Oh yeah. Hitler says hi!
[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
But, damn. Seriously, MIB. There's gonna be a book-burning near you? That's so 1930s. And scary. I'm having flashbacks to Farenheit 451.
What are they, cave men??!!
"Book no good, must set flame on it to free our soul from the minions of evils"
Geez, get real!
Someone needs to smack that lady that burned the Rage CD. Smack her a lot.
While burning bibles seems like a good idea at first, there remains the fact that you're still burning a book because you don't agree w/ the ideas in it. Which is what these people are doing. I'd much rather burn fake bibles. Get the point across symbolically w/o actually being a hypocrite.
These people are getting more vocal. And no more intelligent.
"Wherever they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
While watching TBN today, I learned that some books need to be burned because the Devil puts hidden messages in them that cause cancer.
And I suppose G.R., Clark, and all those other guys are Satan's minions for bringing forth the idea that we are not the only form of life in this universe and, in fact, we are nothing more that a drop in the bucket when it comes to how much life there is in this galaxy alone!
And yes, I think I'll burn my U2 CDs as well, since U2 has been labelled as the Anti-Christ.
Who wants to join me?
Seriously (as if I wasn't serious about banning organised religon), though, I'm really saddened and disappointed at this. Still, I suppose there's hope. Perhaps if we lock them away somewhere for long enough they'll evolve into a more responsible and mature species.
I also feel compelled to point out that Pentacostals are hardly mainstream denominational Christians. You've heard of "holy rollers"?
quote:
Originally posted by Vogon Poet:
Yes, well, I've become convinced that Wes1701E's posts contain hidden messages that cause cancer, but you don't see me burning him. . . yet. 8)
i dont know why you would think that.... you'll all find out soon enough. *Enables Zeus Canon*
oh great. my outrages have made me fourm bitch. damnit... anyway.
I say we burn the church. and the lady that burned the RATM cds..
[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: Wes1701E ]
quote:
You couldn't make the case that burning an author's book that you have legally bought is a violation of his freedom of expression.
I would point out Omega that freedom of expression is not an enumerated right in the Constitution. Could it be that you interpret the First Amendment freedom of Speech Clause?
quote:
Originally posted by Eclipse:
I wonder if a decent case could be brought to ban organised religon on the grounds that it interferes with freedom of expression and thought? If so, that would be quite funny...
You want to outlaw religion because of some perceived danger it presents? OK, how 'bout we outlaw all displays of communistic and socialistic beliefs, too. They've been responsible for nearly a hundred million deaths in this century alone, FAR more than you could possibly blame on any religion. Heck, I doubt that all religions combined have caused that many deaths throughout all of history.
Jay:
I would point out Omega that freedom of expression is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.
And I would point out that I was merely responding to exactly what Eclipse said. He used the term "expression", therefore I did as well. Of course, not all rights of the people are enumerated in the Constitution, as stated by the ninth ammendment thereto, so you could make a case that the author of a book has a right to freedom of expression. So long as he doesn't infringe on MY rights to, say, burn my personal property, stupid as my reasons may be.
Don't know much about Stalin to make an opinion.
Mao? Yes. He knocked over statues saying they run contrary to Chinese beliefs. Buddhist Priests were forced to flee for fear of persecution. And of course, there is the Dalai Lama. But you say a million? That's an exaggeration. Unless you can actually provide proof of that number. Then I will shut up on that note.
Hitler on the other hand was Christian, and the Nazi symbol that he used was once a Christian religious symbol. His beliefs against the Jews were not only rooted in jealousy of their prosperity, but the fact that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ as indicated in the bible.
You want to outlaw religion because of some perceived danger it presents? OK, how 'bout we outlaw all displays of communistic and socialistic beliefs, too. They've been responsible for nearly a hundred million deaths in this century alone, FAR more than you could possibly blame on any religion. Heck, I doubt that all religions combined have caused that many deaths throughout all of history.
Come now. You haven't really remembered what The_Tom told you, have you? Pinochet? Capitalist, pure and simple. Yet he killed many people who opposed his regime. Betcha that Milosevic was not a Socialist or a Communist either. And I am beginning to believe more that Hitler wasn't exactly a socialist despite what his party's name stands for. Ariel Sharon is getting up there, with his disregard for his Middle East Peace. And many people say he is RIGHT-WING. This is in terms of economics. Like many other capital minded people, he wants his country to flourish economically.
And let us not forget the Islamic Fundamentalists, who line their pockets with gold from their oil profits, and kill people because they are missing a piece of sacred clothing.
It is not the matter of whether one believes in communism or capitalism. It is the matter of whether or not one believes in fascism and libertarianism. Communism and Capitalism is nothing more than an economic mindset.
Remember that.
No, he wasn't, again, by definition. As for whether even he believed that he was, read this.
But you say a million?
I'm not quite sure what you're refering to. Are you contesting that Mao was the second greatest mass-murderer of the twentieth century (second only to Stalin)?
Pinochet? Capitalist, pure and simple. Yet he killed many people who opposed his regime. Betcha that Milosevic was not a Socialist or a Communist either.
Yeah, and how many people did those two tin-pot dictators kill, as opposed to how many the socialists did?
Like many other capital minded people, he wants his country to flourish economically.
You mean that there are people who DON'T want their countries to flourish economically? Oh, wait. I keep forgetting about the Democrats.
It is not the matter of whether one believes in communism or capitalism.
Nor is it a matter of whether one believes in Christ, Buddah, the manifold Hindu gods, or none at all. The danger comes from certain types of people being in power, regardless of beliefs. Thanks for helping make my point.
quote:
Yeah, and how many people did those two tin-pot dictators kill, as opposed to how many the socialists did?
Doesn't it matter that they KILLED people, not how MANY people they killed? Apparently not.
quote:
You mean that there are people who DON'T want their countries to flourish economically? Oh, wait. I keep forgetting about the Democrats.
If a country flourishes, and it's people suffer, what good is that? You're the anti-Union party, remember? And for all your talk, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that Republicans adopted Social Security: a Dem created program.
Oh so you're saying that only socialists are capable of killing more than capitalists?
Pinochet and Milosevic could have killed lots more if they wanted to. They just didn't. That doesn't mean that only Socialists are capable of mass murder. Again, a person's economic mindset does not determine the propensity of mass murder.
You mean that there are people who DON'T want their countries to flourish economically? Oh, wait. I keep forgetting about the Democrats.
That's NOT what I meant. Please don't twist my words around like that.
Of course the Democrats wanted their country to flourish economically. They just had different ideas. And I will end it there.
The danger comes from certain types of people being in power, regardless of beliefs. Thanks for helping make my point.
I believe that it is not the power given to a person that speaks of danger, I believe it is HOW that person uses that power. Power, like all "magical" forces, can be beneficial if used properly.
You don't trust people with that much power? Fine, your opinion. I have a different one. This coming from the person who scored lower in the "Authoritarian-Libertarian" scale than you did.
http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/swastika.html
I remember that a variation of the swastika was seen in a Buddhist temple when I was on a class trip in high school, and almost immediately, most classmates start to associate Buddhism, and the Chinese, with Naziism, a comparison that I DID NOT like.
One thing is clear though, the reasons for the use of the swastika in WWII appear to be consistent with its use in modern day racist (read "Christian") groups such as the Aryan Nations and the Heritage Front.
[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Of course, if we go strictly 'by definition' as in "A follower of Christ" there AREN'T any Christians, and Christ hasn't been around to follow down the streets of Galilee.
However, according to the unabridged dictionary, 'by definition' a "Christian" is 1. One who believes or professes to believe in Jesus Christ.
Which applies to ALL the Crusaders, Witchhunters, Inquisitionors, and every other rat bastard who's done evil in the name of God. So THERE, by definition.
...or whatever the point of this thread has become...
?
Tahna:
I'm not sure if that is an official account, since it is coming only from the mouth of Cecil Adams, who may or may not be a genuine historian.
Not a historian, but an uber-researcher. If something can be known, he can tell you. And he get's paid for it, unlike Rob.
the reasons for the use of the swastika in WWII appear to be consistent with its use in modern day racist (read "Christian") groups such as the Aryan Nations and the Heritage Front.
No, they don't. The swastika was used in Nazi Germany because it was considered a symbol of good luck and divine protection by... whoever. Now, it's used because they used it, and the modern racist (read: not Christian) groups that use it support the same things that Nazi Germany did.
I remember that a variation of the swastika was seen in a Buddhist temple when I was on a class trip in high school, and almost immediately, most classmates start to associate Buddhism, and the Chinese, with Naziism, a comparison that I DID NOT like.
So you can imagine how I feel when you associate the symbol, Naziism, and Christianity with far less basis.
Well, going by your logic, then the true followers of Islam have also not committed a crime as well.
Read that statement VERY CAREFULLY, and see if you get what I am getting at.
So you can imagine how I feel when you associate the symbol, Naziism, and Christianity with far less basis.
I'll drop the swastika on the basis of the article that I posted. I will say that it has been mentioned in many texts and voices that the Swastika was chosen on the basis that it was also a Christian symbol, as mentioned in that same article.
As for Naziism, it is not a legal offshoot of Christianity, though people who profess themselves in this particular group tend to associate themselves with Christianity. Why do they use those burning crosses anyways?
[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
quote:
Why do they use those burning crosses anyways?
Always wondered that myself. About Naziism and the Klan - they are equally abominable, yet while Naziism is abhored (well, not very much, not compared to Communism) in the States, the Klan are tolerated. Like in that very clever South Park ep where everyone is shocked at Cartman dressing up as Hitler for Hallowe'en, but not when he dresses up as a Klansman (even though he's meant to be a ghost in a white sheet).
[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: Vogon Poet ]
Now, thirty years ago, they were (in my opinion, of course) a "Clear and Present Danger" to the National Security of the United States. Burning down churches, lynchings, etcetra ... I honestly don't understand how people can claim to worship the Christian "God" and do these things to others who worship the same "God" (this includes both Jews and Muslims, who also worship the same God, just differently).
Now, I was raised a Roman Catholic (interesting side note: my dad is Protestant. I'd be so loved in Northern Ireland). Which means the Klan does't care for me all that much either (even though I'm white with blue eyes).
As for the swastika, I can see how people could think it is associated with the Christian cross -- it certainly bears a resemblance, but I had always thought the swastika was a symbol of various things used in some variation throughout the world. Certainly today's neo-Nazis use the swastika in concert with hate-speeches about God' wish to "lynch all the niggers and nigger lovers" and what-not.
You are, by definition, WRONG.
quote:
You want to outlaw religion because of some perceived danger it presents? OK, how 'bout we outlaw all displays of communistic and socialistic beliefs, too. They've been responsible for nearly a hundred million deaths in this century alone, FAR more than you could possibly blame on any religion. Heck, I doubt that all religions combined have caused that many deaths throughout all of history.
The world's population has increased exponentially during the last two, three centuries. Just imagine how many deaths 'all religions combined' would have caused, had the atrocities taken place more recently.
But then, it doesn't matter how many people died, the fact that they died is more important. I despise the religious intolerance christianity and its zealously dedicated followers have (and still are) displayed.
Of course, that was a generalisation. Just like you did when you claimed that the communistic and socialistic beliefs, were responsible for the greatest loss in human lives.
quote:
HATRED of religion (in general or in specificity) has been a fundamental aspect of the beliefs of the three greatest murderers of the century: Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. When was the last time you heard about a bunch of Christians getting together and killing a few million people? Oh, wait. It's never happened, by definition.
I suggest you start catching up on history. Hitler himself, as has been pointed out many times already, was Christian. His hate was directed against the Jewish people (among other scapegoats), not their religious conviction.
Stalin could care less about what you believed in, as long as you were a (to use one of your terms) Commie. That was all that really mattered to him.
When was the last time you heard about a bunch of Christians getting together and killing a few million people?
Oh, I don't know, I'd say the entire period between 500 and 1500 A.C. - also known as the Dark Ages.
Burning down the church in question would be a hypocritical thing to do. Bulldozing it, however, might be viewed as urban renewal. Likewise the elimination of certain extremely bigoted social elements.
[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
BTW, there's your example of a time when a bunch of Christians decided to get together and kill a whole bunch of people.
quote:
Followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ have NEVER commited an attrocity in the history of mankind, by the nature of said teachings.
Controversial aside - George W. Bush is therefore not a Christian. See: Sermon on the mount.
BTW, if you really think the above statement is true, then Communists never committed atrocities, either. Marx certainly wasn't too big on the "let's murder/kill/enslave everyone who bugs us" idea.
I'm curious to see how he tries to get out of this one...
quote:
Originally posted by Tahna Los:
ROTFLMFAOSMIPIMP!!!!
I only understand what it means upto here: ROTFLMFAO but the rest... 
Book burning in the 21st century.
Well, I think Mel Brooks was right. The only way to fight such an evil is to ridicule it. (Springtime for Hitler).
Someone needs to start a campaign on the public webwaves to make these people appear as foolish to the general public as we see them now.
1) Giant publicity campaign. Every free-thinker in the world mails a copy of the Bible to Greenland, where they are entombed in permafrost. We call it the "hell freezes over" policy. The exact opposite of book burning.
I come from a small town in BC called Abbotsford. I attended a Christian high school, and can therefore state (quite categorically), that I've been pretty much immersed in Christianity, the church, and its dogma.
However, during my 15th year, I came to a sudden discovery.
The majority of Christians aren't what you would consider true Christians. ie: They don't make the grade either because of ulterior motives (attend church for social/economic reasons), or for other reasons do not exist in a state of grace.
But they are still Christians. You can't just arbitrarily kick them out of your little group because you don't approve of their actions. Actually, by my count, they outnumber the ones you espouse to by 2:1. You have to include them, because we objective observers do. And therefore, as a general rule, Christianity has a pretty poor track record.
Myself, at the age of 15 I decided that someone with a high IQ, who professed to follow the scientific method, had no business believing in things he could not see evidence of. Yes, it's lonelier. But it is also intellectually honest.
Hardly arbitrary.
You have to include them, because we objective observers do.
Says who?
Christianity has a very specific, very thorough definition. You can't just change it because you don't like it.
[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
But Abbotsford is most certainly in the heart of BC's mini bible-belt. It's like the road dips 20 degrees southward in latitude as one heads out to Hope and then returns to a more comfortable clime of Canadian reason.
[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
quote:
Christianity has a very specific, very thorough definition.
Tell us then, oh ultra-rightwinged conservative One, what IS the exact definition of christianity?
What about all that infighting among Protestants and Catholics in Ireland? They follow the teachings of Christ, yet they get into fights almost every single year. Do you have the guts to tell all of them that they are not Christians because they don't follow YOUR idea of what Christians are?
Ask any Christian the same question, and ask them if members of these various denominations are Christian. Everything does not come down to a very narrow point of view that is yours, Omega. It's called "having an open mind".
One who follows the teachings of Christ. These teachings boil down to: Love one another, because He loved you. Teach others the same. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Do you have the guts to tell all of them that they are not Christians because they don't follow YOUR idea of what Christians are?
Might not be a bad idea. Knock some sense into them. Of course, some of them might be using the religion as an excuse to kill, instead of as the reason, in which case rational discussion is impossible, but it varies from person to person.
quote:
Love one another, because He loved you. Teach others the same. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Like I keep saying... there AREN'T any Christians.
And yeah, we're talking Bible Belt!
Omega:
Yes, when it comes to Christians, I do count the goats with the sheep - after all, they count themselves in.
quote:
These teachings boil down to: Love one another, because He loved you. Teach others the same. Lather, rinse, repeat.
So Mohammed, Gandhi and, hell, Hubbard were Christians?
"Love one another, because He loved you. Teach others the same. Lather, rinse, repeat."
If that's the be-all and end-all of it, what the hell is that whole "bible" dealie for?
quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
While watching TBN today, I learned that some books need to be burned because the Devil puts hidden messages in them that cause cancer.
BURN POKEMON!!!! SEND THEM BACK TO SATAN!!! HE CREATED THEM TO TURN KIDS AWAY FROM GOOD STUFF!! LIKE PLAYING WITH FIRE, now theres a lost art if there ever was one. who would let thier kids watch a show where they put little animals into tiny balls, and take em out of those horrid things only to have them fight each other. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!!! it was only after pokemon that i saw a story on the news about a kid who put his dog in a BBQ and roasted it alive.
I went to a Catholic school. I went in an atheist. I came out an atheist.
I have seen and interacted with just about every type of 'Christian' that there is. Being a Christian, is by definition, impossible.
I'm reminded of Ned Flanders' plea to God:
"I've done everything the Bible says. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"
It continues to amaze me that anybody with enough decision making ability to drive a car can gloss over the libraries of contradictions and boldfaced bullshit in the Bible and in those that profess to follow it.
Arghhh....I was in a pretty good mood before this thread...goddamnit.
It continues to amaze me that anybody with enough decision making ability to drive a car can gloss over the libraries of contradictions and boldfaced bullshit in the Bible and in those that profess to follow it.
Contradictions? You mean the ones I pounded into the ground here?
'I'm reminded of Ned Flanders' plea to God:
"I've done everything the Bible says. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"'
Quoting the Simpsons does not prove your point. And, if my memory was working, I'd quote that line Kira once said about faith as a counter-argument. But I isn't, so I can't, so I won't.
But, if you are going to argue against the bible/christianity/magical fairies, saying "ooh, why do you believe that crap? It's all rubbish. I don't believe it, because I am superior" does not actually count as an argument.
Now the challenge: can you convince Jeff of this? I was having an argument with him last night, and the best he could do was say "There is no God. Fact." Repeating yourself over and over is not making an argument. It's more like that 99% of protestors that Rob likes to bash. You know, the ones incapable of thought?
if my memory was working, I'd quote that line Kira once said about faith as a counter-argument. But I isn't, so I can't, so I won't.
Something along the lines of, "That's the thing about faith: if you don't have it, you can't explain it; if you do have it, no explaination is necessary."
oh brother
Which is, people whose only contribution that they are capable of making is to stand somewhere shouting slogans somebody else made up, but when you try to engage them in rational discourse about the issue (if you take up a contrary position), all they can do is chant louder.
And yeah, about 90%.
Erm. Omega, buddy, as I told you repeatedly, I am open to the possibility that a supernatural force (be it God, Allah, Shiva or Steven Seagal) created the universe. However, I do not accept it as a certainty.
And for this, you call me "not open minded." Hah!
Speaking of which, here's a recent bit we had on ICQ:
quote:
Jeff: (11:57 PM) Well, as you said (in regards to my Jim-Bob statement), "you propose existance outside the universe." Explaining the creation of the universe still assumes existance outside the universe.Omega: (11:58 PM) Always. But that existence must be timeless. I thought you were implying that we were simply a result of a different universe.
Jeff: (11:59 PM) Well, who knows? Of course, there's always the possiblity that the universe has always existed. But the point I'm trying to make, is that I'm peeved that you said I wasn't open-minded for not accepting the CERTAINTY of something, but rather, the POSSIBLITY of it.
Omega: (12:00 AM) You're not open-minded because you're set in your ways. There is no other possibility, therefore this one is the correct one, by process of elimination.
Jeff: (12:01 AM) I completely disagree with that.
Omega: (12:02 AM) The part that there's no other possibility?
Jeff: (12:02 AM) That, as you suggest that God is timeless, the universe is timeless.
Omega: (12:03 AM) Impossible. The amount of entropy in the universe is constantly increasing. There must have been a point where entropy was zero: the beginning.
Omega: (12:04 AM) You see, it's a little known fact that the laws of nature contradict each other. The law of increasing entropy demands a beginning to existence, and yet the law of mass-energy conservation doesn't allow for one.
Jeff: (12:04 AM) Maybe it just decided to expand ... or maybe it shrinks, then expands, then shrinks, then expands ...
Omega: (12:04 AM) That would require decreases in entropy, which is impossible. At least, without some entity capable of violating the laws of nature. :-)
Jeff: (12:05 AM) Okay, you got me. I'm God.
Jeff: (12:05 AM) Altho I prefer being called Steven.
Omega: (12:05 AM) Yes, we all know you think that.
Jeff: (12:06 AM) It's okay, I won't scoop Tennessee from the face of the earth. Just accept it. I'm Ste ... er, God.
Omega: (12:06 AM) *SMITE*
If you were God, could I have done that and gotten away with it?
Jeff: (12:07 AM) Could you have typed *smite*? Sure. You can also type "you stupid sack of shit." But I've gotten better at ignoring people then about 3,000 years ago or whenever when I flooded the world.
Omega: (12:08 AM) I REALLY wish they hadn't canceled "God, the Devil and Bob"...
Jeff: (12:09 AM) So sorry. Didn't you say you had to go to bed?
Omega: (12:09 AM) I lied.
Jeff: (12:09 AM) New sig
Omega: (12:10 AM) You know, I have infinitely better quotes than that.
Jeff: (12:10 AM) Well, since this conversation is going to be repetitions of me saying, "I am open minded" and you saying "no you're not there's only one possiblity!" let's change the subject.
Jeff: (12:10 AM) Yes, I know ... I've got a great one I'm still using.
Omega: (12:10 AM) Mine's better. :-)
That gem of a quote highlighted by me ... for obvious reasons -- er, you know, the one in bold
[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]