'God Is Dead': Catholic Priest Slams Atheism in New Spoken-Word Video Performance

[downhill246]

Amused wrote:

<quoted text>
The 'when in Rome' argument is at best insipid. You are asking people to compromise their convictions simply to prevent others feelings from being hurt due to the discovery that not everyone thinks like them. Sorry, but that's a lesson everyone needs to learn sooner or later, and the sooner, the better. It is true that there are court decisions on the books saying no student can be forced to recite the pledge. It is equally true that there are many school administrators who remain ignorant of these decisions, or who intentionally choose to ignore them.(Quite a lesson in citizenship being taught by example.) Here's just one example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/pled... Note the part about the student having been 'repeatedly suspended' for refusing to recite the pledge.
<quoted text>
So, you get your morals from the bible, do you? Really? When's the last time you killed a gay person or an adulterer? What, you've never done so? Why not? The bible says god commands you to do this. Ever go shopping on a Sunday? The bible says that is wrong, and deserving of the death penalty. Do you own any slaves? Why not? The bible says it is A-OK with god, so long as you don't beat them so badly they take more than a couple of days to recover and you don't break their teeth or hurt their eyes. Did you kill any of your children when they sass you back? Why not? The bible says god ordered you to do so. Do you condone genocide or the killing of innocent civilians during war? Why not? The bible god heartily endorses this, and he is even displeased when his forces leave some of the womenfolk of their enemies alive.
The fact is, you, like all civilized people, reject these biblical commands. In doing so, you apply a moral sense that does not come from the bible, to help you filter which bits of the bible you will follow, and which you will claim are no longer in force, leaving aside the fact that if your god were perfect, as you claim, he would be incapable of error, and thus would not have proclaimed these things moral. We both derive our morals from somewhere other than the bible. Atheists are just more about it.

Your argument works both ways. Ignorant school administrators have been know to prevent students from silently reading their own bibles believing it violates church and state .

You do realize many of God's commands in the bible were directed at a certain group of Jews at a certain time in history while others were merely ceremonial, done away with under the New Convenant which apparently you are ignorant of, or purposely ignore so you can cherry pick. Some of God's commands were carried over into Christianity and, as an example, according to the Apostle Paul, the restrictions against homosexual relations remained. The bible does not say shopping on Sunday deserves the death penalty. It may say doing so on the Sabbathdeserves the death penalty but Christians don't observe the Sabbath(Saturday, they observe the Lord's Day (Sunday) and there is nothing in the New Testament promoting death for working on Sunday. Glad I could help.

[downhill246]

Amused wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that neither example supports your point at all. The Massachusetts example has nothing to do with holding office or voting, and merely provides an alternative to swearing an oath for people who have objections to swearing oaths. If anything, it expresses tolerance for the non-religious or religious minorities by providing them with a way to provide testimony without having to invoke a belief in god.
The New York example relates to electoral college voters, and merely requires them to swear an oath, but, again, provides a non-religious alternative.
You really need to work on that reading comprehension thing.

You are confused. The only reason "affirmation" was added to the US Constitution was as an accommodation to different Christian sects who believed in God but didn't believe in oaths. Its addition had absolutely nothing to do with disbelieving.

"In England, Quaker eschewal of litigation was founded in part on the religious inaccessibility of the courts. Courts required oaths, and Quakers, taking Christ's admonition in the New Testament to "swear not" literally, refused to take oaths. Once the Quakers started founding settlements in America, however, this problem went away, as Pennsylvania law allowed for "affirmations" in place of oaths, an explicit religious accommodation that eventually found its way into the Constitution."
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/20...

He, Eugene Volokh, then points out the long history of such exemptions, even in the Constitution itself (the provisions requiring oaths but allowing affirmations were put there to allow Quakers, whose religion forbid taking oaths, to hold public office and fully participate in the government).
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/vo...



To be sure, the Constitution allows individuals to give an affirmation rather than an oath. That provision, however, was not aimed at protecting nonbelievers, although it certainly does protect them. Instead, the affirmation option was principally aimed at protecting “several small religious sects, including the influential Quakers,[who] refused to swear oaths, on authority of Matthew 5:33–37.” As Justice Story observed,“there are known denominations of men, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths ... and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent.”


Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 73, 109 (2005)

[SOSO]

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Oh look!

Pages and pages of flat lying.

How do we know?

The poster is well established as a pathological liar.

He's aptly named "downhill" as in he's going down one...

... finished this thread in seconds, because I could safely skip all the lies (downhill's posts).

[The serpent was right]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Weird argument. Are you on drugs or is it a side effect of your constant slithering?

It's not weird to a thinking person.

What it does, is neatly, and completly refutes your "state atheism" claim. You obviously cannot bring yourself to the truth that atheist did not enjoy any kind of speial attention which would be common in a culture of "state atheism". Some of the leaders may have been atheist, but it is irrelevent to the political aspects which were the motivation for the executions, and murder that took place.

In other words, you are dishonestly trying to link two things that were not necessarily linked.
If you hadn't been told this endlessly, I might excuse your uneducated ignorance, as simply a lack of real education, or a lack of common sense. But you HAVE been told all of these thing time and time again, so it is obvious that you are simply a lying slug.

[The serpent was right]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Slither on apologist for state atheism, the #1 mass murderer in recorded history.
"The centralized atheism before whose armed might the whole world trembles still hates and fears this unarmed faith as much today as it did sixty years ago. Yes! All the savage persecutions loosed upon our people by a murderous state atheism, coupled with the corroding effect of its lies, and an avalanche of stultifying propaganda--all of these together have proven weaker than the thousand-year-old faith of our nation. This faith has not been destroyed; it remains the most sublime, the most cherished gift to which our lives and consciousness can attain."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Must suck to be you.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a Soviet dissident, and a born again christian. He was grossly biased.
Dismissed.

You remain a lying slug for Jewsus.
The funniest part though is that all your lying, still doesn't prove that your invisible sky-pixie is real. LOL!!

It does suck to be you.

[The serpent was right]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol.
The first leader of nazi ideology was Ernst Roehm, who met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and "saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army" (Hohne:20).
With Roehm's backing, Hitler became the first president of the party in 1921 and changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Soon after, the Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers) or the SA became its military arm. The SA was created by Gerhard Rossbach. Both Roehm and Rossbach were openly homosexual.
Historian Frank Rector records that the German Workers Party-the forerunner to Hitler’s Nazi Party-"was founded at a gay bar in Munich, called the Bratworstglockl.
Jonathan Katz, a gay Holocaust historian, writes, "most, if not all, of its founding members were either homosexuals or bisexuals." Katz writes that "the founders of the party were also founders of the `Bund fur Menschenrecht’(The Society for Human Rights), the largest homosexual rights organization in Germany at the time."
Historian William L. Shirer writes, Roehm "was a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar-faced professional soldier-a tough, ruthless, driving man - albeit, like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual-he helped to organize the first Nazi strong-arm squads which grew into the S.A., the army of storm troopers which he commanded until his execution by Hitler in 1934."
Imagine that.

Wow, they were a bunch of nasty christians weren't they? And gay too!!!! It's surprising that the pope was so willing to help them!!

[The serpent was right]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your argument works both ways. Ignorant school administrators have been know to prevent students from silently reading their own bibles believing it violates church and state .
You do realize many of God's commands in the bible were directed at a certain group of Jews at a certain time in history while others were merely ceremonial, done away with under the New Convenant which apparently you are ignorant of, or purposely ignore so you can cherry pick. Some of God's commands were carried over into Christianity and, as an example, according to the Apostle Paul, the restrictions against homosexual relations remained. The bible does not say shopping on Sunday deserves the death penalty. It may say doing so on the Sabbathdeserves the death penalty but Christians don't observe the Sabbath(Saturday, they observe the Lord's Day (Sunday) and there is nothing in the New Testament promoting death for working on Sunday. Glad I could help.

In other words, the laws of your god were so bad wishy-washy, and inconsistant, that they had to be changed.

Hmmmm, you would think the laws of a god would not need modification. It's almost like they were made by....by....men!!!

[Givemeliberty]

It's like my pet Jesus he always agrees with whoever is quoting him lol

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, the laws of your god were so bad wishy-washy, and inconsistant, that they had to be changed.
Hmmmm, you would think the laws of a god would not need modification. It's almost like they were made by....by....men!!!

[The serpent was right]

Givemeliberty wrote:

It's like my pet Jesus he always agrees with whoever is quoting him lol
<quoted text>

Correct.
Have you ever noticed that everyones god just happens to agree with everything that person believes?

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Givemeliberty wrote:

It's like my pet Jesus he always agrees with whoever is quoting him lol
<quoted text>

Jesus?

He's the guy who mows the lawns on the cheap, right? He and his brother Jose....

...what?

Not that Jesus?

Oh well, carry on then.

(But I have Jesus' number, in case you need your lawn mowed... he does a good job, and for cheap)

[Givemeliberty]

Even show them in their book of fairy tales how God disagrees with them and they will gurgle how that passage doesn't pertain to them! Lmfao!!

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct.
Have you ever noticed that everyones god just happens to agree with everything that person believes?

[-Skeptic-]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Even show them in their book of fairy tales how God disagrees with them and they will gurgle how that passage doesn't pertain to them! Lmfao!!
<quoted text>

God of the gaps? Nope, god of the shifty retreat when exposed for lying.

[The serpent was right]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Even show them in their book of fairy tales how God disagrees with them and they will gurgle how that passage doesn't pertain to them! Lmfao!!
<quoted text>

It's easy for them though. Once a person starts lying to themselves, it's all downhill from there.

[Givemeliberty]

It certainly is all downhill lol :)

I think that Theists are raised as these little brainwashed drones and on the subject of God are unable to think for themselves. They get this pleasant bliss from their ignorant fairy tale adn they are shocked that others wouldn't accept to live in deluded bliss like them.

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
It's easy for them though. Once a person starts lying to themselves, it's all downhill from there.