesus who preached ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you’ to have done precisely the opposite?
We do not have to look any further than Religion itself for the answer to why its history is so bloodstained. The record of Religion has been almost uniformly dark because it not only provides its adherents with an ideology which allows them to indulge their most primitive and sadistic impulses - it allows them to do so with a clear conscience as well. This damnable truth was conceded by the Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, when he wrote:
‘Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.’
Thus, the Christians who tortured and burned alive thousands of men, women and children during the Witch Holocaust in Europe may have felt their conscience being stirred at times, and some of them may even have experienced a flicker of pity for their victims. But whenever momentary guilt or compassion of this sort arose in them it was easily dealt with by their religion. For it could be quickly rationalised away as an attempt by the ‘Evil One’ to deflect them from carrying out their Christian duty to exterminate the enemies of God.
And so it continues today with ’God’s children’ the world over.
~o0o~
THE SUPREME BEING
'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’
Hell's Angel
They say God loves a sinner that repents, and we are all his children, maybe they're just attention seeking.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1330691 wrote: They say God loves a sinner that repents, and we are all his children, maybe they're just attention seeking.
Attention-seeking isn’t the half of it. The religionist’s preoccupation with ‘sin’ is another manifestation of his gigantic egotism. This individual actually believes that his moral failings possess cosmic significance. They are so tremendously important in his eyes that the Creator of the Universe takes account of them. Could you ask for clearer evidence than this of the religionist’s overweening self-conceit?
Contrast yourself with the religionist on this matter.
Your moral failings are your affair and the affair of your fellow human beings whom they happen to impact on. They go no further than that. But this is not the case with your counterpart. The religionist thinks that his moral failings cry out to ‘Heaven’ itself. For him, they are so exceedingly weighty and significant that they cannot be subjected to human judgement - either his own or others - in any ultimate way. No. They must be lavished with ‘Superhuman’ judgement in the ‘Highest Court’ possible. Nothing less will do for a monumental egotist who believes his moral failings are of such importance that they transcend time and space - who believes that they hold eternal implications for his ‘soul’.
Attention-seeking isn’t the half of it. The religionist’s preoccupation with ‘sin’ is another manifestation of his gigantic egotism. This individual actually believes that his moral failings possess cosmic significance. They are so tremendously important in his eyes that the Creator of the Universe takes account of them. Could you ask for clearer evidence than this of the religionist’s overweening self-conceit?
Contrast yourself with the religionist on this matter.
Your moral failings are your affair and the affair of your fellow human beings whom they happen to impact on. They go no further than that. But this is not the case with your counterpart. The religionist thinks that his moral failings cry out to ‘Heaven’ itself. For him, they are so exceedingly weighty and significant that they cannot be subjected to human judgement - either his own or others - in any ultimate way. No. They must be lavished with ‘Superhuman’ judgement in the ‘Highest Court’ possible. Nothing less will do for a monumental egotist who believes his moral failings are of such importance that they transcend time and space - who believes that they hold eternal implications for his ‘soul’.
Hell's Angel
posted bt gl;aswegian
Attention-seeking isn’t the half of it. The religionist’s preoccupation with ‘sin’ is another manifestation of his gigantic egotism. This individual actually believes that his moral failings possess cosmic significance. They are so tremendously important in his eyes that the Creator of the Universe takes account of them. Could you ask for clearer evidence than this of the religionist’s overweening self-conceit?
I was being slightly facetious
Thus, the Christians who tortured and burned alive thousands of men, women and children during the Witch Holocaust in Europe may have felt their conscience being stirred at times, and some of them may even have experienced a flicker of pity for their victims. But whenever momentary guilt or compassion of this sort arose in them it was easily dealt with by their religion. For it could be quickly rationalised away as an attempt by the ‘Evil One’ to deflect them from carrying out their Christian duty to exterminate the enemies of God.
And so it continues today with ’God’s children’ the world over.
It's getting worse and there are variations. I don't know what is worse those that are carrying out their religious duty by exterminating the enemies of god or those that want to warn us and want to save us all despite ourselves but are safe in the knowledge that they themselves are safe.
The real horror channel on TV
Joe Van Koevering | GOD TV
Actually it's hilarious sometimes but I'm probably beyond hope anyway. It's like watching cosmic double glazing salesman with a constant sales closing, say amen , say yes, don't think, give me your money.
Senior Catholic Edmund Adamus blames UK's 'moral wasteland' on equal rights - Home News, UK - The Independent
I posted this link on another thread. You begin to understand when you see that kind of attitude what made our ancestors finally go to war to stop them. You cannot reason with unreasonable people, you can tolerate them but don't expect the same respect in return.
Attention-seeking isn’t the half of it. The religionist’s preoccupation with ‘sin’ is another manifestation of his gigantic egotism. This individual actually believes that his moral failings possess cosmic significance. They are so tremendously important in his eyes that the Creator of the Universe takes account of them. Could you ask for clearer evidence than this of the religionist’s overweening self-conceit?
I was being slightly facetious
Thus, the Christians who tortured and burned alive thousands of men, women and children during the Witch Holocaust in Europe may have felt their conscience being stirred at times, and some of them may even have experienced a flicker of pity for their victims. But whenever momentary guilt or compassion of this sort arose in them it was easily dealt with by their religion. For it could be quickly rationalised away as an attempt by the ‘Evil One’ to deflect them from carrying out their Christian duty to exterminate the enemies of God.
And so it continues today with ’God’s children’ the world over.
It's getting worse and there are variations. I don't know what is worse those that are carrying out their religious duty by exterminating the enemies of god or those that want to warn us and want to save us all despite ourselves but are safe in the knowledge that they themselves are safe.
The real horror channel on TV
Joe Van Koevering | GOD TV
Actually it's hilarious sometimes but I'm probably beyond hope anyway. It's like watching cosmic double glazing salesman with a constant sales closing, say amen , say yes, don't think, give me your money.
Senior Catholic Edmund Adamus blames UK's 'moral wasteland' on equal rights - Home News, UK - The Independent
I posted this link on another thread. You begin to understand when you see that kind of attitude what made our ancestors finally go to war to stop them. You cannot reason with unreasonable people, you can tolerate them but don't expect the same respect in return.
Hell's Angel
Ban abortion. Kill them and bury them instead to be dug up as skeletons centuries later.
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1331164 wrote: Ban abortion. Kill them and bury them instead to be dug up as skeletons centuries later.
No much better to try and ban sex education and the use and ready availability of contraceptives that way you get a chance to ostracise or maybe just put in mental institutions as feeble minded the girls that get pregnant. make them give up their children for adoption so they can live a lifetime of guilt and their offspring that don't get adopted are in the orphanages where they can be abused by the holy people given responsibility for them and given regular beatings so they know how worthless they really are. The sanctimonious need someone they can feel superior to. Who better than those whose sin of being born out of wedlock damns them from the word go. If you ban abortion as well who will the christian terrorists have to blow up?
How come the IRA and UDA are not perceived as being religious terrorists? Bet of a gang of muslims blew up Christians at a war memorial it would be seen as religious terrorism.
No much better to try and ban sex education and the use and ready availability of contraceptives that way you get a chance to ostracise or maybe just put in mental institutions as feeble minded the girls that get pregnant. make them give up their children for adoption so they can live a lifetime of guilt and their offspring that don't get adopted are in the orphanages where they can be abused by the holy people given responsibility for them and given regular beatings so they know how worthless they really are. The sanctimonious need someone they can feel superior to. Who better than those whose sin of being born out of wedlock damns them from the word go. If you ban abortion as well who will the christian terrorists have to blow up?
How come the IRA and UDA are not perceived as being religious terrorists? Bet of a gang of muslims blew up Christians at a war memorial it would be seen as religious terrorism.
Hell's Angel
Ok. Here's a slightly different tact to the whole argument here.
Whether Jesus existed or not, I cannot say. Let's for argument's sake say that he did.
What I have read about Jesus in the Bible, and as far as I know, the Bible is the only book that provides an historical account of the guy, I am convinced that this man was a truly genuine guy. I can also see that people have read more into Jesus than is actually stated in the Bible.
However, after Jesus was crucified at the request of the Jews who were in power, his followers carried on spreading the things he taught in his name. The Romans were not happy about this. So, instead of fighting this new force, they decided to take it on board and control it. Hence the reason why the new religion was called Roman Catholicism. It was the Romans who decided what transcripts were included in the New Testament. Not the Christians.
So, there you have it, the Romans created the religion that we have today. Let me say something about the Romans.
The Romans were corrupt. They desired power.
As an example of the mindset of the Romans, they used to leave unwanted babies in specified places to either die or be adopted by a benelovent householder. These children would forever be slaves to the benevolent household.
By contrast, Celts always found a home for their unwanted babies. As a rule, no one was made a slave. Women had equal status to men and were respected for being the childbearer.
Therefore, I believe that the original Christian cause was pure. But the Romans corrupted it for their ends.
Originally, the first Christians did not have churches.
Whether Jesus existed or not, I cannot say. Let's for argument's sake say that he did.
What I have read about Jesus in the Bible, and as far as I know, the Bible is the only book that provides an historical account of the guy, I am convinced that this man was a truly genuine guy. I can also see that people have read more into Jesus than is actually stated in the Bible.
However, after Jesus was crucified at the request of the Jews who were in power, his followers carried on spreading the things he taught in his name. The Romans were not happy about this. So, instead of fighting this new force, they decided to take it on board and control it. Hence the reason why the new religion was called Roman Catholicism. It was the Romans who decided what transcripts were included in the New Testament. Not the Christians.
So, there you have it, the Romans created the religion that we have today. Let me say something about the Romans.
The Romans were corrupt. They desired power.
As an example of the mindset of the Romans, they used to leave unwanted babies in specified places to either die or be adopted by a benelovent householder. These children would forever be slaves to the benevolent household.
By contrast, Celts always found a home for their unwanted babies. As a rule, no one was made a slave. Women had equal status to men and were respected for being the childbearer.
Therefore, I believe that the original Christian cause was pure. But the Romans corrupted it for their ends.
Originally, the first Christians did not have churches.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Hell's Angel
In England, the earliest records we have of the English were written by a monk in Jarrow called Bede. From him sprang pretty much everything we know about our history because of the rigour he applied to his methods - he's constantly saying things like " This was reported to me by a trustworthy man of God". In other words, the best source he could get at the time. That intellectual rigour has been the foundation of all GOOD academic research ever since.
Forget God. Bede justifies religion. He'd be utterly horrified, poor gentle soul.
Forget God. Bede justifies religion. He'd be utterly horrified, poor gentle soul.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian wrote: Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true, OpenMind?
OpenMind;1328729 wrote: I can't really truthfully answer that as I am not an adherent of Christianity and I do not subscribe to the Christian God.
Come on now, OpenMind. Stop being such a wallflower!
What does adherence or non-adherence to Christianity have to do with answering the above question? Either you think Jesus’s claim is true or you do not.
David Koresh claimed he was the Son of God. Are you seriously suggesting that in order to form a judgement as to the truth or falsity of Koresh’s claim it is necessary for one to have been an adherent of the Branch Davidian sect? I think not.
So let me ask you again:
Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true?
OpenMind;1328729 wrote: I can't really truthfully answer that as I am not an adherent of Christianity and I do not subscribe to the Christian God.
Come on now, OpenMind. Stop being such a wallflower!
What does adherence or non-adherence to Christianity have to do with answering the above question? Either you think Jesus’s claim is true or you do not.
David Koresh claimed he was the Son of God. Are you seriously suggesting that in order to form a judgement as to the truth or falsity of Koresh’s claim it is necessary for one to have been an adherent of the Branch Davidian sect? I think not.
So let me ask you again:
Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true?
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1331545 wrote: Come on now, OpenMind. Stop being such a wallflower!
What does adherence or non-adherence to Christianity have to do with answering the above question? Either you think Jesus’s claim is true or you do not.
David Koresh claimed he was the Son of God. Are you seriously suggesting that in order to form a judgement as to the truth or falsity of Koresh’s claim it is necessary for one to have been an adherent of the Branch Davidian sect? I think not.
So let me ask you again:
Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true?
I wasn't there so I can only go by what it says in the New Testament. So, it all depends on how accurate the testaments are and how accurately they were translated.
However, I think it means that he was setting the example for others to follow.
What does adherence or non-adherence to Christianity have to do with answering the above question? Either you think Jesus’s claim is true or you do not.
David Koresh claimed he was the Son of God. Are you seriously suggesting that in order to form a judgement as to the truth or falsity of Koresh’s claim it is necessary for one to have been an adherent of the Branch Davidian sect? I think not.
So let me ask you again:
Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true?
I wasn't there so I can only go by what it says in the New Testament. So, it all depends on how accurate the testaments are and how accurately they were translated.
However, I think it means that he was setting the example for others to follow.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc wrote: So Glaswegian, when the pope visits [Glasgow] will you be out on the streets protesting?
Glaswegian;1325624 wrote: No.
But I will be monitoring the Religious Romp closely - undercover.
THE DAY THE POPE VISITED GLASGOW
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 1
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 2
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
Glaswegian;1325624 wrote: No.
But I will be monitoring the Religious Romp closely - undercover.
THE DAY THE POPE VISITED GLASGOW
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 1
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 2
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1334429 wrote: THE DAY THE POPE VISITED GLASGOW
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 1
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 2
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
I thought, the steward with the sash on his mobile phone, bet that's Glaswegian.
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 1
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
Glaswegian Undercover
Disguise No. 2
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
I thought, the steward with the sash on his mobile phone, bet that's Glaswegian.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
THE DAY THE POPE VISITED GLASGOW
THE CATHOLIC HERD
Catholics kneel in prayer in Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
~o0o~
THE CATHOLIC HERD
Catholics kneel in prayer in Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
~o0o~
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
THE DAY THE POPE VISITED GLASGOW
Glaswegian Undercover
Keeping an eye on the pope in Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~
Glaswegian Undercover
Keeping an eye on the pope in Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park
(Photo courtesy of Men Of Reason Monthly)
~o0o~