Comments
663,341 - 663,360 of 720,108 Comments Last updated 2 min ago
Ghost Writer

Rome, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700307
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this sound like to you?
Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ...(few) years.
Are you saying that people who talk like that are PRETEND Christians?
What I'm saying is that Hitler was a liar and fanatic and was very skilled in the use of rhetoric to stir the masses. What a person SAYS and how a person ACTS are two different things. Hitler made the following statements against Christianity and against atheism:

AGAINST CHRISTIANITY:
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

AGAINST ATHEISM:
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

VALUE OF PROPAGANDA TO STIR PUBLIC SENTIMENT INCLUDING ADVOCACY FOR LYING IF IT SUITED THE PURPOSE:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed?… It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result".(Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)

Hitler was a naturalist and purveyor of propaganda and his religion was Nazism.

Both the religious AND the atheists were doomed under his rule.

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700308
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is why you call your sister a bitch.
Why do you call people you do not even know a bitch? True hate and jealousy is my guess.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700309
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's done all of the time, and the people who do so don't care what you say.
Neither you, the pope, nor anybody else can authoritatively contradict people with that opinion. The same freedom that allows you to use your bible as a verbal Rorschach test with conviction defeats you when you disagree with anybody else. The bible means whatever the person reading it says it means.
That is absolutely wrong. The Bible means what it means, not "whatever the person reading it says it means".

The Bible gives no age of the earth. None. Anyone claiming it does is wrong or ignorant

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700310
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
Education is poison to people like Susie Delusional.
Seems like you drank that whole bottle Katie. Please get back to class little girl and PLEASE do your homework

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700311
Mar 8, 2014
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You don't have an argument,

so you resort to lying and character assassination. I have stated explicitly that I disagreed with that comment from Sam Harris, which is reproduced here: Sam Harris: "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas" At http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... , Hidingfromyou commented, "I don't agree with him, nor think that he fully flushed that out. He needed to add "and have demonstrated the propensity for carrying out their desires through actions that have resulted in grievous injuries and deaths." Incidentally, even with that added in, I still don't agree with the above statement." I added, "I agree with you. I don't like the comment. I think it is wrong, and that writing it was ill-advised. I wonder if the blow back from it has given him reason to reconsider those words, and if he would still agree with them today. True, using the word "may" gives him a little wiggle room in his own defense, but it's not much of a defense." And now you say, "you are a Topix Atheist! that's hell-bent on removing religion by any means, even advocating Harris' notion if killing people for their beliefs." Does smearing a fellow human being like that with a lie make you a good Christian or a bad one? Either way, I know better than to expect an apology from you for your calumny. I expect you to suffer no shame or guilt. Why? Because like Luther, you feel justified in your lying if it's done for Jesus. "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

Neither of us is dangerous. What we are, however, are one example each of the two ideologies currently engaged in a struggle for cultural hegemony in the West - Christianity and secular humanism. I would say that your ideology is inferior to mine. Mine values the truth and the moral virtues of rational ethics, which includes integrity. Your values are more or less limited to defending your faith at any cost.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Boy. For me not having an argument, you sure felt the need to defend yourself.
No, you had no argument. What you read was mine.

Defending myself required nothing more than reproducing my actual comment,which contradicted your defamatory claim..

The rest of the post was about you, your values, and their relationship to your Christian upbringing, and contrasting that with the humanist alternative.

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700312
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
There would have to be a "god" first.
Where the hell do you christians get the idea that atheists "hate" the very thing they don't even believe in?
Do you hate Mickey Mouse?
<quoted text>
Sure you believe that; you've told me so.
<quoted text>
Why do you hate your sister and call her a bitch? Is it because her faith is different from yours?
Phuque off.
Why do you hate people you do not know? I do not think you hate God, again you hate people who believe in God and you have said this many times. I love my sister and I am so happy she is nothing like you. She is right here at this very moment and very disturbed by your hate filled rants. I notice you never talk about your siblings> Do you hate them that much? Why do you hate your family? Oh, I bet they are Christian and you hate all Christians; you said so

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700313
Mar 8, 2014
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Thank you for proving me right. Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false.
Have you ever read about the Dunning-Kruger effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93...

Do you believe that such a thing happens?

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700314
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
I can tell you're a man of experience in *that* field. How big is that rubber doughnut you're sitting on?
<quoted text>
That's not what your Uncle Buck told me. He says you squeal like a little piggie.
You are one sick person. I mean in one post you claim to be about love and in the next you say sick things like incest? One must ask, what happened to you for you to take such a serious subject so light?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700315
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, you had no argument. What you read was mine.
Defending myself required nothing more than reproducing my actual comment,which contradicted your defamatory claim..
The rest of the post was about you, your values, and their relationship to your Christian upbringing, and contrasting that with the humanist alternative.
I didn't read it, IANS. I just skimmed it.

I can only handle so much intolerance from you before I just start scrolling.

You don't understand my values and their relationship to my upbringing. You assume, but you do not know.

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700316
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No lie.
Has you actually read my explanation, you might have learned something.
Emphasis added to "might have'.
You are expecting to much for Katie. I am quiet sure she has trouble with reading. She makes the same post time after time; much like scrooge. Copy and paste is only thing they know how to do. After all, they both dropped out of high school.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700317
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever read about the Dunning-Kruger effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93...
Do you believe that such a thing happens?
You are proof that it happens.

You may know a ton about the medical field but you know next to nothing about the Bible, Christianity or me which gives you that illusory superiority you have.

You pretend like you know but you don't.
Ghost Writer

Rome, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700318
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's done all of the time, and the people who do so don't care what you say.
Neither you, the pope, nor anybody else can authoritatively contradict people with that opinion. The same freedom that allows you to use your bible as a verbal Rorschach test with conviction defeats you when you disagree with anybody else. The bible means whatever the person reading it says it means.
If such a person engages in what is known as "proof-texting" then this is true. Proof-texting is using texts out of their original cultural and linguistic context in support of an argument or justification. This is why I say that people should research history, languages, literary styles, philosophy, and cultural analysis when reading the Bible. This is the mistake that skeptics here make on a regular basis. And to be fair, so do some religious folks. The recent debate about the birth order and geneology of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel is a prime example of this. The narrative in Genesis states that Eve gave birth to Cain and then Abel. It mentions nothing of any female births. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, there's no requirement or purpose that it should. What the skeptics have done is assumed that ONLY Cain and Abel were born and therefore skeptics conclude that any report of Cain having a wife is false. This is a simple misunderstanding of the writing style, and literary focus of the author at the time of the writing. A writer in a patriarchal culture, writing about a homicide, wouldn't be interested in the birth order or geneology of an insignificant female. The fact that she's mentioned at all is surprising. But that's not my point.

My point is, that the skeptics are making a mountain out of a mole hill by firmly entrenching themselves in the false idea that it should've been mentioned. They then use the narrative to try and show that only Cain and Abel were born just because they were the only ones listed.
They fail to recognize that the author didn't think it was important enough to mention. After all, the point of the story isn't about who all Adam and Eve's kids were, but about the first homicide among their descendents. The example I have given demonstrates how proof-texting can usually lead the reader to an erroneous conclusion.
Ghost Writer

Rome, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700319
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Susie D wrote:
<quoted text> You are expecting to much for Katie. I am quiet sure she has trouble with reading. She makes the same post time after time; much like scrooge. Copy and paste is only thing they know how to do. After all, they both dropped out of high school.
Kaitlin is far from stupid. While she says things to shock people, she's no dummy. This doesn't mean I approve of everything she posts. But if you show her respect, she'll show it back. It might take a while, but in the end it's better to disagree with a person you can respect and tolerate than a person you can't. I have zero respect for Scrooge as an intellectual or civilized personality because he gives no respect outside of his own small world.

The only issue I have with Kaitlin is that she insists on reading the Bible in it's most literal sense, and even then she treats me with respect when we disagree on this. Will she ever share my beliefs? I doubt it. But I respect her as a person and at least I can spar with her to sharpen my own skills. That's good enough for me.
ROCCO

Desert Hot Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700320
Mar 8, 2014
 
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, no mental problems here...
At least his posts are on his time, not his employer's.

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700321
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
One certain fact stands above all the others. Your Buybull says NOTHING about Eve having a daughter.
This discussion is ridiculous anyway. Extensive DNA research has proven that the story of Adam&Eve can't possibly be true.
How? You realize the Bible says Adam and Eve were first ones created, but it does not say the ONLY ones God created. You are not putting enough thought into your quest. Surely you realize there were other people mentioned AFTER Adam and Eve were? My guess is more people were made or the words FIRST would have been replaced with the ONLY and man woman. See how this changes things?
ROCCO

Desert Hot Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700322
Mar 8, 2014
 
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
60,000 posts. SIXTY THOUSAND.
At least they're on his time, not his employer's.

(Now attached to correct post)

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700323
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Susie D wrote:
<quoted text> You are expecting to much for Katie. I am quiet sure she has trouble with reading. She makes the same post time after time; much like scrooge. Copy and paste is only thing they know how to do. After all, they both dropped out of high school.
Well in Kait's defense, she excels at having butter in her ass, ready to be sucked out at any given time...

That's gotta count for something.

Since: Mar 14

Logan, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700324
Mar 8, 2014
 
?

“Truth and kindness”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700325
Mar 8, 2014
 
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
your proof?
typical FOG lie
So you even read the posts? Show one post where someone wanted to refute whether dragons lived or not..

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700326
Mar 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ghost Writer wrote:
<quoted text>
If such a person engages in what is known as "proof-texting" then this is true. Proof-texting is using texts out of their original cultural and linguistic context in support of an argument or justification. This is why I say that people should research history, languages, literary styles, philosophy, and cultural analysis when reading the Bible. This is the mistake that skeptics here make on a regular basis. And to be fair, so do some religious folks. The recent debate about the birth order and geneology of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel is a prime example of this. The narrative in Genesis states that Eve gave birth to Cain and then Abel. It mentions nothing of any female births. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, there's no requirement or purpose that it should. What the skeptics have done is assumed that ONLY Cain and Abel were born and therefore skeptics conclude that any report of Cain having a wife is false. This is a simple misunderstanding of the writing style, and literary focus of the author at the time of the writing. A writer in a patriarchal culture, writing about a homicide, wouldn't be interested in the birth order or geneology of an insignificant female. The fact that she's mentioned at all is surprising. But that's not my point.
My point is, that the skeptics are making a mountain out of a mole hill by firmly entrenching themselves in the false idea that it should've been mentioned. They then use the narrative to try and show that only Cain and Abel were born just because they were the only ones listed.
They fail to recognize that the author didn't think it was important enough to mention. After all, the point of the story isn't about who all Adam and Eve's kids were, but about the first homicide among their descendents. The example I have given demonstrates how proof-texting can usually lead the reader to an erroneous conclusion.
They also fail to stop cherry picking a single verse and keep reading.

Genesis tells us that Adam & Eve had a minimum of seven children:

Cain (+1)
Abel (+1)
Seth (+1)
"other sons and daughters" (minimum of +4)

The fact that 'sons' and 'daughters' is written as plural confirms that there was at least two other sons and at least two other daughters.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

465 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 min WildWeirdWillie 172,244
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 min Holy dr Shrink 599,042
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Just Sayin 532,391
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 min WasteWater 256,379
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 18 min USA-1 114,972
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 27 min USA-1 37,596
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 42 min Aura Mytha 224,013
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 3 hr John 53
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••