|
|||
|
Thomas Jefferson George Washington Ben Franklin These were just the most important of the American founders...many more made similar statements. You know, I hear a lot of talk on this site about how Christianity makes no sense (obvious, it's a delusion), how the Bible is self-contradictory (duh, it's fiction), and how much misery Christians have caused here and abroad (easily proved: ever wonder where all the American Indians went? Christians killed them). But I don't think that kind of talk does any good because it doesn't spur people to action. The democratic principles of the USA are being subverted by Christians who have more allegiance to foreign popes like Ratzinger and fictional characters like Jesus than to the law of the people. Christians actually seek to enforce their personal vision of morality on the rest of us through buying influence and intimidation tactics , and they seek to convert foreign countries to Christianity by military action - like Bush has done in Iraq - thus creating new enemies of the state for us to deal with. I think it's time Christians were let in on the big secret: they are no longer welcome in this country. They are a vocal minority who insist they have a direct line to God without ever presenting any proof of this. But what goes around comes around: these are the end times for Christianity. Their apocalypse comes nearer and nearer every day. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsUSA's Founders Rejected Christianity; Let's Get Rid of It! |
|
|||
|
h_o_h: I think it's time Christians were let in on the big secret: they are no longer welcome in this country. They are a vocal minority who insist they have a direct line to God without ever presenting any proof of this. Since when is 79.8% of the population a minority? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: Ben FranklinSome books against Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. How is this a statement against god? holy_of_holies: I think it's time Christians were let in on the big secret: they are no longer welcome in this country. I don't think you can make a conclusion like this. I have to agree with Tiefling (although one cannot really rely on the self-description "I am a Christian"): The USA are still a very religious country. See all the stats at IMO → Is the influence of Christianity decreasing? After all: That's why Bush has won: IMO → 90% of US Christians will always vote conservative Moreover see IMO → Should the US split and form 2 independent countries? posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: holy_of_holies: Ben FranklinSome books against Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. How is this a statement against god? I didn't say they were "against God"...I said they "rejected Christianity." Deists reject Christianity. It's different. (What is it with members of this site misrepresenting what I post? posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
h_o_h: What is it with members of this site misrepresenting what I post? Settle down before you throw another temper tantrum. knn was simply asking how the quote from Franklin supported your point. No need to get defensive. However, you failed to address the fact that Christianity is not a minority in the USA. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: I think it's time Christians were let in on the big secret: they are no longer welcome in this country. They are a vocal minority who insist they have a direct line to God without ever presenting any proof of this. But what goes around comes around: these are the end times for Christianity. Their apocalypse comes nearer and nearer every day. Whew...thanks for the update, Holy. My family and I better pack up our things and move out before things get out've hand. But, before that happens, I have a question: What about all of the Christians like myself (I'm Catholic) who still believe that the church has no business being involved w/the state? Are we to be lumped into the same group just because we believe in God? Believing in God is a choice that I made. Whether or not you agree w/it, again, is your choice. I understand the Bible is fiction and don't look upon as the actual "Word of God." It's man's interpretation of the Word of God. So, I look at it the same way...See what it says, then make my own interpretation. To me, it's more of a guide/map on how I should live MY life, understanding that it may not be for everyone. However, you suggest that simply because I chose to believe in God, I should leave? posted by GP |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
GP: But, before that happens, I have a question: What about all of the Christians like myself (I'm Catholic) who still believe that the church has no business being involved w/the state? I've got news for you: if you donate to your church, part of that money eventually goes to the Vatican. The Vatican is a state - a theocracy and a foreign state to be exact, which attempts to impose its agenda (anti-abortion, anti-contraception, etc.) on the rest of us in the US through sponsoring mind control (otherwise known as Christian religion, Bible classes, Jesus worship, even interefering with citizens' electoral choice). For a foreign state to impose its agenda on a sovereign country is an act of aggression. Thus by your support of the Vatican (even if you give no money, you have said that you support its teachings) you are giving aid to a foreign aggressor. Make up your own mind whether you want to do that. GP: Are we to be lumped into the same group just because we believe in God? Believing in God is a choice that I made. Whether or not you agree w/it, again, is your choice. Yes, you lump yourself into the group of Jesus-worshippers. GP: I understand the Bible is fiction and don't look upon as the actual "Word of God." It's man's interpretation of the Word of God. So, I look at it the same way...See what it says, then make my own interpretation. To me, it's more of a guide/map on how I should live MY life, understanding that it may not be for everyone.
However, you suggest that simply because I chose to believe in God, I should leave? Who said you should leave? You're a citizen apparently. Why should you leave? posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
h_o_h: For a foreign state to impose its agenda on a sovereign country is an act of aggression. Wrong again. Article I
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition. Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State": (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations; (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate. Article 2 The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity. Article 3 Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof, (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein. Please cite at least one of these conditions that the Vatican has met. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
h_o_h: I think it's time Christians were let in on the big secret: they are no longer welcome in this country. h_o_h: Who said you should leave? You're a citizen apparently. Why should you leave? I'm dying to hear you reconcile these two statements. Please do so, in your own words, so that we don't have to endure your whines about being "misrepresented." posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's a UN definition. I have never sworn allegiance to the UN nor accepted its nomenclature. Therefore nothing in the UN definition of "aggression" refutes my statement. I am free to use the word "aggression" in any manner I see fit. Since when does the UN define terms for Americans? posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: h_o_h: I think it's time Christians were let in on the big secret: they are no longer welcome in this country. h_o_h: Who said you should leave? You're a citizen apparently. Why should you leave? I'm dying to hear you reconcile these two statements. Please do so, in your own words, so that we don't have to endure your whines about being "misrepresented." Yessir! If I went to the Ka'aba in Mecca and spent the whole time chatting with my friends about what a loser Muhammed was, I certainly wouldn't be welcome there. It doesn't mean I have to leave. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: If I went to the Ka'aba in Mecca You can't. The sign there says: "For Muslims only". Non-Muslims cannot enter. However the power of the Kaaba can be felt approx. 1-2 sqare miles around the Kaaba, so I don't know if you would be in the mood to discuss about Muhamad being a loser. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
h_o_h: I am free to use the word "aggression" in any manner I see fit. If you're not going to use an established definition of an act of aggression, then the burden is on you to define what an act of aggression is, when an act of aggression is justified, and what responses are warranted to an act of aggression. h_o_h: I certainly wouldn't be welcome there. It doesn't mean I have to leave. Yes, it does. But, since you're apparently using your own definition of the word "welcome," then explain what this statement means: h_o_h: they are no longer welcome in this country If it doesn't mean you feel they should leave the country, then what does it mean? Since you've failed to refute my point that Christians are not a minority in the USA, I'm assuming it means you concede that point. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: h_o_h: I am free to use the word "aggression" in any manner I see fit. If you're not going to use an established definition of an act of aggression, then the burden is on you to define what an act of aggression is, when an act of aggression is justified, and what responses are warranted to an act of aggression. Okay! (Typical pinko, Tiefling thinks international law trumps common sense Moyer (1986) presented an early, and highly influential, classification of seven different forms of aggression.
1. Predatory aggression: attack of prey by a predator 2. Inter-male aggression: competition between males of the same species over access to females, dominance status etc. 3. Fear-induced aggression: aggression associated with attempts to flee from a threat 4. Irritable aggression: aggression directed towards an available target induced by some sort of frustration (eg schedule-induced aggression) 5. Territorial aggression: defence of a fixed space against intruders, typically conspecifics. 6. Maternal aggression: a female's aggression to protect her offspring from a threat 7. Instrumental aggression: aggression directed towards obtaining some goal, maybe a learned response to a situation All of the definitions in bold apply to the Vatican aggression. Tiefling: h_o_h: I certainly wouldn't be welcome there. It doesn't mean I have to leave. Yes, it does. Why? They could kill me, I suppose, or drag me out. But it's not established that they would do that. Tiefling: But, since you're apparently using your own definition of the word "welcome," then explain what this statement means: h_o_h: they are no longer welcome in this country If it doesn't mean you feel they should leave the country, then what does it mean? It means that the laws and civilization of this country run counter to their aims, thus they are increasingly dependent on intimidation and the purchase of influence to spread their message. Which runs counter to the implicit goals of the American society. Tiefling: Since you've failed to refute my point that Christians are not a minority in the USA, I'm assuming it means you concede that point. Nope! If you went to the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign, you would find that most of the people there would endorse Stalinism and claim that they are Soviet communists. This does not mean that all those are Stalinists who claim to be, however: the metric is skewed by coercion. The reality would be that, as those people were living under constant threat of famine, arrest, or execution caused by Stalin, the majority of them would not support him if there were no coercion, i.e. if Stalin were not there. Therefore, although the Soviet government could claim that its people were all supportive of Stalin, the reality would be that only a minority actually support him, since most people will naturally resist an ideology which may eventually lead to unnecessary famine, arrest or execution. The same holds true for Christians, only Christianity threatens more than famine, arrest, or execution - all of which affect only the body. Christianity threatens eternal (infinite) torture and/or spiritual death, the ultimate coercion. Thus we can understand its extraordinary success in drawing converts. With the Christian demagogues, such as Protestant evangelists and Catholic clergy, removed from the situation, there would be no more coercion, and the reality would emerge that only a minority of people ever were Christian . And, BTW, the best place to start removing the Christian demagogues is the USA, where we have a tradition of secular government to prevent them from seizing power like they did, for example, during the Roman Empire. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: All of the definitions in bold apply to the Vatican aggression. On a side note: Most of these definitions are bad, since they use the word "aggression" in the sentence where they try to define it. Definition of a "wobbling hugglebuck" "Wobbling hugglebuck is a hugglebuck that had not enough mookshuck". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
The time now is 24 May 2012, 18:27 php B.B. |