Recently, I blogged a series of essays titled “The Revolution Misses You,” in which I called for progressives to revive the forgotten dream of practical yet radical change. Friends and colleagues immediately scolded me for using “extreme” terms such as “revolution” and “radical.” “You’ll only alienate people,” they said. “This will come back to haunt you.” At first, I was surprised… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (342)“In his book Irresistible Revolution, 30-year-old author Shane Claiborne, who is currently living in Iraq to stand in the way of war, asks evangelicals why their literal reading of the Bible doesnt lead them to do what Jesus so clearly told wealthy and middle-class people to do in his day: give up everything to help others.”
Jesus also commands him to kill all those who will not accept him as their king(Luke 19:26-27). Why isn’t he doing that?
Because like all Christians he cherry picks. If you want to be Christian, you are required to believe all of it without question. Murder your sassy children, burn Red Lobster to the ground. Smite the non-believers and take their women as your slaves. The character of Jesus repeatedly endorses all of these things
If you question, you lack faith and are going to hell. This is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe.
If he wanted you to think, he wouldn’t have given you a book to tell you what to think, and sadistically punishing you
for doing what he knew you were going to do from the beginning of timeOr you can join the rest of us in reality. The intellectual dishonesty of most people, whose rational brains fight against the ludicrousness and horrific things they see in that book is what allows fanatics like Robertson, Fallwell and Bin Laden to do their dirty work. Moderates breed extremists, it’s time to end religion in this world as the ludicrous fairy tales it really is, and for those who can’t stop believing on their own to get the mental help they so sorely need.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM Thanks, WW. I’m so sick of these goddamn christculters and their irrational nonsense.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 4:25 PM “You will know them by their fruits”—Matthew 7:16. Therefore, as a non-Christian, I went to the Woodland Hills Church home page (the one in St. Paul, Minnesota, since I live in Minneapolis) to see how they act on their revolutionary impulses. The sermon you mentioned was reported in July, according to the NY Times, so maybe they need more time to put up revolutionary activities on their web page. Or maybe they have to go under the radar, like the pastor telling high-income members to pay their workers more or something.
That having been said, Wooddale Hills Church’s home page looks no different (no better, but also no worse) than any other church home page, traditionally “progressive” (e.g. UCC, Unitarian) or otherwise, that I have seen. They do a soup kitchen type thing—like many other churches including much smaller ones—and they help out elderly and handicapped church members—great, and again like many other churches. They have a third world mission program that looks just like the one my mother went on for her moderate-to-conservative Methodist megachurch in the South. They have a “biblical financial planning” course which really could be radical (if they tell high-earners to pay their workers more, that is) and if that is what it is, it’s understandable that they don’t say that on their web-based advertising for it, which just talks about normal financial planning things like debt and savings and charitable giving. They have a rather humorous page attempting to “minister” to the Hispanic population of the Cities, which is growing, by trying to “present Christ” to them. Last time I checked, most Hispanics in Minneapolis-St. Paul were Catholic, but I guess that means they aren’t Christian, right?
Based on this admittedly cursory glance, I would have to say that they mostly seem to be plugging in as a small piece of the existing Twin Cities philanthropic community, of which I have been a (secular) member as a worker and a volunteer for years. The Twin Cities is known for a vibrant nonprofit community, mostly progressive, and the reason you may not have seen 3,000 of us non-church-based workers and volunteers in one place, is because there are over a hundred different organizations we are spread out among, working all sorts of different schedules. Of course, sometimes we are all in one place—Paul Wellstone’s funeral, antiwar marches, etc. You can fill our basketball stadium if you present the right progressive political candidate—I’ve been there.
Are church volunteers important to the battered women’s shelter where I used to work, and especially to Habitat for Humanity where I worked 10 years ago? Sure! Are they the only ones, though? No—hell, even Habitat, which is explicitly an “ecumenical Christian organization” that accepts secular volunteers too, depends rather consistently on corporate volunteer groups (e.g. teambuilding exercises & corporate philanthropy) to get any work done during the week. Are there flaws in our organizational structures, where we could learn things from any other group such as Wooddale Hills? Sure! Is there one big flaw, namely, that the corporate work-groups and corporate or high-income big donors that make a lot of this nonprofit community financially solvent, are the same people who could solve local poverty problems directly by paying workers more, or permitting unions? Absolutely. I make no claim that the nonprofit social service agencies are revolutionary, and I think probably we do need some new group that is.
One thing about our existing nonprofit community here in Minneapolis-St. Paul, and our umbrella organizations like the United Way, is that most of them follow the letter and spirit of our state’s non-discrimination laws, including affectional preference and marital status. Maybe I should stay where I am.
Dave White
Minneapolis
Posted by davelwhite on Mar 14, 2007 at 4:31 PM In a free society there would be no nondiscrimination except to prohibit discrimination by a government agency.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM I am glad for the news that there are left-leaning Christians out there asking, “okay - we read all this stuff and get preached to about this stuff. When do we DO it?”
Serving those in need, fighting for human dignity peacefully, rejecting the consumerism and greed of free market capitalism and commercialism, taking care of our environment. These are all viewed as the liberal agenda, but they are consistent with the Christian call to follow Jesus.
I am disgusted that one verse out of context from a parable is the impetus for someone to outright reject this “new” Christian movement. That kind of hateful rhetoric reminds me of the Right wing smear tactics we all suffered when questioning the validity of the motives to invade Iraq in 2003 and which continues today.
We do not all have to agree on our religions/philosophies to work together to make the world better. Wouldn’t it be better to be respectful rather than react in fear and hatred of something you don’t understand? We lose if we let every difference divide us - we each become a nation of one with only our own personal interests to defend.
We should let go of stereotypical thinking and accept that not all Christians are of the Robertson/Falwell ilk. Some actually embrace the doctrine of Love your neighbor as you love yourself, the Beatitudes, and the Sermon on the Mount. We would all do well to accept that all humans are flawed and not as perfect as we think ourselves to be.
Peace!
Posted by tlcs3 on Mar 14, 2007 at 7:19 PM We should let go of stereotypical thinking and accept that not all Christians are of the Robertson/Falwell ilk. Some actually embrace the doctrine of Love your neighbor as you love yourself, the Beatitudes, and the Sermon on the Mount. We would all do well to accept that all humans are flawed and not as perfect as we think ourselves to be.
That doesn’t change the fact that they enable the Robertsons of the world by encouraging their fairy tales as reality, and making questioning their faith a social faux pas.
Just because they do not practice those aspects of their faith does not change the fact that they are required to do so, and that “Love thy Neighbor” and “thou shalt not murder” only ever applied to your neighbor JEW, and don’t murder your fellow JEW”. It never applied to nonbelievers or other faiths.
Intellectual honesty is the first step
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:26 PM Tics, that stuff is intellectual poison both collectively and individually. People are not at all the same and we properly make discriminations. Christianity is the Jews’ revenge on the Gentiles as Mencken noted. It is an anti-intellectual, anti-life miasma of bogus biblical legends mostly recycled from the Arabs before the curse of Islam. The Christ Cult has been the main poison sapping the strength of western man. All the good things, free markets, sex, pleasure, profit, self-interest, rationality these nuts condemn in favor of everlasting sacrifice to a fictional character born of a virgin mother and resurrected 40 days after his execution on the cross by the Romans, who were properly getting tired of his incessant pinko bullcrap. Left christers are no better than right christers, bad cess to both ! That includes the religion of communism and its first cousins, liberalism & socialism. You gotta stop listening to Nymp Chimsky. Maybe some patriots in Massachusetts might want to nail his bony old ass to a cross.
WW, the ancient Hebes were vicious racist bastards, they wiped out most of the Canaanites, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Chaldeans, etc. That Chosen People nonsense is racist to the core and has been responsible for much “anti-semitism’” though the semitic lineage of nonArab Jews is questionable, see The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:46 PM “That includes the religion of communism and its first cousins, liberalism & socialism”
Communism installs the party as your new god, and that you should suffer for, and serve your god. It’s no different from theistic religions in most respects. The only reason it’s “atheistic”, is that like all religions it hates competition. If you look at Soviet era laws andstructure, you’ll find that Communism, like all dictatorships is a conservative movement, based on totalitarianism, suppression, and control by force. It uses socialism as a camoflauge, nothing more.
Liberalism and socialism are nowhere close, as has been well demonstrated by our friends in Europe.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 14, 2007 at 9:20 PM Liberalism is practically identical to socialism and has been at least since the Progressive Era before WW1. You may be thinking of the original laissez-faire liberalism but that has been dead for a century.
Socialists now prefer to rule through regulation and taxation rather than nationalization. Same as liberals. Communism IS socialism, the so-called ‘anarchist’ stage of communism is never reached. All the communist countries were state socialist economies and societies. Socialism itself is a confused conservative movement, using the Enlightenment but with coercive means, see Left And Right:The Prospects For Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard, downloable at the lewrockwell.com website. Don’t bother recycling that old Comrade Nymp Chimsky bullcrap about socialism never being tried, it has been in all the Communist countries and has failed there as well as in the welfare police states of western Europe where you go to prison for questioning the holocaust conventional version. Religion is an evil but not all evils are religious though communism-socialism, both based on identical Marxian premises is a religion too.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 11:39 PM All “isms” are sectarian and as such unable to provide a loving and protective umbrella for all. Man has been using only part of its brain, and thus enlarged its “mind that measures all” creating in the process its own mantras (some of them being “a million dollars”, “competition”, “it’s never enough”) so as long as we continue to justify our own self-destructing selfishness and avoid our responsibility towards the preservation of the planet for future generations, all we will be doing is fool ourselves in the name of any “ism” (including patriotism)
Posted by Maria on Mar 15, 2007 at 1:49 AM The Prospects For Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard, downloable at the lewrockwell.com website. Dont bother recycling that old Comrade Nymp Chimsky bullcrap about socialism never being tried, it has been in all the Communist countries and has failed there as well as in the welfare police states of western Europe where you go to prison for questioning the holocaust conventional version. Religion is an evil but not all evils are religious though communism-socialism, both based on identical Marxian premises is a religion too.
Considering that all the communist countries are ruled by an elite class, who lives a life of luxury while the other 98% wallow around in the essential dirt, no, it’s never been tried
True socialism is that everyone is equal, and recieves the same.
Western Europe has found the best balance yet between capitalism and socialism. Guaranteeing the basic needs while leaving plenty of room to grow and aspire. Even then it’s not perfect, and I doubt any of them will be
You’re simply a conservative fundy type who sees any obstacle to your greed, or the possibility that you have to give somethign back to society as a grand offense.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 15, 2007 at 2:05 AM True socialism can never exist then because equality is a total myth.
I’ve never received any funds and have actually worked in the market all my life. Never worked for a foundation nor have I ever been paid for my views. Western Europe is a total failure and the last grasp of you statists now that all your Commie paradises have been totally discredited. Read Rothbard and learn something but being who you are I realize that may not be possible.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 5:18 PM “Western Europe is a total failure and the last grasp of you statists now that all your Commie paradises have been totally discredited. Read Rothbard and learn something but being who you are I realize that may not be possible”
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the Bush voter and conservative poster child.
Rothbard, for those who don’t know is the father of anarcho-capitalism, or as most people like to call it today, “libertarianism”. The celebration of greed and practiced sociopathy where no one matters but yourself
Get mental help. Sociopaths are dangerous to everyone. Negligence and deliberate inaction is harming other people.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 15, 2007 at 5:53 PM Mister Pooh Pooh Pants, I agree with Szasz, another libertarian, on psychiatry, so I’ll decline your kind suggestion above. I have already identified Rothbard on several different threads here so I think people are free to ignore your ASSertions and read him directly. I never voted for Bush and have no desire to conserve the present statist-collectivist disorder, so as usual your remarks are way off base.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 7:21 PM Mister Pooh Pooh Pants, I agree with Szasz, another libertarian, on psychiatry, so Ill decline your kind suggestion above. I have already identified Rothbard on several different threads here so I think people are free to ignore your ASSertions and read him directly. I never voted for Bush and have no desire to conserve the present statist-collectivist disorder, so as usual your remarks are way off base.
You’re conservative, an anarchist and insane. Of course you don’t want to get mental help, very few mentally ill people do. I have read Rothbard, extensively.
You are a sociopath, just like he was, and you need to get help. You’re obviously also about 6, so grow up, get medicated, and learn to live in society
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM Omigod ! A crazed white boy who’s never read Rothbard and can’t tell the difference between a conservative and an anarchist. The only people I know who still use the psychiatric smear are aging lefties of Jewish descent. Everyone else knows psychiatry is a fraud and it is ALWAYS Jewish males, the females like my wife know it’s a fraud. I know I’m young looking for my years but am a little older than 6. Read Thomas S. Szasz, MD, books “Insanity” and “The Myth Of Mental Illness” they show psychiatry to be a bigger fraud than the Holohoax. Have a good day, Mister WickyWoo. And watch your mouth because Mommy will have to spank your tush again.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 10:07 PM So now we’ve established that you’re an anarchist,bigot, sociopath, probably scientologist, and holocaust denier
Let’s look at your handle, “blondemike”
Hmm, where do all those things come together?
I’m willing to be money our friend has at least one swastika tattooed on him somewhere.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 16, 2007 at 12:16 AM Holocaust revisionist, no tatoos, not a scientologist, not a bigot, your wrong as usual, Mister Pooh Pooh Pants.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 16, 2007 at 12:51 AM Yes, because a bigot is always the LAST one to blame it on the Jews
Pray tell, what is the difference between a revisionist and a denier? Are you just claiming that not as MANY died?
If it looks like a Nazi, smells like a Nazi, probably is one. I’m sure you’re quite proud of your pure Aryan heritage right?
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 16, 2007 at 5:19 AM No gas chambers, no systematic extermination, Frank existed but Diary a fraud, maybe 1 million Jews died of all causes in Europe during WW2 and I can refer you to several works if your interested, which you are not. Not an aryan, Jewish wife of 18 years said Jewish males like you are the reason the intermarriage rate is between 50 and 80%.
Live in a mostly black neighborhood, serious problems but then my best workers are black.
Ok, I DON"T care what you think, not trying to convert you, please go do the anatomically impossible to yourself. Don’t waste my time any further.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM “{No gas chambers, no systematic extermination, Frank existed but Diary a fraud, maybe 1 million Jews died of all causes in Europe during WW2 and I can refer you to several works if your interested”
Oh give me a break. You’re going to cite me Fred Leuchter’s covert trips to the death camps, on the dime of Ernst Zundel, a criminal holocaust denier currently serving 5 years in jail for his lies
Leuchter had no idea how to test for cyanide. The man is simply someone who stumbled into maintaining and building execution machines, and has no clue when it comes to the kind of science needed for the work he was trying to do. He’s not even a licensed engineer!
Cyanide sits on the surface of materials and only penetrates a few microns. What he sent the lab was a bunch of pebbles he chisled from the walls, with very little exposed surface area, and no guide on what they were looking for, besides “toxics”. Even if they had known, there wouldn’t have been enough material to properly test for cyanide
Now considering we have reams of record books, thousands of eyewitnesses, so much proof that it’s virtually incontrovertible, I’ll lable you delusional as well
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM Leuchter’s four reports are very good but even much better is Germar Rudolf’s massive report along with his updated report on Leuchter. You are peddling the hysterical establishment line on Leuchter, better to go to the VHO website and download Rudolf’s report along with all four Leuchter Reports. Leuchter was the leading US authority on gas chambers and he certainly does know how to test for cyanide. Anyone knows that most eyewitness testimony is worthless as was shown by the hundreds of false witnesses at the Demjanjuk Show Trial before Israel was forced to acquit him. FJP Veale’s Advance To Barbarism on the Nuremberg Trials as well as David Irving’s book on same thoroughly debunk both the contradictory testimony as well as the whole premise of the Stalinist Show Trials. Most engineers I knew in Vietnam were neither licensed or in many cases even degreed. You knew the work or you didn’t, only a statist asshole like you would think a govt license would prove anything. Rudolf is a chemist, they revoked his Ph.D for questioning the Holohoax, a crime in Germany. They don’t jail flat earthers so that tells something about the integrity of their orthodoxy. See his Dissecting The Holocaust wherein he goes in copious detail with pictures about cyanide, staining, etc. I warn you that it is a big book but it does have pitchers so maybe you can try to tackle it. But you need to read it and stop wasting my time with your stupid remarks.
Go to ihr.org and vho.org websites, don’t waste my time on this. You are the type of imbecile that makes me (in a bad mood) wish there had been a holocaust (even the term meaning death by fire is a lie as regards Jews in WW2 Europe.) Tough it would appply to the millions of German and Japanese victims of Allied bombing. As far as your everyone knows this type of vox populi “argument” it’s as cognitively worthless as it was discussing Rothbard, Rand, et al. Take your hemorrhoid pocked face and get out of my life. Go lick Doctor Dick.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM The wonders of the Internet: spewings from a nutcase on an eminently serious subject. The article made the basic point that Christians seem to get folks pouring into their snake-oil seminars, of any dubious stripe, while unions don’t even have a union hall anymore. Thanks - is it possible to state how low politics and intellectual life have gotten in this country, or will we just keep getting more and more bad news atop the dung heap? Anytime a “progressive” argues for some kind of “alliance-building” the principles are instantly lost - Jim Wallis and his “covenental sex” had me rolling- what an ascetic fraud…
Posted by notabilia on Mar 16, 2007 at 9:36 PM Yeah, well, nota, if you could withhold your postings that would reduce the nutcase quota.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 16, 2007 at 10:29 PM I agree with you, Dicky poo poo, that Zionism is form of national socialism and racism.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 17, 2007 at 12:07 AM Do you even know what socialism means?
I’d like you to define itfor us in your own words to show you actually understand it
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 17, 2007 at 2:38 AM Collective (read:government) control of the means of production. The fascist form of socialism is government regulation and control of business without necessary nationalization, like the so-called New Deal. The Nazis did nationalize medicine and automobile production (Volkswagen). See Socialism by Ludwig Von Mises for a thorough analysis and demolition of all forms of socialism including the social democratic mixed economy welfare statism. Warning: socialists and Communists in the West call themselves “progressives” as liberalism has gotten such a bad odor. There were 19th century utopian socialist like Robert Owens but they were superceded by the so-called scientific socialism of Karl Marx and F. Engels.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 18, 2007 at 6:04 PM So in other words you have absolutely no idea what it is, and immediately launched into your tirades written by your anarchist, sociopathic idols
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 18, 2007 at 10:55 PM Two corrections to the article.
1. Shane Claiborne is not in Iraq, he is living in Philadelphia and is speaking at Mars Hill on March 21.
2. Its not all that unknown, Cathleen Falsani has written about it in the Chicago Tribune, there are two 2,000+ churches in the Pacific Northwest that are preaching it along with Mosaic in Los Angeles which was featured on CNN. The grassroots of this is in smaller groups all over. Nearly every mainline denominational church that I am familiar with has a small group of people that are in the fringes of the church leadership but very active outside the church.
Blondemike, Wickywoo, these are not your everyday run-of-the-mill Christians. They include in their ranks the likes of Bono and Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. Just this weekend I spent 4 days serving in the slums with a chemist, a biologist, and a civil engineer with a Masters in Physics.
As for the comments about supporting Robertson/Falwell politics, I ask you why would the people that are described in this article support anyone that does not represent their interests - fighting poverty, fighting HIV/AIDS, helping at-risk youth away from self-destruction, community development (think Habitat for Humanity), etc.? The bottom line of these people is that Jesus doesn’t need a spokesmodel or a political mouthpiece- he needs the truth that is found in action.
If you believe in fornication-go fornicate and change the world. If you believe in using drugs and abusing alcohol - live it up and prosper your whole city. If you believe in survival of the fittest - get busy and bull your way through life and watch the garden of hope grow fruit around the seed that you are sowing. We are just serving, giving, and loving. Wow, how revolutionary, how simply earth-shattering, how nowheresville is that? Why would anyone want to do it? There is no wealth in it, no power in it, no status in it.
Unless you truly risk something it isn’t worth having. We risk in Love because being in it is worth so much. It is valuable because it can be taken away. Revolutionaries for Christ take the ultimate risk. We give our lives away (not just a vote, but everything we have) to experience the true value of it.
Posted by inadvance on Mar 19, 2007 at 8:44 PM IF they’re Christians, they are required to believe. Period
They are delusional, muderous, and if they’re that intellectually dishonest that they do not kill, murder and mame in the name of their god, they’re completely untrustworthy as well.
Love is not possible under Jehovah. You are only permitted to love your fellow believers. Read your bible, and not just the parts taht make you feel fuzzy. Questioning your bible means you lack faith, and you will be sent to hell
You must believe blindly, and be delusional and dangerous to be a Christian. It’s in the handbook. Deal with it, and join the rest of us in reality. Until faith is scorned as the learned mental illness it is, humanity cannot progress
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 19, 2007 at 9:09 PM No matter what the good intentions are, they and you are enabling the Robertsons and Falwells by putting religion in that untouchable space
Moderates give birth to and enable extremists. If there’s no one around to delude their minds as children, the problem is isolated only to those who are biologically mentally ill in the first place
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 19, 2007 at 9:22 PM Christianity is simply a deranged Jewish cult, the Jews revenge upon the gentiles as Nietzsche put it. It is as bad as Judaism and Islam. There is no such thing as biological mental illness period, see Szasz. If it was biological it would be a physical disease, the only kind there are. WickyWoo Poo Poo Pants is a Stalinist piece of excrement.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 19, 2007 at 11:58 PM Addition to the above correction: Shane Claiborne has lived in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia since 1998. It would be incorrect to state Shane currently (or otherwise) lives in Iraq. Thanks in advance for making the appropriate changes.
Posted by jamiemoffett on Mar 22, 2007 at 11:42 PM Too bad for the Nazi there have been many physical signs, detectible by physical movements, CAT scans, EKGs, and brain chemistry analysis that are common only to people having mental disorders
Go talk to a doctor, I’m sure he can tell you all about yourself
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 23, 2007 at 12:09 AM Your biological psychiatry is an utter joke. See Toxic Psychiatry by Peter Breggin, M.D. and Insanity by Thomas S. Szasz, M.D. The only reason for any difference in brains of so-called mentally ill is the drugs that they have been taking. No physical movement, cat scan, MRI, EKG or brain chemistry ever showed “schizophrenia” or any so-called mental disease, also see Schizophrenia: The Sacred Symbol Of Psychiatry by Szasz. Psychiatry and psychoanalysis are simply frauds through and through. Largely Jewish rackets perpetrated by the most mediocre of intellects. Now goyim are taking it over through MSW, MFCC, Ph.D programs but still the same old fraud. The trick would be if the doctor could even tell you about himself. Going back to Soviet agent Alger Hiss there have always been the prostitute Jewish shrinks peddling the mental illness line to discredit political opponents. Remember the 1964 smear on candidate Barry Goldwater by Ralph Ginzburg and 2,000 psychiatrists ? Goldwater went to court eight years later and cleaned that stinky little Judenrat’s ass in a major court suit. WickyWoozy, you are a piece of Stalinist SHIT and I am ashamed of you.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 23, 2007 at 4:44 PM You know, it’s going to be entertaining to see exactly how many crazy nutcase references he’s going to keep pulling out
“I’m not a Nazi, I have a jewish wife, but I blame everything on Jewish conspiracy and name myself “blondemike”
So let’s see Mike. I’ll be happy to go to court with you where you can prove all of your “facts”, and I’ll bring reality and the experts. You lose and you voluntarily commit yourself to a mental institution for a minimum of 6 months
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 23, 2007 at 9:11 PM WOOZYWOOASSHOLE, if you had libelled me the way Ginzburg did Goldwater I’d take your ugly old sanhedrin ass to court and win. But you are a nobody hiding behind an alias and your endorsement of the old Soviet psychiatric tactics is exactly what I’d expect from an old Communist Holocaust Denier like you. Your face looks like David Irving’s hemorrhoids on a very bad day. I stand by my refs.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 26, 2007 at 4:19 PM Boring old Mikey
Still beating that dead revisionist horse.http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/For the more literate among us I would suggest…...
“The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by WIlliam L. Shirer.
“Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in Everyday Life.” by Detlev JK Peukert
And the suprisingly excellent “The Nazi Conscience” by Claudia Koonz.Step by step destruction of Mikeys precious sources. Pretty pictures of Nazi documents. And the sad truth about Herr Hitler and his merry buch of blondmike clones.
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM The sources that you list above are as discredited as the Iraq-Al Queda bullshit you posted on another link. Check out ihr.org and vho.org for a total rebuttal of the establishment crapola listed above by a retarded retired Army beanerman. You have yet to rebut one revisionist contention or even read one. Shirer’s work has enough errors of both fact and interpretation to fill a volume of equal size as Harry Elmer Barnes noted in Blasting The Historical Blackout and David L. Hoggan documented in The Forced War. See A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins Of The Second World War and Germar Rudolf’s massive Dissecting The Holocaust. The Puke and Koons works are pure Party Line Commie bullshit that Alberto G’s illegitimate son typically posted above.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 26, 2007 at 6:46 PM You can print that the sky is yellow all you want, it still doesn’t make it any less blue Nazi
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 26, 2007 at 8:31 PM Wow, a whole lot of back and forth to ignore the point of the article.
As an atheist any gain in power by the forces of god unnerves me, but at this point I’d take a progressive megachurch over Walmart. Exley’s observation that the ‘left’ has no organizational clout even close to these churches’ influence is key.We have been told since Bush’s rise that the Conservative Christians have spoken. If there is to be change in this country, who else to turn to than the Christian Progressives?
If you believe that there is an open minded populace willing hear and act upon rational argumentation, try reading Karl Marx in public. Even here in San Francisco, you will be bombarded by confused and uninformed comments, I assure you.Liberals, progressives, lovers of democracy and science, wishing religion away does not make it cease to exist. Goofy and superstitious as god may seem to some of us, there is no comparable resource for progressive change in this country.
To put it another way: More American citizens go to church one day a week, than vote once per year.
Posted by TsarBomba on Mar 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM I’m pretty sure there are quite a few posters here breaking the rules they agreed to when they registered.
WickyWoo, Jesus didn’t command anyone to kill. Luke 19:26-27 is not Jesus giving a command, it is a character in a parable he was telling. The parable was about his return on the day of wrath. Again, it is not a command for us today.
The character of Jesus doesn’t endorse any of those things you said and you would have to seriously twist His words to even come close.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 27, 2007 at 10:52 PM Blondmike, this last summer I visited Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Schindler’s factory in Oswiecim, Poland and Krakow, Poland. http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/
There is no way to deny what happened without lying to yourself and to the world. The overwhelming piles of evidence totally cover up any attempt to disprove it, no matter how Gibson you are.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 27, 2007 at 10:57 PM WickyWoo, Jesus didnt command anyone to kill. Luke 19:26-27 is not Jesus giving a command, it is a character in a parable he was telling. The parable was about his return on the day of wrath. Again, it is not a command for us today.
Sorry, it’s Jesus giving the command to kill. All of his “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” only applys to thy JEWISH neighbor. People of other ethnic groups and religions were not considered “thy neighbor”, which is why you must sell your daughters into slavery to somoene not of your tribe. And if you don’t believe it, check out the mass, Jehovah-ordered genocides in the OT.
So why is it that sometimes it’s a parable, and other times it’s direct? Is there some (in the original text) color coding system?
Oh yeah, so that people go to hell because they’re confused
MARK
4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Don;t apply to us today? No, it’s simply that you decided to ignore itMATTHEW- Old Testament laws are binding
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.Those who refuse Jesus will suffer more than Sodom and Gommorah
MATTHEW
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that cityAnd don’t forget to murder your sassy children, Jesus endorsed
MARK
7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 28, 2007 at 1:13 AM WickyWoo,
Jesus is not making a commandment there, any cursory glance at the text will show that. The only way to say he is making an order there is to forget all about basic reading comprehension. This is a character in a parable that makes the proclamation, not Jesus. What “other times” does Jesus do this directly?
The “neighbor” Jesus showed in another parable was a Samaritan, not a Jew. The OT also speaks of caring for the alien, the foreigner, etc saying “for you were also an alien in Egypt.”
I obviously don’t have time to go through centuries of theology, but you’re basically pulling random things out of context and forcing your own opinion into it.
I never ignored Mark 4:11. You are now making accusations about what I am and what I believe.
The old laws do apply, but Jesus fulfilled the law for those that believe and are not condemned.
Obviously it’s pointless to argue with you considering you have your mind made up. But it is ridiculous that you are butchering context to make a point. Sure it’s fine to condemn violence unless you’re throwing Christians to the lions…
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 2:06 AM Jesus is not making a commandment there, any cursory glance at the text will show that. The only way to say he is making an order there is to forget all about basic reading comprehension. This is a character in a parable that makes the proclamation, not Jesus. What other times does Jesus do this directly?
See above.
obviously dont have time to go through centuries of theology, but youre basically pulling random things out of context and forcing your own opinion into it.
No, this is the typical theist response. Scream OUT OF CONTEXT!, and then run away feeling pity for the closed minded atheist that’s going to hell.
Sorry, you are required to believe blindly, or else you’re going to hell.
I’m not pulling anything randomly, and you have yet to address the whole “Jesus speaks in parables to confuse people so they go to hell” bit.I know what you believe. You hate all non-Christians and those who your god created for the sole purpose of angering him. You are required to murder them.
I can see by your sig you’re already armed to do it, so go for it. Obey your god.
You have a serious failure to understand the context of the book of fables you’re reading, the attitudes of the tribes and the way things worked back then. That’s why Yaweh thinks nothing of having the Israelites go on a genocidal slaughter of half a dozen tribes, taking only the women to rape, but still says “thou shalt not murder”, and stopped only by those nasty iron chariots that god just couldn’t seem to beat
JUDGES
1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 28, 2007 at 5:02 AM Wow, you know everything about me! Amazing! Yeah I totally hate everyone and I want to kill them!
I didn’t scream “out of context,” in fact I pointed out exactly how it is out of context. I didn’t run away, and I don’t feel pity. I simply know you’re an intelligent person who has heard everything I could ever say, so it’s pointless to keep down this path.
People pick on religion and say it’s the bane of the world. Excuse me for not believing that because that doesn’t explain the works of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, imperialistic Japan, and every war and conquest since time began. It’s not a matter of religion, it’s the condition of human aspirations. It’s foolish to think we can cure all the worlds ills by getting rid of religion, and distracts from the real problems in the world.
You sound like the neocons who say this war is not just against extremists but against every Muslim in the world because even though the extremists are a small portion, they speak louder than the people they claim to represent. It’s shoving people into stereotypes (like you have done so flagrantly of me) and waging war on their associates.
Your message of reform and progression are given a backseat to venom spatting hate speech. You don’t change the world by calling them retarded (obviously you’re much more enlightened than anyone else - your ego betrays you).
You haven’t said anything I haven’t heard before by people who can earn respect through kind conversation and a friendly smile. I know you’ll just accuse me once again of running away, but do you really think I haven’t heard all of this before and answered it all before numerous times? Like I have already said, I’m done just because anything I say won’t change your mind.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 4:07 PM Glock, you are wrong, for many decades they had a sign posted that claimed four million Jews were killed there, right before that an even larger number, now they are claiming 900,000 to 1.25. million. Actually there were a total of 74,000 registered prisoners there and the Germans registered everyone brought there because they were brought there for slave labor, of the 74,000 the Jews numbered 30,000. See Germar Rudolf’s masterly Dissecting The Holocaust and Arthur Butz’s The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century as well as many essays by Robert Faurisson and many full length books by Carlo Mattogno. All are available from either IHR.org or VHO.org websites. You need to be more critical in your thinking when given guided propaganda tours. Of course, anyone who believes in “god” would fall for anything. There has never been the slightest scintilla of evidence for such a belief in a supernatural being, you might read Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, an Objectivist-Libertarian. As an atheist I have to disassociate myself from the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist rantings of WickyWoo. Of course, I agree totally with him about the incredible REAL holocaust of the Church during the Dark Ages when 30 million women were burned as witches, 30 million black cats were killed by the same Spanish Catholic morons because they were associated with witches and the Germans REAL holocaust wherein they killed tens of millions of EACH OTHER in the Thirty Years Protestant-Catholic Wars. They almost committed auto-genocide. Maybe not a bad thing. I’m sorry if half a million to maybe one million Jews in Europe died of all causes during WW2 but the “gas chambers” “six million” “mass extermination conspiracy” is turning out to be as phony as Frank’s “Diary” Frank herself died of typhus as did most of the Jews in the camps in the last year of the war. Glock, you can’t downplay the Hebrew Book of Genocide, the shitty old “holy” beeble for the Jeezez Christer morons. I’ve read enough of that intersting literary work to know it is one of the most pornographic, genocidal books ever written. My wife who is Jewish agrees and one good thing about most Jews is that they are atheists. I just dissent from WickyPooPooPants idea of confining all his political enemies to the insane asylum. He does not speak for all atheists.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 28, 2007 at 4:34 PM I didn’t take any guided tours. I walked the grounds with my wife and just took in the scale. There was a room filled with hair sheared from the heads of the prisoners (gypsies, Christians, Jews, and other “undesireables”) and the stench was overpowering. Two rooms full of shoes, and this was a small portion of the total they collected from one of the ten warehouses filled with items.
The evidence for this holocaust are overwhelming. There are few dissenters and they come from very select groups.
You tell me to be critical in my thinking while you are quite clearly ignoring piles of evidence that would prove you wrong in favor of a couple sources you happen to agree with. http://www.nizkor.org/
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM I have a question for those who complain about Luke 19:26-27 being taken out of context. What do YOU think this passage means? Sure it’s a parable (though I think verse 27 might not be part of the parable), but in the real world, who is the King, and who are the people that will be killed if they will not accept the King? Isn’t the King Jesus, and those who do not accept him are to be killed? I understand that this is not a command to kill unbelievers now, but this does tell us a great deal about Jesus’s true character that he will order unbelievers to be killed eventually.
Also, how do you explain the following in context?
Matthew 10:14-15 (Also Mark 6:11)
“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave the house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.”
Matthew 11:20-24
Then he began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe, to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida….And you Capernaum,...you shall be brought down to Hades…But I tell you it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgement for the land of Sodom than for you.”Matthew 13:13-34
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...woe to you, blind guides…You blind fools!...You blind men!...You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?Mark 4:10-12
And…the twelve asked him concerning parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.”I’ve stolen this from somewhere else on the web, but it basically makes a good point:
“Jesus was generally tolerant towards self-confessed sinners who believed in him. We see this in Mark 2:15 where we are told that he had dinner with tax collectors and sinners at Levi’s house. But this feeling of tolerance and love is not universal. [...] Jesus was extremely intolerant of people, however good and well meaning, who did not believe in him. A fanatic is convinced he is right, anybody who does not follow or believe in him is an enemy of God, that is that. Jesus was like that.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:04 PM scenes,
Christians don’t deny there is a “day of judgment” or a time of wrath. It is because of this judgment that Jesus had to come as a propitiation. But there is a distinction between the present age and the one brought when Jesus returns to “judge the quick and the dead.”
Read up on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_judgment
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:16 PM Also, it is important to keep in mind the context in which Christians are supposed to forgive others:
Romans 12:20,
No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.”So basically it sounds like such good works are to be done in order to send your enemies to hell. Any alternative interpretation?
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:19 PM I guess I’ll take the good works, whatever reason they’re done for. Because it’s better that people do good works to you even if they hate you, and are hoping you go to hell. Because hell doesn’t exist.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:22 PM Re the day of Judgment, it appears that Jesus doesn’t want any but the select few to avoid hell:
To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:25 PM Now given a choice between Jesus on the one hand and Gandhi, who seems the better person?
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:27 PM In Romans 12, Paul is quoting Proverbs. The “burning coals” is a picture of shame, not hell. We’re not “hoping” anyone should go to hell, that is contrary to the work of “evangelism.”
Good luck with your good works. I hope you achieve your goals.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:27 PM The shame interpretation is not the only possible one. I’d argue that my interpretation is closer to the actual intention, given the other places in the Bible where it is clear that only a select pre-chosen few will go to heaven.
The work of “evangelism” is not to save souls, but to ensure that people will have no excuse when they’re sent to hell. Hope doesn’t come into it. God chooses who repents and who doesn’t ahead of time.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:45 PM Evangelism and love aren’t to send people to hell but the opposite. Romans 10 makes it clear that evangelism to bring people to Jesus, not the other way around:
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM Glock, all of the points you raise have been addressed by the authors I’ve repeatedly cited. What you saw proves nothing other than many people died. There are other explanations than the ones we’ve been spoon-fed for so long, this is why I give refs. I very much doubt there are ten warehouses and yes, you were given a guided tour and the party line. Truth is never determined by the number of adherents at a given time. 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong and often are. The “six million died” “gas chambers” “deliberate conspiracy to kill all Jews” the Frank “diary” as distinct from Frank, and many other tall tales including human lampshades and bars of soap have been totally discredited. If your such an open minded guy as you claim in contrast to Woo then maybe you’ll check out the refs I gave. By the way, that standard nikor source people like you give has been discredited by the ihr and vho websites, you might check them out instead of assuming everything you’ve been brainwashed with us is true. The “evidence” for the holocaust (the very name is a lie since Jews did not die by fire) is no more “overwhelming” than the bullshit arguments made for “god” or the rest of tje JEEZEZ Christer Cult fabrications. That “holy” beeble is a many times revised imitation of ancient Arabian tales.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM Wow, you know everything about me! Amazing! Yeah I totally hate everyone and I want to kill them!
You do if you’re a good Christian
Your message of reform and progression are given a backseat to venom spatting hate speech. You dont change the world by calling them retarded (obviously youre much more enlightened than anyone else - your ego betrays you).
Religion by its very nature cannot be progressive. You are given orders by the all-powerful creator of the universe, perfect in every way, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. Do you dare to question his ways? I call people mentally ill who believe in invisible fairy tale men. If you believed in Froo-Froo the Purple Hippo, people would agree with me you shouldbe put away, but because you ascribe to the societally acceptible mass delusion, it’s not. And there is and equal amount of evidence for the existance of Jesus, Jehovah and Froo-Froo
You sound like the neocons who say this war is not just against extremists but against every Muslim in the world because even though the extremists are a small portion, they speak louder than the people they claim to represent. Its shoving people into stereotypes (like you have done so flagrantly of me) and waging war on their associates
It’s not a sterotype, just your hypocrisy.
WickyWoo. Of course, I agree totally with him about the incredible REAL holocaust of the Church during the Dark Ages when 30 million women were burned as witches, 30 million black cats were killed by the same Spanish Catholic morons be
Don’t “help” me
In Romans 12, Paul is quoting Proverbs. The burning coals is a picture of shame, not hell. Were not hoping anyone should go to hell, that is contrary to the work of evangelism.
In this you are correct.You draw them in with kindness and convert them
But let’s continue it shall we?
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.Resistance is futile! Believe or they’re damned to hell. And this is from the sadistic being that created things, knowing they would disbelieve for the sole purpose of torturing them
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Do what you’re told without question, and nothing bad will happen to you
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:55 PM Again, I didn’t have a guided tour. I’m glad you were along side me while I was there because you obviously know what I was doing much more than I do.
Thank you for the references. However, these sources have been discredited quite a bit. If you have 50 million witnesses and 95% of them claim one thing how can the 5% be more right than the 95%? How many eye-witnesses to these things claim they didn’t happen? The deniers weren’t there when it happened. Yet we have Nazi soldiers and officers who were in the camps who can testify to the truth.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM Paul, the writer of Romans, makes it clear that those who are saved are selected in advance by God. However, if the people who are chosen to go to hell haven’t been warned by evangelists, it might seem unjust. So evangelists are there to provide an excuse to God. Verse, 14, seen in this context, does not show a desire to save souls, but to condemn them.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 7:01 PM But what about verse 12 & 13 of the same chapter?
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentilethe same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Posted by glocksout on Mar 28, 2007 at 7:07 PM Those verses don’t contradict what I’m saying. God chooses who will call on his name and be saved ahead of time. Nothing an evangelist can do can change that. The evangelist says his piece. God hardens the hearts of some, and opens the hearts of others. Since those who were chosen to be sent to hell have now been warned, they have no excuse.
From Romans:
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathprepared for destruction?
23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Mar 28, 2007 at 7:19 PM Well, there weren’t “50 million witnesses” anymore than “six million victims” and no my sources have never been discredited but only denounced by people who have never read them. That is why it is against the law in many countries to dispute this orthodoxy, if they were just flatearthers or creationists they could be laughed off. The only Nazis who testified to this were people with a gun to their head since it was not permitted at Nuremberg or subsequent Stalinist Show “trials” to dispute the main thesis, you could only argue that you were following orders. Ok, glad you will check out the refs. And there are no “deniers” but only revisioinists and yes some of them were there too. And many of the “witnesses” have been proven to be liars.
Ok, I’ll forego comment on this lunatic Beeble business.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 28, 2007 at 8:09 PM Well, there werent 50 million witnesses anymore than six million victims and no my sources have never been discredited but only denounced by people who have never read them
Sworn testimony, mountains of photographs, documents and everything else. You’re done
I think that if we got a time machine and put you in it, you’d just put on the uniform, herd people into gas chambers, and STILL deny it
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 29, 2007 at 1:56 AM The “sworn testimony” has been totally discredited in the books that I have referenced. The “witnesses” were lying on a massive scale and contradicted each other. See The Real Eichmann Trial by Paul Rassinier just for starters but don’t stop there. Then check about 600 pages of essays by Robert Faurisson that can be downloaded from the ihr.org website, then Germar Rudolf’s Dissecting The Holocaust, Walter N. Sanning’s The Dissolution of East European Jewry, Arthur R. Butz’s The Hoax of the 20th Century and many more books that can be downloaded on the vho.org website as well. Obviously I am NOT “done” moron, I’m right here giving arguments and specific refs unlike you. See I have a real advantage here, I KNOW both sides of the argument here, you don’t because you’re a lazy asshole who has only read what he was predisposed to agree with here. The Demjanjuk “Trial” was very interesting in this regard because hundreds of liars perjured themselves in misidentifying him as “Ivan The Terrible” even assuming there WAS such a person. Wicky, you lose again. Sorry, asshole.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 29, 2007 at 3:24 PM The sworn testimony has been totally discredited in the books that I have referenced. The witnesses were lying on a massive scale and contradicted each other
So if they’re to be discredited, you’ll be able to provide some fact checking by neutral collegues and historians ina formal scientific peer-review process
All you’ve provided is a bunch of books by Nazis like you, who use the same sound scientific principals as the Creationists, cherry picking things that support your case while tossing out any evidence to the contrary.
Let’s go to court. You bring your guys, I bring mine. At stake, 1 year mandatory in a mental institution. Have you got the balls to do it?
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 29, 2007 at 3:29 PM I have given sources. Unlike you I have read both sides, you call anyone who disagrees with you a “Nazi.” As for your absurd proposition why would anyone take you up on it ? We don’t decide historical matters in a court of law except in totalitarian Europe. This is argued out in the free market of ideas. Secondly, why would even a narcissistic piece of shit like you expect anyone to consider themselves insane even if they were wrong ??????? I wouldn’t advocate putting you away because you are wrong here or for any other reason. Furthermore the peer review process doesn’t work in the social sciences as it does in the physical sciences because the epistemological premises are different. History is not some lab where everything can be neatly quantified. So for instance if 99% of historians or philosophers or economists have a certain ideology and a dissident is presenting an alternative paradigm by your logic no progess would ever happen because the new theory would be ruled per se insane by your conformist logic. Interestingly enough they do not outlaw or imprison creationists even in Europe. So if revisionism were merely a flat earth theory they would be laughing off or trying to, not imprisoning dissenters in prison or Soviet style in mental gulags as you advocate. Here I’m going to be VERY unPC, I think you are a stinky smelly old sanhedrin bum, probably a shrink from the pre-Szasz days who was used to imprisoning inmates under the name of “mental illness.” IF I thought and here I stress IF all of your tribe was like YOU, I wouldn’t care if six TRILLION perished. But fortunately that’s not the case so I sentence you to one year of daily changing of your colostomy bag without the big nurse’s assistance.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 29, 2007 at 3:59 PM What are you trying to prove with Demjanjuk, Mike? He was acquitted of being “Ivan” because there was doubt around 50 year old memories, but there was also doubt in the judges mind that he was entirely innocent. They acquitted him because of the doubt, not because it was proved he wasn’t “Ivan.” He was later shown in court to have worked in three death camps and was a member of the SS unit that gathered up over 2-million Jews.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 29, 2007 at 4:01 PM Furthermore the peer review process doesnt work in the social sciences as it does in the physical sciences because the epistemological premises are different. History is not some lab where everything can be neatly quantified. So for instance if 99% of historians or philosophers or economists have a certain ideology and a dissident is presenting an alternative paradigm by your logic no progess would ever happen because the new theory would be ruled per se insane by your conformist logic
All science is peer-reviewed, and peer-reviewable. be it historical research or paleontology. The political leanings of the people can be researched, prior to their statements, the methodologies of their research.
In your case, it’d find out that your “historians” are lifelong jew-hating nazi types, well before they wrote your books.
If you’re so sure, then take the court challenge. 1 year on thorazine with massive therapy and maybe the non-existant mental illness will be existant!
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 29, 2007 at 4:09 PM There was no doubt in the Judges minds that Demjanjuk was falsely accused of being Ivan The Terrible and what this eloquently proves is that these hundreds of “witnesses” were lying perjurers, the sort of professional “witness” used at the earlier Nuremberg, Malmedy, Frankfurt and Eichmann Stalinist Show “Trials.” If you would get off your lazy, lunatic beeble quoting ass you would also find out that any “confessions’” obtained were by torture and/or threat of permanent imprisonment if they didn’t “confess.” The physical sciences are radically different from the social sciences, see Hayek’s Reason and Counter-Revolution. What you are attempting to do here is the ad hominem fallacy of trying to discredit the message by libelling the messenger. Anyone who ventures into dissent here is per se labeled a “Nazi.” I don’t take any mind destroying psych drugs, see Toxic Psychiatry by Peter Breggin, MD. These drugs should be outlawed as should psychiatry itself, one area where I dissent from Szasz’s general libertarianism because the treatments are torture, the “therapy” are lies and the “professionals” are criminals. Historical conflicts are argued out in the history books and not determined by fiat of law. The Nuremberg et al farce “trials” prohibited any defense challenge to the fundamental thesis so the only tack for defendants was to claim they were following “orders.” By the way, no SS unit ever gathered up three million Jews, they were never anywhere that many Jews in total Nazi custody, much less deaths. They only showed that he was a very lowly guard for a while. Glock, you are as fucked up and stupid on the holohoax as you are on the unholy beeble so beloved by the JEEZEZ Chisterculters. Read something different and actually learn something for a change.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 29, 2007 at 4:57 PM The fact that the Nazis kept records of their work through the Einsatzgruppen and the documents like the Jger Report contradict everything the deniers claim. You can read these papers yourself.
Then there’s Die Endlsung der Judenfrage, that must have just been a radio play like War of the Worlds… During Operation Reinhard, Berlin listed 1,274,166 arrivals at the death camps just through the end of 1942. You can also read this document.
The holocaust is the most documented event of the 21st century. Trying to disprove the JFK assassination would be easier.
Gordon McFee writes, “Revisionists depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology”
And you say Jews were killed, just in the hundreds of thousands instead of millions. And this is somehow OK? A million is wrong but hundreds of thousands are just what the doctor ordered.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM Gordon McFee writes, Revisionists depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology
Which is exactly how creationists work.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 29, 2007 at 5:59 PM Glock, I’ve read those documents and they do not “prove” any “holocaust” the very name meaning death by fire is a lie. At this point you need to read something other than the same shit you have already read. I’m saying there was never a holocaust, never a systematic attempt or conspiracy to murder the Jews of Europe, that the gas chambers for humans never existed, only ones for de-licing, that nowhere six million Jews died, doubtful if it was more than a million, the Frank “diary” is a hoax, she died of typhus like most Jews who actually died did towards the end of the war. The “holohoax” not only is not documented, even Raul Hilberg, the leading holocaust so-called historian has admitted that 80% of what is claimed is not in any way documented. But the point is why is a scared little man like you so afraid to study the revisionists ???????? You are too frightened to do so because you are a religious lunatic who has an enormous degree of credulity. Even WickyWoo thinks you are a lunatic. Now why would you two mental midgets think that quoting some nobody is going to impress me ? I am a lifelong student of philosophy, particularly epistemology and I know ad hominem arguments when I see them. Several people whom I’ve alerted to your joint stupidity have commented on the low level of intelligence both Glock and WickyWoo have displayed, no coherent arguments, recitation of arguable assumptions, appeals to questionable “authorities” and so on. You two can go 69 each other. I’ve given arguments briefly and more importantly I’ve given refs, you can look them up or shove it up your stinky assholes, frankly the choice is yours.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 29, 2007 at 7:11 PM I’m quite familiar with ad honinem attacks, and you seem to be quite the expert at using them. Of course I’ve only provided verifiable facts while you go on and on about my personal character and intelligence. Congratulations, you just won a first grade debate.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 29, 2007 at 7:16 PM How odd.
The single person here who could most benefit from modern psychiatry does not believe in mental illness! How funny, but also how very sad. . .
Posted by wolf on Mar 29, 2007 at 8:05 PM Glock, Ive read those documents and they do not prove any holocaust the very name meaning death by fire is a lie. At this point you need to read something other than the same shit you have already read. Im saying there was never a holocaust, never a systematic attempt or conspiracy to murder the Jews of Europe, that the gas chambers for humans never existed, only ones for de-licing, that nowhere six million Jews died, doubtful if it was more than a million
“Only a million”, and if you’re going to pick nits that they didn’t specficially die by fire, then you’re an even bigger moron than I inititially thought
Even WickyWoo thinks you are a lunatic.
And here we have an excellent demonstration of how the Nazi and creationist operate. He takes the fact that Glock is delusional and mentally ill believing ina supreme being, and applies it as a global term to all other facts of the world and life. Cherry picking to his advantage
So Nazi, are you coming to court or not? I’ll even toss in a free swastika tattoo for you if I lose
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 29, 2007 at 8:08 PM Glock, you have provided NO facts at all, you have provided sources which have been debunked precisely because they are not conclusive. I have indeed included my very low opinion of you but that was IN ADDITION TO COUNTERING YOUR NONARGUMENTS AND IN ADDITION TO GIVING REFS WHICH REFUTE YOUR SOURCES. THAT IS NOT AD HOMINEM. AD HOMINEM IS A PERSONAL ATTACK IN PLACE OF ANY ARGUMENTS OR REFS AS “WICKYJOO” HAS DONE.
Wolf, are YOU an example of a person helped by modern psychiatry ?
Thanks, I’ll pass.
WW, holocaust means death by fire, if you can’t even get the basic definitions correctly I don’t see any use in continuing this discusssion. WHY would I come to court ? That would be the last place I’d look to for historical truth. Mel Mermelstein’s initial suit against IHR was total bullshit and he lost on appeal but the original trial Judge in LA told IHR that they had better settle privately with him because LA juries would be influenced by emotionalism rather than reason. And since I don’t accept that this argument has anything to do with “mental illness” why I even entertain your conditions ? Are you insane or just a standard male Jewish narcissist ? Frankly as my Jewish wife puts it, “kike” would be much to MILD a term to apply to Soviet psychiatric vermin like you, your the type of guy who makes one wish there HAD been a mass extermination but alas there was NOT.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 29, 2007 at 9:00 PM So we’ll do a judge and no jury is you’re that worried about emotionalism.
I’m real sure your wife is Jewish, just like people have “lots of black friends”.
I’m offering you a fair legal arena for you to prove your claims. If you are unwilling to accept it, then you need to withdraw your claims, or admit you have no actual peer-reviewed evidence to back up and you’re just ufll of it.
And if you really want to ge that technical, they burned a huge percentage of the bodies, enjoy your nitpick, or just call it what it was: Genocide
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 29, 2007 at 10:19 PM I’m not nitpicking and while in the last year they had to cremate many bodies because of the typhus epidemic it was not genocide. Hey, asshole, I never made a court claim to withdraw. Your premise
that some asshole political appointee which is what a Judge is is competent to rule on a complex historical matter is bunk. There is plenty of evidence to doubt the “holocaust” ever existed and as you forgot, it is the proponents of a positive assertion that are under an obligation to prove it, you can’t prove a negative. If you assert that god exists or the holocaust happened you have to prove it, I don’t have to disprove, so what the holocaust revisionists have done is painstakingly dissect the arguments for it and they have debunked them. Indeed my wife is Jewish of a Red Diaper Baby background and we have been married 18 years. All the holocaust revisionists are competent peers to review the claims of all the others and that has been done. In any event historical truth is not settled by majority opinion. ALL the revisionists are required to do is examine the evidence and rebut the standard arguments if they can. And they can. Not rocket science. So to conclude I am going to keep preaching and pushing holocaust revisionism on all venues I deem worthwhile and you will just have to sit in your smelly shit and lump it.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 29, 2007 at 11:00 PM The claims of genocide have been proven with mounds of evidence. Loads of evidence. More evidence than anything has ever had. There’s more evidence for the Jewish holocaust than there is for the American Revolutionary War. There’s more evidence for the holocaust than there is of your wife existing even.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 29, 2007 at 11:05 PM They haven’t been proven at all and that is why I referred you to sites to help you deal with this. If you want to call ihr in Costa Mesa and have a debate with Mark Weber on this I can give you the number. There is much less than meets the eye to the “holocaust’ claims and even an ignorant Beeble Belt banger like you should realize that your ASSertions prove nothing. No one ever denied the JFK Assassination or the US Revolutionary OR denied there were concentration camps and that the Nazis pursued anti-Jewish policies. That is light years from the “holocaust” claims. Scared little JEEZEZ mon, goto the ihr.org and vho.org websites and educate your profoundly ignorant self. The only “loads” you have given is the loads of arbitrary assertions from your stupid mouth. They bear a strong resemblance to the stuff that comes out of your frankly unappetitizing asshole.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 12:21 AM mike,
“THAT IS NOT AD HOMINEM. AD HOMINEM IS A PERSONAL ATTACK IN PLACE OF ANY ARGUMENTS OR REFS AS WICKYJOO HAS DONE.”
Hmm, what was your last post? No facts, just personal attacks. This is seriously the most juvenile discussion I’ve had since I talked with a 2 year old about Labyrinth.
I proved facts and sources as well. German documents and policies that have very long, legal paper trails.
And, you’re right, nobody denied the JFK assassination, and nobody denied the American Revolutionary war because there were witnesses, documents, and a shown result. There is archeological evidence, documented evidence, videos, letters, et al. Nobody questioned it because you can’t deny it without looking like a total fool. But the holocaust has even more evidence, photographs, documents, witnesses, locations, et al that have proven the holocaust.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 30, 2007 at 1:31 AM Im not nitpicking and while in the last year they had to cremate many bodies because of the typhus epidemic it was not genocide. Hey, asshole, I never made a court claim to withdraw.
You made the claim that the holocaust was greatly exagerated and didn’t happen. In Canada you could be put on trial for that and put in jail for spreading hate speech.
And you just proved you listen to Michael Savage, the biggest bigot on the airwaves
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 30, 2007 at 2:27 AM Hey, assholes, I have already responded to your nonarguments, why should I repeat myself ? Check out the refs I gave. WickyJoo, we’re not in Canada and as I wrote earlier the very fact that they are forced to imprison people for heretical thoughts shows the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the “holocaust” exterminationists. Glock, them big pitchers don’t prove anything. As Leonard Peikoff, a Jew and atheist Objectivist, once wrote ” A picture is not an argument” he was focussing on the anti-abortion nuts and the one-sided media campaign against the LAPD for properly giving Rodney King the beating he deserved. All of the documents & testimonies & pitchers not only contradict each other repeatedly but many are worthless and no the German govt has done nothing to even remotely prove the “holocaust” which is why they have to imprison dissenters, SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T TO PEOPLE IN ANY OTHER ISSUE. Communist atrocities, American atrocities, Third World atrocities, Israeli atrocities. Are you really as dense as you seem ? An ad hominem argument is NOT calling you a worthless shitbag, an ad hominem argument IS calling a worthless IN LIEU of argument and IN LIEU of references. I’ve have given both in spades. And you ARE a worthless shitbag. A psychotic one too as diagnosed by WickyPoo after reading your Beeble ravings. I saw a great bumper sticker “Jesus Was A Palestinian Like Yasser Arafat.” Hope that will comfort you at Easter where you goofs celebrate the resurrection.
Oh, Wicky, are you telling me that Michael Weiner Savage is a holocaust revisionist too ? Funny, I read that he claimed Hitler killed 50 million Jews. He seems more YOUR type if you catch my drift…..........wicky, WATCH YOUR TRUSS !
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 3:54 PM For atheists, you people sure do seem to have psychic powers. The only think you know about me is I was in Poland last year with my wife. That is it. Congratulations on jumping to conclusions.
I haven’t claimed to know you. I haven’t painted a picture of you with my mental finger paint so I can attack this strawman instead of issues.
Mike, I believe you are telling the truth. I think you really do have a Jewish wife. You don’t have to be a racist to be a holocaust denier. All it takes is refusing to look at all the evidence. I’ve looked at the denier’s evidence, I’ve done it before and I’ve looked at your references. However, these references reference other people and those original references refute the denier’s claims. They pick bits out without even completing the entire thought of the people they’re quoting. They quote people saying 5.1 million Jews were killed trying to disprove the 6 million number and then claim it wasn’t even the 5.1 million without offering anything to prove this except “the numbers have changed before.”
And I too have provided facts, one specifically being Einsatzgruppen, a group directed by Himmler to kill Jews in the occupied west. Their records show they killed over a million people. Group A reported they killed all of the Jews in Lithuania. They took the Jews out of cities and dug mass graves and shot them in the open graves. There are piles of documents to prove all of this. Rudolf Lange, one of the Einsatzgruppen commanders, said his orders were “a radical solution of the Jewish problem through the execution of all Jews.”
Hitler said “It is good when terror precedes us that we are exterminating the Jews. We are writing history anew, from the racial standpoint.”
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 30, 2007 at 4:45 PM Hey, assholes, I have already responded to your nonarguments, why should I repeat myself ? Check out the refs I gave. WickyJoo, were not in Canada and as I wrote earlier the very fact that they are forced to imprison people for heretical thoughts shows the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the holocaust exterminationists.
And you’re lucky, because I’d have you in prison right now, or more likely a mental instutition.
All of the documents & testimonies & pitchers not only contradict each other repeatedly but many are worthless and no the German govt has done nothing to even remotely prove the holocaust which is why they have to imprison dissenters
It’s called spreading hate speech and endangering the lives of others.
It’s something we should be doing here as well, and any civilized country would do. If you can’t prove it, it’s time for prison.You still need to prove your side beyond some nazi fring wackos. We have literal warehouses of evidence, not counting the mass graves and mass cyanide signatures at the execution sites. You need to prove it, or you need to shut it
Come to court, you’ll enjoy the thorazine I’m sure. If all you’re going to do is sit back and namecall, then we know you’ve got nothing.
Oh, Wicky, are you telling me that Michael Weiner Savage is a holocaust revisionist too ?
No, but he’s a vicious bigot and hatemonger. Half of his audience are KKK type Christians brainwashed into the whole Israel lobby, do you realy think he’d do anything to piss them off? And where is this “killed 50 million jews” quote? I can’t seem to find it anywhere, and much more likely you’re just bullshitting it.. “Red Diaper Baby” is his catchphrase, so drop the act.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 30, 2007 at 4:55 PM Glock, the Einsatzgruppen were never part of the “holocaust” as even the leading “holocaust” historians like Arno Mayer and Raul Hilberg have come around to admitting. That Hitler quote is a fraud like his alleged dancing the jig at the fall of France, a CBC concocted hoax. But again why not check out the other side here ? Do you really think that your reiteration of your unproven, arguable assertions constitutes proof of anything ? Or even a respectable argument ? The fairy tale about the Einsatzgruppen killing all the Jews of Lithuania is a hoax on a par with Hitler “trying to conquer the world.” No order from Hitler or anyone else has ever been found instructing anyone to exterminate the Jews and of course being Germans they would not have done so without an explicit order or orders. The holes in the holohoax story would shame a package of swiss cheese. By the way, you are a personal liar. First, it’s holocaust revisionists, the very fact that you use the Lipstadt
concocted term “denier” shows you have never read ANY of the revisionists and to further claim that you have looked at ALL their work is absurd, even I haven’t done that. We are talking about thousands of pages of book downloads just from vho site alone. By the way, the main revisionist argument is not that Hilberg, the leading holohoax “historian” claimed 5.1 mil in his 61 book, the three main propositions constituting revisionism here I listed above, look it up. Your “arguments” here are as specious and poorly reasoned as your ones for “god.” Or WoozyJoo’s ones for psychiatry. By the way, Glock, learn the difference between references and facts, you only provided a few references and I hate to tell you but these refs have been demolished by the revisionists. I provided many refs precisely because in a forum like this one can only make short arguments and they are assertions, but so people can check the foundation for my assertions I provide refs. Check them out. The cyanide signatures Woozy mentions have been totally discredited in Dissecting The Holocaust by Germar Rudolf. The mass graves were the result of ALLIED bombing which hastened the severe food shortages and the raging typhus epidemics. Finally the warehouses of “evidence” have never proved anything, it’s the quality of the evidence and not the quantity in itself that counts. As Ayn Rand put it, a long line of zeroes is just a zero in the end. And boy did I get Woozy in the end !
WWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEE ! That was some fearsome public bowel movement that you laid on us ! WoozyPooPooPanties, have I discomfited you ? In a free society people don’t go to prison for not proving an argument, otherwise most of your Jewish tribe would be imprisoned for the unproven holohoax assertions. Nor do people go to jail for hate, it’s OKAY to hate people like you, my wife has given me the full scoop on most Jewish males, mostly they they sound like Weiner Savage, by the way, hemorrhoids face, the quote is something he said on the airwaves, not a written source. Thanks also for confirming my accurate diagnosis of you as a practitioner of Soviet style psychiatry. Let me warn here, I CAN get your identity and if you are a practicing shrink I will make your loathsome views publicly known. PUBLICLY KNOWN. You license will be revoked IF you have one. By the way, the First Amendment says there shall be NO law violating freedom of the press. As Justice Black said, NO LAW MEANS NO LAW. Ideas ARE dangerous, we agree there, and you are going to have to live with them. And if you don’t like it, smelly old one, you can just play handball with your excrement, hell, you probably do that now.
Ok, WoozyJoo, if you have a license, kiss it goodbye. To paraphrase the great Joe McCarthy, you are UNFIT to practice medicine of any sort.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM To paraphrase Menchem Begin after he offed a couple of Brits, I have a holiday in my heart every time I discomfit the WoozyJoos of this world.
Hip, hip, hooray ! Watch your truss, old boy ! And PLEASE change that colostomy bag ! After my successes here, I will be redoubling my efforts on behalf of historical truth. You will never see any “denial” law enacted here and if any legislator he or she would summarily murdered. And that would be GREAT.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM They are “deniers” because they are denying there was a holocaust. They’re not trying to “revise” the holocaust story, they’re trying to refute it and deny it ever happened. It’s the most correct term and at least one of your sources uses this term.
The Einszatengruppe murders are included in the holocaust numbers, were included in post-war trials. Everything I brought up has never been disproven. You know how solid the arguments are of the deniers? If someone said the sky was blue and they said it wasn’t and you brought it up again that it was they would say, “It was disproven” simply because they said so. Seriously, there are documents that prove these things and you just say it was faked. How do you even argue that? The deniers just claim anything that proves them false is faked. Geez, I wish I could use this argument about other things as well. And in this case the burden of proof is on you to prove the evidence is falsified or faked in some way.
As I have already mentioned, the deniers try to use credible sources but these sources they use refute what they’re trying to say. Go to those websites you linked, they provide a fine list of references with the articles, read those references.
I never said I looked at ALL the evidence, I said I’ve looked at their main evidence. They make up a lot of stuff because when you prove them wrong in one area they’ll say you still haven’t proven all of it. It’s a bloody catch 22.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 30, 2007 at 5:48 PM They are deniers because they are denying there was a holocaust. Theyre not trying to revise the holocaust story, theyre trying to refute it and deny it ever happened. Its the most correct term and at least one of your sources uses this term.
Basically it comes down to this:
Faced with the mountain of evidence against them, they turned to revisionsim to try to put the blame on the victims and “Jewish conspiracies”, instead of simply trying to deny it ever happened
It’s the same thing with creationists becoming “intelligent design"ers.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM Glock, your a liar, you obviously haven’t looked at anything because you don’t even KNOW the arguments. The Einsatzgruppen were ONLY instructed to kill the Communist indoctrination officers of Stalin’s army. Since the Communists had already been responsible fro at least 30 million deaths by that time and some estimates go much higher the order was a reasonable one. Nor did I write that the standard line was disproven simply because someone said so. You apparently can’t read any straighter than you can think. Is the old glock not up to speed anymore ? Again, you are using your circular reasoning here. “The deniers refs prove the opposite of what they claim because I say so.” NO specifics given YET again by you. “They say its disproven because they say so BECAUSE I say so.” Oh, wow ! Really impressive, dude ! I’ve already answered your assertions and given refs so I’ll not repeat myself here.
Woozy, the “mountains” turn out to be anthills. By your wuzzy nonlogic atheists are god deniers because they are denying god. Well that is what the philosophers call proving too much. Anything anyone contests could be labelled “denial.” I must be a Bush “denier” because I don’t believe his lies on the war. The word “deny” is a loaded term like the word “insist” (“he insists he’s innocent”) the truth is that a very mediocre, tenth rate hysterian named Debra Lipstadt, who was previously tenure in California, invented the term “denier” because she couldn’t deal with revisioinsts or their arguments. Her work was demolished in several reviews on the ihr site again NOT because I say so, go to the site and look them up yourselves in the Journal of Historical Review. You two little fruiters are reduced to ad hominems and to 69ing each other,a disgusting sight ! I thank both of you for your forthcoming concessions, and Woozy, watch that license !
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 6:21 PM Ok, where have I used an ad hom attack? You obviously are using it, but I have provided facts that you reject because someone told you the facts were lies. The Einsatzgruppen was given orders to kill Jews, that’s why they took hundreds of thousands of Jews out of their homes and shot them. I’ve already given a quote from a group commander that said, a radical solution of the Jewish problem through the execution of all Jews.
How am I a liar for telling the truth? I have looked at the denier’s claims in the past, and I have looked at the sources you provided. They all say the same thing.
Again, these deniers use sources that refute the very claims they’re making. Read the original sources.
Again, a “holocaust denier” is someone who is denying the holocaust. They’re not “holocaust revisionists” because they deny the holocaust happened. It’s simple English, simple logic.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM Glock, I accept your concession that you have NEVER provided facts but only assertions and usually without refs. And I accept your gracious concession that the loaded term “denial” is an ad hominem attack and your gracious concession that holocaust revisionist is the proper term because they are practicing revisionism with regard to specific historical claims. They are not “denying” the holocaust as you now concede but they are simply questioning the three main tenets of it and of course they have never denied the Germans anti-semitism or the camps or that there were brutal ad hoc crimes which unfortunately happen as part of the greater crime that we call war. As you have noted the deaths of a million Jews, more or less, is not the central event in a conflict which killed 50 million persons nor is it in any comparable to the Soviet murders of 50 million, the Mao murders of 100 million, the US murders of tens of millions of blacks & Indians & four million Indochinese. As you have noted Nixinger killed half a mil Khmer in Cambodia, same toll as Pol Pot. As you have noted you have yet to give ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE of where the revisionists were refuted by their sources and as you have noted that would not settle the argument if it was true. The sources are always Jewish sources that DO disagree with the revisionists but that in itself is not a refutation and I thank you for your graciousness in conceding that you have been making an invalid circular argument and for your acknowledgement of your many
nonsequiturs. As you now acknowledge there was never any order EVER found given to any German unit or official to kill Jews AS IS EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY HILBERG, MAYER, WIESENTHAL CENTER AND VAD VASHEM. The alleged quote from a commander is meaningless in that context and probably the result of torture which was commonly used at Nuremberg and Malmedy. Thank you for concessions on all counts and I hope you enjoy the downloading of many books at the vho.org website.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 7:01 PM By your wuzzy nonlogic atheists are god deniers because they are denying god.
That would be by anyone’s logic moron.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 30, 2007 at 7:34 PM Deniers say we have to prove the holocaust happened because the burden of proof is on the one who says it happened. That’s fine. But when the evidence is brought forward the denier says the evidence is fake. Of course it’s easy for them because they don’t have to prove the evidence is fake to satisfy their minds, just claiming it is fake is good enough.
The camps were unfortunate, but the Nazis weren’t trying to kill the Jews off, they just killed them for sport.
Mike is trying to say that insisting the holocaust happened somehow minimizes the atrocities of other groups. That’s ridiculous. Of course if I was going to use the denier’s logic I’d say Stalin didn’t kill off millions, they just starved to death in their homes.
Posted by glocksout on Mar 30, 2007 at 7:52 PM Again, Glock, thanks for your concessions on all counts. As you noted the evidence is much stronger for the Communist crimes AND the American crimes AND the Christian crimes than for the holohoax as you term it. I agree with you that the camps were for two purposes only, the major one being the suppply of slave labor and the secondary purpose to detain a violent, hostile and heavily armed enemy population as was proven during the massive armed Jewish revolt at the Warsaw Ghetto. I appreciate your open mindedness in looking into the revisionist argument and seeing the many half-truths, fabrications, hoaxes, lies, falsifications and frauds under the name of the holohoax. As you noted the old stories of lampshades, bars of soap and 9-12 million Jewish deaths have been totally discredited even among the holohoax establishment, Wiesenthal, Vad Vashem,etc., as well as the original lies bout “gas chambers” in Germany itself. Then as you noted the fable got them all in Poland in unverifiable Soviet held territory. Yes, I do agree that my foreword to concentration survivor Paul Rassinier’s The Drama Of The European Jews was quite good and most convincing, see the larger version of three of his works including Drama in Debunking The Genocide Myth and then as you conclude the fact that they have to presecute and imprison dissenters here is ipso facto proof that the exterminationist case is folding. We are glad that you have joined the revisionist ranks and have disavowed the exterminationists. You still want Mark Weber’s number at IHR ? As you noted the assertions of evidence do NOT constitute evidence.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 9:19 PM How can someone “deny” something that doesn’t exist ? WoozyJoo, did you ever take a course in formal logic ? I mean Aristotelian Logic. If something doesn’t exist, there is NOTHING to deny.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM How can someone deny something that doesnt exist ? WoozyJoo, did you ever take a course in formal logic ? I mean Aristotelian Logic. If something doesnt exist, there is NOTHING to deny.
deny verb (used with object), -nied, -nying.
1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
2. to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition.
3. to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information.
4. to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar.
5. to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one’s gods.
6. to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments.
7. Obsolete. to refuse to take or accept.
Idiom8. deny oneself, to refrain from satisfying one’s desires or needs; practice self-denial.
Posted by WickyWoo on Mar 31, 2007 at 3:43 PM WickyW and Wilberforce
Western Europe has found the best balance yet between capitalism and socialism. Guaranteeing the basic needs while leaving plenty of room to grow and aspire. Even then it’s not perfect, and I doubt any of them will be.
You were doing well on this thread until you came up with the above. Western Europe is dying. The native populations are not reproducing themselves, sometimes by wide margins. Core unemployment has hovered at 8-10% for over fifteen years, and growth has been flat for all this time. In the Lisbon Accords in 2000, the EU pledged to match American productivity by year 2010. Seven years along, Europe has made absolutely no progress whatsoever toward achieving this goal. The Islamization and dhimmification of Western Europe is proceeding with mind-boggling swiftness, and the submissive European populations are acceding to their own destruction for the “values” of political correctness and multiculturalism. The annual intifada riots in France are growing and spreading, like dozens of Watts Riots each year. In this circumstance, the “basic needs” of retiring older Europeans will have to be met by a young Muslim workforce, an extremely dubious proposition. Your “best balance” is a death spiral.
Regardless of the plight of Western Europe, the world has never been more populous, more healthy, more well-fed, more prosperous, or more peaceful. Something is going right in the world, assuming these indicators are desirable, Al Gore’s neo-Malthusian jeremiad notwithstanding.
Populations are subject to inherent forces, such as economics, religions, and cultures, each of which show many manifestations. Each religious manifestation (Jewish, Hindu,
Buddhist, Shinto, Christian, Islam, in approximate date order) rises according to its ability to satisfy a need, and prospers, declines, and resurges according to its performance in satisfying perceived needs. Jesus Christ satisfied a profound need 2000 years ago, and his movement flourished. The Inquisition 500 years ago retarded the Christian movement, and the Inquisition did not survive for long. This same pattern of prosperity, decline, and resurgence is true of economic and cultural forces.Similarities between diverse forces invite comparison, and we have conceptual inventions such as “the communist religion”, even though “communist” was originally economic and anti-religious. In some manifestations, “communist” has morphed into a cultural force, rather than an economic force, as per Gramsci.
We also have temporary alliances between divergent and antagonistic force actors, as the West and the Soviet Union against Hitler, Reagan and Saddam against the Mullahs, and now the “progressives” and the terrorists against Bush 43. In each such alliance, both sides seek short-term advantage, and both sides know that the alliance is temporary, after which the alliance may end in deadly conflict. The “progressives” do not really want to become Muslims, they just want to defeat President Bush. But both the progressives and the radical Muslims each have their own incompatible agenda for the fate of the world, neither of which is attractive for you and me and most people.
Which brings us to the term “progessive” itself. The Progressive movement in the USA was an honorable reform movement against the excesses of capitalism at the start of the Twentieth Century. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was a leading Progressive activist. The term was recast when Henry Wallace ran for President in 1948 on the Progressive ticket. Wallace had a convoluted view of the world, incorporating sound business acumen, mystical elements, blatant communist sympathies, and naivety.
More recently, the term “progressive” has achieved new-found popularity just in the last couple of years, as the collectivists seek to relable themselves, as they must to do periodically. Marx’s economic movement was first identified as “socialist”. Lenin made a number of changes to Marx’s simple-minded economic views, introducing malevolent activism such as kidnapping, bank robbery, and mass murder, and labeling it as “communism”. Communism it was until the Soviet Union collapsed of inefficiency and corruption, and it is a rare bird that publicly identifies himself as “communist” today, whatever his ideological sympathies.
“Socialist” is currently the collectivist label of choice throughout the world except in the USA, where socialist has a bad connotation, worse than “leftist” which enjoys some popularity in MSM, Academia, and Politica. But until recently, the left was misusing the term “liberal” for their identification. There is absolutely nothing liberal about the contemporary left. Liberalism was a product of the enlightenment, and played a central role in the founding of this nation.
“American radicals and socialists began calling themselves `liberals’.” - F.A. Hayek, 1960.
You cannot be much more illiberal than American leftists, and as the American public caught onto the deception, the left could no longer get away with pretending they were liberal. So, now the left is pretending to be progressive.
Among the many force actors that have come and gone, socialism has played a prominent role for nearly two centuries. Socialism (by whatever lable) has never had any notable success in its economic intent, and has, on the contrary, created widespread destruction, inefficiency, and corruption, not to mention mass murder, starvation, and disruption. One seeks in vain for a single significant intellectual or material contribution from a socialist source.
And yet the people of the world enjoy growing prosperity and well-being. Whence cometh this bounty, the Green Revolution, the improvements in health care, the booming economies of China and India? Not from socialism, for sure. Despised or not, democracy, the rule of law, and freemarket capitalism have accounted for all the recent economic progress, not to mention the end of socialist mass murder. Now we are in a conflict to determine the end of Islamist mass murder, a conflict that the left has joined on the side of the Islamists.
As an economic force actor, capitalism, restrained by democratic rule of law, has an unparalleled record of material achievement. As long as history continues, there will be change, and, so far as we have seen, irregular progress. Just don’t get bogged down in any dead-end efforts, like socialism.
Posted by scorp on Mar 31, 2007 at 7:02 PM Omigod, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates has put in his less than two cents which he recycles verbatim from Rush’s Show yesterday. But it’s all irrelevant to the discussion and as proof of Scorp’s probable Mongoloidism (please note WoozyJoo, a PHYSICAL disease like all diseases) he thinks the Soviet shrink and the religious fanatic have won the argument ! In fact they haven’t made a respectable, it has 100% been Argument From Intimidation and Argument From Authority, see Aristotle who mostly forgot more than the moderns ever knew. I don’t about you sorry little peckers but I get sick of repeating myself for the umteenth time. I have responded to the “Glock” in full, have given all references and there’s nothing more to say. WoozyJoo, your examples are frankly nonsequiturs in line with the rest of your nonarguments, the bottom line is that if you assert the positive I do not have to disprove it, you have to prove it. When you assert nonexistent things such as “god” “the holocaust” and “mental illness” or “mental health” THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU NO MATTER HOW POPULARLY ACCEPTED. ALL I HAVE TO DO IS SAY WHY I THINK YOUR PREMISE(S) ARE INVALID AND GIVE SUPPORTING REFS, I HAVE DONE THAT EN MASSE.
There’s nothing further that I have to do. And no I don’t have to attend your Soviet legal show trials or submit to your Soviet psychiatric tortures AND BY THE WAY THANKS FOR CONCEDING SZASZ’S PREMISE THAT MENTAL HOSPITALS AND PRISONS ARE THE SAME THING AS YOU DID IN THE LINE ADVOCATING REVISIONISTS BE SENT TO ONE OR THE OTHER. SO MUCH FOR THE LIBERAL HUMANITARIAN LINE, YOU STAND REVEALED NAKED AS THE SOVIETPHILE PSYCHIATRIC CRIMINAL THAT YOU ARE. FRANKLY IF THE EINSATZGRUPPEN HAD EXTERMINATED SIX TRILLION LIKE YOU IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BLESSING. UNFORTUNATELY THEY DIDN’T, ONLY A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND.
Now to you, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates of Blue State Ohio, the Dark Ages was NOT a brief period, it lasted hundreds of years, see Harry Elmer Barnes two volume History of Western Civilization. Reagan and both Bushes aid to Saddam last one decade, not a brief period in our political lives. As far as most of the world goes, you have proven two things, you know NOTHING about history and you know NOTHING about capitalism. We have never had real capitalism, full, unregulated, uncontrolled laissez faire but the closest we came to in the 19th century was the period of our greatest growth, everything since then has been a byproduct of that era. The GOP is the original statist, they brought antitrust, income tax, high tariffs, Lincoln’s reign of dictatorship, TR’s statist progressivism and so on. See Conservatism: An Obituary by Ayn Rand from 1960, she always maintained that the Right would bring collectivism and tyranny to America and she was right in spades. Also see Reagan:An Autopsy by Murray Rothbard from 1989.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 31, 2007 at 7:47 PM More on response to Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, socialism has really only been around for a century. The earlier utopian movements had nothing to do with modern socialism which has always been a confused middle of the road movement trying to believe in the Enlightenment but using pre-enlightenment means of force to achieve its endsw, exactly like the modern William Booeyfuckley National Review Neocon Modern Right. They only differ in which group of bums they want to force the rest of us to support and in which causes they want to coerce the rest of us into supporting whether it be the Iraq fiasco, anti-abortion, war so-called on drugs, affirmative action, censorship, gun control, corporate welfare, lumpen welfare, the draft, socialized medicine, ad nauseum. They get the partisan morons like Shitcago on the left and you on the right to cream: “Our guys shit smells like perfume. Your guys shit smells like shit.” You BOTH smell like shit, look like shit and ARE shit. That is why the dems and gooper registrations are declining, and most people are now independents. So the capitalism we have now of the statist, fascist, corporatist mixed economy kind AND MOST ARE NOT BENEFITTING, NEITHER HERE OR IN CHINA OR IN INDIA, JUST TO PICK THE WORLD’S THREE BIGGEST ECONOMIES. You make some valid points about western Europe but that’s old hat anyway and MOST Europeans PREFER their system, I don’t but THEY do. So, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, you are simply spinning your wheels. You are not about to convince the leftists here and the real libertarian rightists like myself know that you are a lying sack of shit. You discredit even good causes by your juvenile, assholish and dishonest assertions, rarely reasoned arguments. Read Rand and Rothbard and educate that stupid ass of yours.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 31, 2007 at 8:05 PM WW -
Congratulations. Blondemike only calls you names if he can’t think of any good answers to the points you make. When Mike gets really frustrated and flustered, he will threaten you with decapitation or his trusty .357 Mag.
Blondemike is actually Michael P. Hardesty from Oakland. He lives with Nina, whom he variously identifies as his wife, girlfriend, companion, S/O, whatever, and a bunch of cats. He seems to fight with everybody, not just on the Internet: the Oakland police, the cat’s veterinarian, the neighbors, everybody. He is scatalogic, but otherwise devoid of logic. He stupidly put his tracks all over the internet, and then stupidly accused me of being a government agent for finding his real name and address, when all it took was five minutes on Google to find out who he is. He once said had a PhD, but he barely exhibits any education, much less intelligence.
Hardesty is pretty conflicted. He can’t make up his mind whether he is racist or anti-racist, pro-Chomsky or anti-Chomsky, insane or just incredibly stupid.
If you don’t mind his purile insults, Hardesty is really quite entertaining. Enjoy.
Posted by scorp on Mar 31, 2007 at 11:30 PM He is amusing, does he hang out anywhere else? I figure one of his other personalities might be equally amusing.
I’m sad that he’ll sue the vet, but he won’t come to court with me.
Perhaps one of these days someone will go pay him a visit and take some pictures so we can all see what the little weasel is really like.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 1, 2007 at 1:44 AM WickyWoo,
This seems to be BM’s home on the net. Scorp is amusing, too. In a socialism is what I say it is and you socialists don’t have any say in the matter. I’m afraid I may have been responsible for leading him to that Hayek quote. It’s from his Nobel Prize address, titled “Why I’m Not a Conservative.” Let me just say, I believe Hayek was a brilliant man who was wrong about almost everything he believed, except maybe his critique of Conservatism.
Trollishness is endemic, I fear.
You seem like a fairly reasonable Bright, but you have disappointed me in this one regard. When you were called on the fact that the quote you quoted from the Parable of the Talents wasn’t Jesus speaking for himself, but as the King in the story, you failed to take honest umbrage for your mistake and further compounded it with the ludicrous assertion that you didn’t think it was part of the story, anyway. If you’re going to complain about the speck in your neighbor’s eye, you should first remove the log from your own. It’s a question of intellectual honesty, is it not?
Your interpretation of J’s condeming language as violent threats is of course your own opinion. They can just as well be interpreted as warnings. As in, ‘if you continue with your lowdown ways, there’ll be hell to pay’. Just as I find a phobic anti-socialist like scorpy’s monological definition of socialism to be less than probative compared to what a person who identifies herself as a socialist’s understanding of what socialism is, I think an atheist’s single valency comprehension of what Christian beliefs are (delusional) is less than informative about what Christians actually believe. Especially, considering how diverse each is with all the factions and sectarian differences and such.
Since no one has deigned to explain to you the meaning of the Parable of the Talents, allow me to explain by telling another parable:
Two late middle-age couples were driving through town on a Friday night.
Oscar, riding shotgun, turns to Harold, who is driving, and says, “Where should we dine tonight?”
Harold thinks for a minute and says, “We went to this great place a coupla weeks ago, but I can’t quite remember the name. Give me the name of a flower.”
“Hyacinth?”
“Nope.”
“Daisy?”
“Naw.”
“Violet?”
“Uh-uh.”
“Rose?”
“That’s it!” Harold turns around to face the women in the back seat, and says, “Rose, what was the name of that restaurant we went to last month?”
Get it? If you don’t, do you think if I explained it to you, it would still be funny?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 1, 2007 at 2:53 AM You seem like a fairly reasonable Bright, but you have disappointed me in this one regard. When you were called on the fact that the quote you quoted from the Parable of the Talents wasnt Jesus speaking for himself, but as the King in the story, you failed to take honest umbrage for your mistake and further compounded it with the ludicrous assertion that you didnt think it was part of the story, anyway. If youre going to complain about the speck in your neighbors eye, you should first remove the log from your own. Its a question of intellectual honesty, is it not?
It is, but as I showed from the other quotes, Jesus said that he speaks in riddles so that people will be confused and go to hell, and he repeatedly made other threats, and also endorsed OT law repeatedly, including the “kill your sassy children” specifically.
Until the second coming, all OT laws are valid according to Matthew, and once one takes the historical contexts into account, all of the “love thy neighbor only actually applies to the members of your tribe..
Of course we won’t even get into the fact that there is absolutely no extra-biblical evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed, and based on the plentiful records we DO have of the time, he was likely a composite character of several different messiah among the multitudes in Judea at the time. One likely canidate was Appelonius of Tyanna, who performed all of the parlor tricks, healing and walking on water and was crucified by the Romans.
I think an atheists single valency comprehension of what Christian beliefs are (delusional) is less than informative about what Christians actually believe. Especially, considering how diverse each is with all the factions and sectarian differences and such.
It’s pretty simple, and applicable to all theistic belief.
Do you believe in invisible people for which there is no evidence outside of your holy texts, and insist they’re real, despite evidence to the contrary? You can’t prove a general negative, but you can disprove specific gods, and the existance of Yaweh is exceedingly unlikely, and even if the being were able to be proved, why would such a sadistic being be worthy of worship in the first place?
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 1, 2007 at 5:02 AM WickyWoo,
I once asked a Native American shaman why he believed God demanded blood sacrifice.
He answered by asking me if I had ever worked on my own car.
Nothing is as simple as it appears on the surface.
You were cherry-picking and quoting out of context a particular passage. Exactly what you were accusing the religious of doing.
Where is your intellectual honesty? Can you see it? Is it ‘real’? Is it bigger than a breadbox?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 1, 2007 at 2:53 PM Ah, but I’m not insisting that it’s the word of a divine omnipotent being, as all believers are required to do. Questioning your god is sin and blasphemy, it’s right in the handbook. While you yourself may not make that claim, the requirement for you to believe without question, and to murder in his name all nonbelievers never changes
Yahweh is also quite hot on the whole blood/burned sacrifice thing
Check out my personal favorite, God’s cure for mildew that he himself puts there just to piss you off
Or don’t read it, watch the movie instead
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5270224317741172046&q=corn+pone
LEVITICUS
14:33 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
14:34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; God “put the plague of leprosy” into the houses of the Canaanites. God’s uncounted and uncountable killings
14:35 And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
14:36 Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
14:37 And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
14:38 Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
14:39 And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
14:40 Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
14:41 And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
14:42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
14:43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;
14:44 Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house; it is unclean.
14:45 And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.
14:46 Moreover he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even.
14:47 And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes.
14:48 And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed.
14:49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
14:50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:
14:51 And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:
14:52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:
14:53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be cleanGod hates Tilex. A life lesson.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM WickyWoo,
You mistake my intention.
While your interpretation and cherry-picked examples of superstitious elements in the OT are not entirely without merit, you do so at the expense of other examples that apprehend sublime wisdom and understanding. You are separating the wheat from the chaff and taking the chaff. You are being even more literalist in your interpretation than even the most regressive Calvinist Fundamentalist. It would appear you have no understanding of metaphor and symbolic representation.
You cite an example of Jesus speaking, where it appears he is defending all the absurdities in Leviticus. However, in Matthew he says:
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
My understanding is that most Christians believe this is the basis of the New Covenant, wherein the petty rules and ritual of the OT and the practices of the Pharisees, based on those rules, are refuted. If you read this in context, it is obvious that it is spoken in a way that his meaning is put across so that his adversaries cannot accuse him of heresy, which they nonetheless did.
What really concerns me is not defending the Bible. I am no Christian. Rather, my interest is in you reclaiming your own intellectual honesty. It seems you would rather evade than confront and confess your mistakes and the obvious shortcomings of your limited understanding.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 1, 2007 at 7:03 PM I call names all right AFTER I have refuted the bizarre “arguments” of psychotics like Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, the not so luminous nonbeauty who posts her granddaughter’s pix on the web as her own and the aging, ancient, foulsmelling sanhedrin practitioner of Soviet style psychiatry witchdoctorism, “wizzywoo.” According to Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates the Oakland Police and
the killer vet are “everyone on the planet.” Hmmmmmmm. Strange even for an Ohioan. What happened to Governor Bob, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates ? Or Big Roy B The Great Hope of the Ohio GOP ? Voters told Roy, Two jigs and a boo to you ! Well, stealing elections at the Prez level don’t work out in the end. Now, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, I never threatened you. Sorry, that you, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, real the need to inflate your own importance via imaginary threats. WoozyJoo and LB, I will pass on the joint wordsalad you two lovebirds have been posting, off topic as usual. Woozy, she ain’t no catch at all, it’s a bad fish you’d throw back in the water. And unluminous nonbeauty, woozyjoo has a face that looks like Chicago Crabbie’s hemorrhoids.
Woozy likes to jack off in stalinophile courts but they ruled he has no standing and has been barred from all courts as a vexatious litigant, the only except being his forthcoming malpratice and license revocation trial. It’s been loads of fun but have to get back to the real world. Good luck, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, WoozyJoo and Unluminous Nonbeauty, all three of you have an equal chance at the game of playing handball with your own feces in the big rubber room.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 1, 2007 at 8:06 PM Mikey,
I suppose ranting about the Holocaust is on topic?
Good luck in the real world.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 1, 2007 at 8:23 PM Loony Booty -
Now you sound like Mrs. Scheisskopf in Catch-22. Mrs. Scheisskopf was an atheist, but the god she did not believe in was a warm, loving, supportive being. She got all upset when someone made comments similar to what WW has said. But there is also Oriana Fallaci, who claimed to be a “Christian atheist”. I suppose this is in oppositon to a “Jihadist atheist” or a “Thugee atheist”.
In a socialism is what I say it is and you socialists don’t have any say in the matter.
Oh, come on, Booty. Actions speak louder than words. Communism is the most severe gradation of socialism, and left tens of millions of dead bodies in its wake. Old Europe is a “moderate” gradation of socialism, and is self-destructing. The leftist Democratic Party represents the least severe form of socialism, and blunders into wars it does not have the will to finish (Korea and Vietnam), wastes trillions of dollars on Great Society programs to extremely bad effect, and created the last two major recessions in the USA (Carter and Clinton).
Now Chavez is destroying Venezuela, following the model you are so fond of. We have already had the argument over who destroyed Chile, so who are you going to blame for Venezuela?
Posted by scorp on Apr 2, 2007 at 2:51 AM While your interpretation and cherry-picked examples of superstitious elements in the OT are not entirely without merit, you do so at the expense of other examples that apprehend sublime wisdom and understanding. You are separating the wheat from the chaff and taking the chaff. You are being even more literalist in your interpretation than even the most regressive Calvinist Fundamentalist. It would appear you have no understanding of metaphor and symbolic representation
The question should be: “WHy aren’t you?”. This is a book written by the divine perfect creator of the universe as a handbook to his supposed handpicked religion. Do you question your God’s perfection, and if so, what does that have to say about your faith?
Your logical mind rejects the cruelty and absurdity, and cherry picks around it, but that still doesn’t alter the fact that you’re required to do what’s in there, and take your chances on the stuff that contradicts other things.
Why would an all powerful/knowing being need a second covenant, as it wouldn’t be capable of making a mistake?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Thou shalt love thy JEWISH neighbor. Thou ist not required to love the non-believers,and is instead required to smite them
I’m not the one lacking intellectual honesty, anyone who defends that book by ignoring all of the hate, murder and destruction it orders and only taking the “good parts” is the one with the problem.
call names all right AFTER I have refuted the bizarre arguments of psychotics like Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, the not so luminous nonbeauty who posts her granddaughters pix on the web as her own and the aging, ancient, foulsmelling sanhedrin practitioner of Soviet style psychiatry witchdoctorism, wizzywoo. According to Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates the Oakland Police and
the killer vet are everyone on the planet. Hmmmmmmm. Strange even for an Ohioan. What happened to Governor Bob, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates ? Or Big Roy B The Great Hope of the Ohio GOP ? Voters told Roy, Two jigs and a boo to you ! Well, stealing elections at the Prez level dont work out in the end. Now, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, I never threatened you. Sorry, that you, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, real the need to inflate your own importance via imaginary threats. WoozyJoo and LB, I will pass on the joint wordsalad you two lovebirds have been posting, off topic as usual. Woozy, she aint no catch at all, its a bad fish youd throw back in the water. And unluminous nonbeauty, woozyjoo has a face that looks like Chicago Crabbies hemorrhoids.
Woozy likes to jack off in stalinophile courts but they ruled he has no standing and has been barred from all courts as a vexatious litigant, the only except being his forthcoming malpratice and license revocation trial. Its been loads of fun but have to get back to the real world. Good luck, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, WoozyJoo and Unluminous Nonbeauty, all three of you have an equal chance at the game of playing handball with your own feces in the big rubber room.Wow, I think we broke him :)
I’d really love to get an IP compare between him and Scorp too. I think they’re both Mike.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 2, 2007 at 7:42 AM WickyWoo,
The word JEWISH is YOUR interpolation, your interpretation. The NT is not Jewish scripture. It is not what most Christians believe. It is only what you believe they should believe according to your interpretation. This is solipsism. You are again being intellectually dishonest and torturing reason to boot. Thrice have ye denied thine error. Time for the rooster to crow, eh?
If one looks at the OT as an historical document of a single ethnic tradition in comparison with those of other historical traditions one can begin to map the story of humankind’s gradual ethical development and evolution. Even the most regressive sectarian groups are evolving from generation to generation as the empirical conditions of human civilization change, in spite of how tenaciously they cling to traditional beliefs. It is often two steps forward, one step backward. Sometimes the reverse. One must measure the positive against the negative on a timeline. Dwelling exclusively on the bloodiness and ignorance of our collective past is just as pathological as ignoring it. If you don’t know where you came from, you are clueless as to where you’re going.
Don’t worry about Mikey being broken. He doesn’t. [insert vapid smiley face or lol here, in case recipient doesn’t get the joke because it is so lame]
Scorpy,
C’mon old man. Take that broken record off the turntable and say something on topic for once.
Your insistence on projecting and imputing the motives of others only speaks to the lack of insight you have to your own.
Your notions of cause and effect are, I daresay, magical thinking. The religion of the Invisible Hand that brings All that is Good into the World. Sorry, but in reality it doesn’t work out so well.
How about those oil prices, eh?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2007 at 2:40 PM Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates , the last great recession was under George W. Bush, 2001-2005. In 2004 as a candidate for reelection Bush was the first President since Herbert Hoover to have no new net gains in jobs. The two worst previous recessions/depressions before Bush 2 were Reagan from 1981-84, the worst up till that time. But that dubious record was then topped by George H.W. Bush from late 1990-1993. In fall 1991 we had the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, reaching double digits here in California, Michigan, Alabama, Pennsylvania and several other sates. Your stinky little ass, Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates, has been publicly spanked here several times by myself alone just on this issue. Furthermore, Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates, there were not “trillions of dollars” spent on Great Society programs, it spent several billions but never reached into the tens of billions. The welfare that you are thinking of, Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates, is the Pentagon Welfare Corporate Socialist, that one has indeed spent many trillions of dollars just since the failed of Ronald McDonald Reagan. When Reagan was first diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, my retort was “How can they tell ?” It turns he had Alzheimers during his whole Presidency, see Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard, available from the lew rockwell.com website. Now Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates, what’s the obsession with Chavez ? Granted, he’s a thug but so is Bush-Cheney on a much bigger scale. The US public repudiated B-C last fall and how’s that surge going ? 551 dead in Iraq just last week ! Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates, you are not going to get your GOP gooper doobie button this week because your nonarguments were of unusually poor quality. You are right, you do not enough intelligence to be a government agent, my mistake, Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates.
LB, I had never intended to get into the subject of holocaust revisionism but three or four months that stupid hemorrhoids face fuck Shitcago accused me of this “denial” bullshit when I brought out
merely the standard alleged dates of the “holocaust” which are given from summer 42 to summer 44. Wiesenthal, Vad Vashem, et al, give these as the standard dates. No controversy. I was responding to that moron Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates who wrote the “holocaust” started in 1933. Then hemorrhoids colostomy bag fuckface Shitcago Crabs rushed in to accuse me of being
a revisionist, well I am, though there was nothing revisionist about my rebuttal to Scorp Doobie AKA
Master Bates. It’s gone ever since but I’m calling a halt because I am sick of repeating myself for the
umpteenth time.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM The word JEWISH is YOUR interpolation, your interpretation. The NT is not Jewish scripture. It is not what most Christians believe. It is only what you believe they should believe according to your interpretation. This is solipsism. You are again being intellectually dishonest and torturing reason to boot. Thrice have ye denied thine error. Time for the rooster to crow, eh?
Go call over to your local university and find a professor of anthropology. He’ll tell you the same thing
I don’t care what they believe. What they choose to cherry pick and what they are required to believe are 2 different things in virtually all cases. They are the hypocrites and the intellectually dishonest. IF they cannot trust their god and do what he says, then they lack faith, which is defined as belief without evidence, so why have religion?
Because it’s a learned mental illness passed down from generation to generation. It’s “comfort food”, but one that can, has, and will continue to destroy the world.
If one looks at the OT as an historical document of a single ethnic tradition in comparison with those of other historical traditions one can begin to map the story of humankinds gradual ethical development and evolution.
The OT is so wrought with basic scientific and factual errors, no one could possibly take it seriously as history. You may as well go looking for the grave of Johnny Tremain. Jericho for example was abandoned at the time when Joshua supposedly blew the walls down, and none of the wreckage shows any sign of crumbling from anything but old age (oh and the walls weren’t that high either). The tribe of Israel in actuallity occupied a very small area of present day Israel, and there is absolutely no record of the Exodus, or a tribe of people wandering around the area for 40 years(in actuality, the distance supposedly traveled would take no more than 10 days on foot)
Even the most regressive sectarian groups are evolving from generation to generation as the empirical conditions of human civilization change, in spite of how tenaciously they cling to traditional beliefs. It is often two steps forward, one step backward. Sometimes the reverse. One must measure the positive against the negative on a timeline. Dwelling exclusively on the bloodiness and ignorance of our collective past is just as pathological as ignoring it. If you dont know where you came from, you are clueless as to where youre going.
Again, you attempt to insert logic and rational thought into an entity that not only forbids it, but historically has actively seeked to destroy it. Whether it’s the Christian right’s attempts to discredit evolution today, or Galileo. You still keep dodging the issue that this is a book created by the all-powerful/knowing creator of the universe. Questioning his ways is foolhardy, since he knows everything, and hence wouldnt’ need to make a second convenant with mankind because he would have known from the beginning of time it wouldn’t work. Why are you giving their complete intellectual dishonesty a bye, and since I’m just pointing out the other things they have to believe, and the context to which those things they claim are good were actually applied when they were written
Its gone ever since but Im calling a halt because I am sick of repeating myself for the
umpteenth time.I accept your surrender, and trust you’ll get the mental help you require.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 2, 2007 at 5:30 PM WickyWoo,
Again, it is YOUR intellectual honesty and not that of religious folk with which I am concerned. We can discuss that when you have corrected the small errors in your argument which I have pointed out. Until then, your credibility is questionable.
Any anthropologist who has as non-objective and simple-minded a view of religion as you is a failure in his profession.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2007 at 5:50 PM P.S. The OT is an historical document because it dates from approx 3000 years in the past, not because it is necessarily accurate. Analysis of such documents requires some depth of comparative understanding, which you obviously lack.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2007 at 5:56 PM Any anthropologist who has as non-objective and simple-minded a view of religion as you is a failure in his profession.
And anthropologist will confirm the isolationism of the tribes populating the area at the time. Remember, “thou shalt not murder, now go genocide the Caananites”
Again, it is YOUR intellectual honesty and not that of religious folk with which I am concerned. We can discuss that when you have corrected the small errors in your argument which I have pointed out. Until then, your credibility is questionable.
There are no errors in my arguement. Are they or are they not obeying the words of the all powerful/knowing creator of the universe, Yes or no?
Are they cherry picking? Yes
I’m pointing out their hypocrisy, and how their lack of using their intellect creates danger for everyone. You’re saying that because they believe good things that they shouldn’t be questioned. When their god commands them to murder, they fail to obey, but they only obey the good things(and usually not those in actual practice). If you believe in God, you must beieve he is perfect, and believe everything without question, because who are you to question an omnipotent being? And how can you love such a hateful, destructive thing as Yaweh?
The entire root of Judeo-Christianity is hate and fear. It’s not something to be admired
I highly suggest you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and The End of Faith by Sam Harris (unlike Mikey’s people, NYT bestsellers, and widely respected in their particular fields)
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 2, 2007 at 6:00 PM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH———-NYT bestsellers !
That means it must be true, eh ? Actually Harris is a raving Zionist apologist and has a half-assed attack on Chomsky for all the wrong reasons. Dawkins is ok but nothing special. George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God for 34 years has been the best book on the subject. Argument From Authority is as much a logical fallacy as Argumentum Ad Hominem or the Argument From Intimidation. Some atheists like Woo are as bad in using shitty arguments as the religious wacko set like LB. Don’t forget that modern socialism and communism are religious sects too.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 2, 2007 at 6:17 PM P.S. The OT is an historical document because it dates from approx 3000 years in the past, not because it is necessarily accurate. Analysis of such documents requires some depth of comparative understanding, which you obviously lack.
Bull. It’s a colleciton of narratives by a jillion different authors, which is one of the reasons for the contradictions (like the 2 different creation myths)
I’ve madea statement about cultural attitudes of the time, you deny it, I offered you a method to confirm what i said, and you don’t want to hear it
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 2, 2007 at 6:19 PM You still have yet to answer why you think getting rid of religion would solve anything. Human ambition seems to be much more harmful than religion. Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, et al were quite harmful in a humanistic way and they weren’t acting from religion. Hell, even the “religious” atrocities can be attributed to human ambition and desire for worldly power.
It seems as if you have an obsession with religion (as you kept bringing it up even in the holocaust canard), and mental health. Apparently you feel 95% of the world should be put in mental institutions and only people with your enlightenment are truly sane. It’s somewhat egotistical and equally intolerant of these exclusive religious cults.
What beauty is saying is obviously being twisted to mean something else in your head. You can’t say, “If you really believe the Bible you have to kill people because Jesus said so” and then quote something entirely out of context. You destroy your points by using such ridiculous argumentation. Added to it the insults you add when anyone points it out, you’re not doing a very good job of getting your point across.
And then you make claims such as there is no historical Jesus where there are at least 8 other contemporary sources outside of the religious writings for Jesus. You claim some person who lived after the Apostles was the model of Jesus. It lends to very sorry credibility to your arguments.
Posted by glocksout on Apr 2, 2007 at 6:47 PM The whole fucking unholy bible is full of war and incest and pornography and sexual perversion and genocide. It was obviously written many times over by multiple writers at different times and it
is too similar to recycled Arabian tales to be authentic. That some lunatic claimed he was the son of god, of virgin birth and resurrected hardly makes it true ! Even a guillible person like you should see through THAT. The Romans were right to nail this lunatic’s sorry ass.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 2, 2007 at 7:05 PM WickyWoo,
The errors you have made, which I have been so patient and generous in pointing out, are particular and specific and not a general refutation of your presentation. Nonetheless, it is pointless to engage you on the matter unless you can demonstrate the intellectual honesty to recognise them.
I have read Harris and Dawkins. They lack any professional expertise in anthropology or comparative religion and their popular works can mostly be dismissed as political screed rather than actual scientific analysis. Something that is true for the Gospels rather than as being theological expositions as well. You might study the works of Joseph Cambell, Mircea Eliade, Francisco Varela, Charles Tart, Gregory Bateson, Elaine Pagels, et al., to get a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.
A great deal of neurophysical research points to the conclusion that the human brain is hard-wired for spirituality and religion. You are yourself demonstrating an unreflective and primitive religious affectation for atheism. If it is a disease, it is most likely a congenital one. Life itself can easily be considered a fatal disease. As Hank Williams famously said:
“No matter how I struggle and strive,
I’ll never get out of this world alive.”There are substantial existential reasons, as well, for believing there is a cognizable spiritual dimension to human experience. I am currently reading “The Dalai Lama at MIT”. It might offer some insight as to where your assumptions are less than comprehensive.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2007 at 7:38 PM You still have yet to answer why you think getting rid of religion would solve anything. Human ambition seems to be much more harmful than religion
Because religion has an all-powerful bye, the questioning of millenia of tradition, and an all powerful being to back it up. You can defeat men, but not ideas, and the ultimate, societal faux paus to ever question is god.
And people take an entirely different attitude, as a rule, with of course exceptions, usually far more compassionate and far more valuing of humanity and life when they realize when you’re dead you’re dead, and that prayer does no good at all, and to steal a phrase which i know is not the original intent of it, “God helps those who help themselves, but since you already helped yourself what does god have to do with it?”
It seems as if you have an obsession with religion (as you kept bringing it up even in the holocaust canard), and mental health. Apparently you feel 95% of the world should be put in mental institutions and only people with your enlightenment are truly sane. Its somewhat egotistical and equally intolerant of these exclusive religious cults
I’m not the one who believes in invisible sky fairys that grant wishes and take me to Chuck E Cheese for all of eternity when I die.
I firmly believe in the forbidding of from-birth indoctrination. Without it, religion would die in a few generations except for the fringes. Children are programmed from birth to about age 7 to believe, and imprint on themselves pretty much whatever they’re told. Watch “Jesus Camp” and you’ll see what I mean. Here’s 8-10 year olds spouting verbatim phrases obviously learned from adults that they have no real understanding of. Why? Because they’ve been programmed to do so.
Why should I be tolerant of beliefs that are not only ludicrous, but violent, genocidal, and have contributed to many of the world’s ills? How is that deserving of respect? If I claimed to you that Froo-Froo the Magical Hippo created the world, and answers all wishes, and commands you to smite all those not willing to wear the sacred chamber pot on my head, you would laugh at me, even if it’s behind my back
Yet all Froo-Froo lacks is 4000 years of meme compared to Yahweh, Jesus, Thor whatever.
What beauty is saying is obviously being twisted to mean something else in your head. You cant say, If you really believe the Bible you have to kill people because Jesus said so and then quote something entirely out of context. You destroy your points by using such ridiculous argumentation. Added to it the insults you add when anyone points it out, youre not doing a very good job of getting your point across
There’s the “out of context” arguement again. Go back and read ALL the passages cited
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 2, 2007 at 7:39 PM You still have yet to answer why you think getting rid of religion would solve anything. Human ambition seems to be much more harmful than religion
Because religion has an all-powerful bye, the questioning of millenia of tradition, and an all powerful being to back it up. You can defeat men, but not ideas, and the ultimate, societal faux paus to ever question is god.
And people take an entirely different attitude, as a rule, with of course exceptions, usually far more compassionate and far more valuing of humanity and life when they realize when you’re dead you’re dead, and that prayer does no good at all, and to steal a phrase which i know is not the original intent of it, “God helps those who help themselves, but since you already helped yourself what does god have to do with it?”
It seems as if you have an obsession with religion (as you kept bringing it up even in the holocaust canard), and mental health. Apparently you feel 95% of the world should be put in mental institutions and only people with your enlightenment are truly sane. Its somewhat egotistical and equally intolerant of these exclusive religious cults
I’m not the one who believes in invisible sky fairys that grant wishes and take me to Chuck E Cheese for all of eternity when I die.
I firmly believe in the forbidding of from-birth indoctrination. Without it, religion would die in a few generations except for the fringes. Children are programmed from birth to about age 7 to believe, and imprint on themselves pretty much whatever they’re told. Watch “Jesus Camp” and you’ll see what I mean. Here’s 8-10 year olds spouting verbatim phrases obviously learned from adults that they have no real understanding of. Why? Because they’ve been programmed to do so.
Why should I be tolerant of beliefs that are not only ludicrous, but violent, genocidal, and have contributed to many of the world’s ills? How is that deserving of respect? If I claimed to you that Froo-Froo the Magical Hippo created the world, and answers all wishes, and commands you to smite all those not willing to wear the sacred chamber pot on my head, you would laugh at me, even if it’s behind my back
Yet all Froo-Froo lacks is 4000 years of meme compared to Yahweh, Jesus, Thor whatever.
What beauty is saying is obviously being twisted to mean something else in your head. You cant say, If you really believe the Bible you have to kill people because Jesus said so and then quote something entirely out of context. You destroy your points by using such ridiculous argumentation. Added to it the insults you add when anyone points it out, youre not doing a very good job of getting your point across
There’s the “out of context” arguement again. Go back and read ALL the passages cited. Read back to the beginning of the entire section if you have to, and you’re still ducking the questions of perfection, the need for the second covenant and the fact that the prophecy isn’t fufilled until the second coming, making all OT laws valid (check the passages I cited where Jesus chastises people for not following the laws of moses)
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 2, 2007 at 7:41 PM WickyWoo,
You are the one who is ducking arguments that you are taking quotes out of context. Unless you honestly engage your critics substantively on such initial points, it is meaningless to address those you raise subsequentially.
It is a matter of intellectual honesty.
To recap, Jesus never made the explicit statement that all the contingent rules of Leviticus should be considered to have the legal force of the Commandments. That is your incorrectly infered interpretation and perhaps that of Calvin. In fact, he made implicit arguments against the Pharisees, who did hold such beliefs, that they were not. That is much of the reason he was condemned by the Sanhedrin and much of the reason that Christianity did not remain just a Jewish sect. Or so the narratives say. Regardless, it is not part of Christian doctrine outside of some extreme Fundamentalist sects, and it is meaningless to ascribe it as universal to the whole of the religion.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2007 at 9:08 PM LB, I think WickyWoo and you need to get together for some bad sex. Both of you are babbling over ghosts and superstitutions here, this is becoming very Talmudic and constitutes a hijacking of the thread. You are trying to defend the indefensible and Wicky is looking at his only chance to win a debate on this site. Neither of you would be missed by the larger world.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 2, 2007 at 9:40 PM “Neither of you would be missed by the larger world.”
Mikey,
True perhaps, but on the other hand, your absence from this site and the larger world would be cause for celebration.
P.S. You are as clueless as WickyWoo as to what I am ‘defending’.
It’s called intellectual honesty. A term as alien to you as collegiality.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 2, 2007 at 10:08 PM How about simple intellectual COHERENCE, loony ? That would be a great start…....
Posted by blondemike on Apr 2, 2007 at 10:55 PM To recap, Jesus never made the explicit statement that all the contingent rules of Leviticus should be considered to have the legal force of the Commandments
MATTHEW
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.In other words, valid till the end of the world.
He says “the law”, not the 10 commandments. And “not one jot or tittle” is to be taken away. It’s allll valid.
And which 10 commandments? The “classic” set, or the only one called the ten commandments?
EXODUS 20 (classic)
1. Thou shall have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shall not make thee any graven images.
3. Thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and mother that you may live long.
6. Thou shall not murder.
7. Thou shall not commit adultery. .
8. Thou shall not steal.
9. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shall not covet.So after Moses breaks the tablets, and decides he’s sorry, God tells him to go back to the mountain and get himself a new set. Seems Most Perfect has changed his mind about what those 10 are in the meantime though, but only the second set are called the “10 commandments” in the text.
EXODUS 34(1-28)
(34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.)
1. Make no covenant with the people where thou goest.
2. Thou shall not worship any other god.
3. Thou shall not make any molten gods.
4. The feast of unleavened bread shall thou keep.
5. The first offspring from every womb belongs to me.
6. Rest on the seventh day.
7. Observe the feast of weeks.
8. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
9. The first of the fruits of thy land belong to me.
10. Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milkThat is much of the reason he was condemned by the Sanhedrin and much of the reason that Christianity did not remain just a Jewish sect
Christianity didn’t remain a Jewish sect because a Roman emperor decided that it was a great propoganda tool. It’s as simple as that. Before that it was a simple stupid Sunni/Shiite situation where people would kill each other over whether the savior had come or not(with Sunnis and Shiites the root is a disagreement over Mohammed’s successor)
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 3, 2007 at 5:36 AM Wicky
I enjoyed the verbal thrashing of our resident holocaust denial dipshit Mikey.
I would offer one point on Exodus 34 in the first verse I am tells Moses to cut two tablets of stone like the first and I will write upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke. The implication being the same commandments. The covenant between I am and the people as you described is not the “ten commandments” but an extension of the original covenant with Abraham. If you read Chapter 24 verse 3 Moses reads the original commandments to the people and they agree to the terms of that contract. After the breaking of the tablets there are no new revelations by Moses to the people of the supposed “new commandments”. Without a revelation of new terms and an acceptance by the people the original contact is still valid.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 3, 2007 at 4:35 PM Then why list 10 new commandments? Specifically 10 new ones?
Don’t forget, we’re talking the same book with 2 seperate creation myths in the first few pages. (Lilith and Eve)
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 3, 2007 at 5:11 PM WickyWoo,
I concede that much of what you say is factually correct. (not the attribution of the spread of Christianity outside the Jewish community to Constantine, though.) From a reductionist and a-metaphorical POV, anyhow. Much is also subjective interpretation.
However, it is only a superficial understanding that only exacerbates and does not solve nor point to a solution of the underlying problem.
D.T. Suzuki once said something like this about Christianity:
“God against Man, Man against God, God against Nature, Nature against God, Man against Nature, Nature against Man… funny religion!”
It is true that Christians have (often, not always) fought against Jews, Jews have fought against Christians, Moslems have fought against Christians, Christians have fought against Moslems, Jews have fought against Moslems and Moslems have fought against Jews. They have all fought among themselves.
From my perspective, they are all part of the same mono-theistic religion. They are all the children of Abraham.
By entering into this religious fray, you are only stirring the pot by the addition of Atheists against Theists and vice versa.
Don’t even try telling me atheism is not a religious belief. Without theism there is no atheism. It is an a priori dependence. Not believing in God is a metaphysical belief. There is no scientific basis for it. No experimental evidence. No data. No mathematical analysis. The existence of God has not been, and very likely, cannot be falsified by material experiment nor observation of sensate experience.
God is, by definition, not a physical object. God is beyond grammatical definition. God is immeasurable. God cannot be defined except in the negative. All positive attributions of God are metaphorical and mythopoetic guides for personalizing religious faith among God believers. (re-read this sentence three times for comprehension)
God is a cipher for what lies beyond ordinary rational understanding. The only way one can rationally conclude God does not exist is to have perfect and complete understanding of everything that exists and does not exist.
Though I don’t personally believe in God, it is a useful term for those who do. You won’t get anywhere with such people by insisting they denounce the term as meaningless. If you wish to understand them, you must try to understand what is meaningful to them, not by imposing your own meaning on their beliefs.
Versteh’?
So, what is the real root of the problem? Any ideas?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 5:20 PM It is true that Christians have (often, not always) fought against Jews, Jews have fought against Christians, Moslems have fought against Christians, Christians have fought against Moslems, Jews have fought against Moslems and Moslems have fought against Jews. They have all fought among themselves.
From my perspective, they are all part of the same mono-theistic religion. They are all the children of Abraham.
By entering into this religious fray, you are only stirring the pot by the addition of Atheists against Theists and vice versa.
Considering how long theist have been doing up to and including killing atheists for their denial of their fantasies, it’s nothing new. The only new thing is that there are starting to be a few people like me who are willing to fight back.
Dont even try telling me atheism is not a religious belief. Without theism there is no atheism. It is an a priori dependence. Not believing in God is a metaphysical belief. There is no scientific basis for it. No experimental evidence. No data. No mathematical analysis. The existence of God has not been, and very likely, cannot be falsified by material experiment nor observation of sensate experience.
It’s not, Atheism means “without theism”. There is no codified belief system, no formal structure, no nothing. Herding atheists makes herding cats look like waving a steak at a dog, believe me, I’ve tried.
You cannot scientifically prove a negative, you are correct, however science DOES require the person making the claim to prove it, and you certainly CAN disprove individual gods. Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no metaphysical conciousness that caused the creation of the universe? No. Can i prove that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah is as unlikely as evolution or gravity is likely? Yes.
The burden of proof is on the believer. Considering that prayer, miracles, and virtually every other aspect of a divine being points to the negative every time they’re tested, the believer is going to lose that battle every time.
God is a cipher for what lies beyond ordinary rational understanding. The only way one can conclude God does not exist is to have perfect and complete understanding of everything that exists and does not exist.
Don’t try a variation of Pascal’s wager on me, it’s not going to work.
God is an excuse not to think. A swiss army knife of easy explanations designed for a simpler time when people didn’t have the resources, methods or advancement to try to find the answers to those questions. If people were not taught it from birth, it would not be a factor.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 3, 2007 at 5:44 PM Not believing in God is a religious belief. It does not require a systemic philosophy to back it up. But atheists do apply systemic philosophy to substantiate their belief, anyway, don’t they? Even if they don’t all agree. Traditional religionists don’t all agree, either, do they?
Pascal’s Wager? I don’t think so. Not a good sign of your analytic capabilities.
All positive attributions of God are metaphorical and mythopoetic guides for personalizing religious faith among God believers. (re-read this sentence three times for comprehension)
All positive attributions of God are metaphorical and mythopoetic guides for personalizing religious faith among God believers. (re-read this sentence three times for comprehension)
All positive attributions of God are metaphorical and mythopoetic guides for personalizing religious faith among God believers. (re-read this sentence three times for comprehension)
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 6:00 PM “God is an excuse not to think.”
So, what is your excuse?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 6:03 PM You cannot scientifically prove a negative, you are correct
This is not what I said.
It is only scientifically possible to falsify (prove negative) a specific characteristic of an hypothesis through experimental observation and measurement and mathematical analysis. If it is not falsified, it is not proven true, nor, if falsified, is the general hypothesis necessarily falsified, only that specific characteristic of the general hypothesis being tested. The general hypothesis may possibly be altered to take account of the falsification.
It is by building on repeated testing of an hypothesis and its robust resistance to falsification, that a hypothesis rises to the status of scientific theory. It is never proven absolutely true, but only assigned a high degree of likelihood, pending some unknown possible future falsification and modification.
Spiritual truth, however, is positively proven by subjective spiritual experience. Objective explanations of that experiential spiritual reality, however, are subject to broad interpretation, none of which ever breach the cognitive divide between direct experience and indirect observation. Only genuine spiritual apperception can cross that divide.
It is like a joke. You either get it or you don’t.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM Not believing in God is a religious belief. It does not require a systemic philosophy to back it up. But atheists do apply systemic philosophy to substantiate their belief, anyway, dont they? Even if they dont all agree. Traditional religionists dont all agree, either, do they?
religion noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.Let’s see, atheism fails all but maybe #6, though most atheists are too apathetic. to do so, and most of the rest of us would RATHER not have to spend our lives disproving the delusions of others
Pascals Wager? I dont think so. Not a good sign of your analytic capabilities.
That’s why I said “variation”. You’re skating just this side of that “you can’t prove he’s not there, so it’s better to believe to be safe” line.
So, what is your excuse?
I’m not the one not thinking, nor am I the one defending and enabling the mentally ill. If the bible says it, you must believe it, unquestioningly. Your god creator of the universe orders it, you must obey. You keep trying to inject rationality into a system designed for unquestioning obedience lest one face eternal punishment.
Why do you make excuses for them? Why do you find mental illness to be a positive virtue?
All positive attributions of God are metaphorical and mythopoetic guides for personalizing religious faith among God believers
All positive attributions of God are cherry picked from among the horrors and atrocities, and adjusted to fit the believer’s personal psyche so that they can merge the rational and the irrational into something that doesn’t make their brains explode
“Smart people are excellent at justifying things they came to believe for non-smart reasons”- Michael Shermer.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 3, 2007 at 6:36 PM Yeah, definition 6. Live with it.
“You keep trying to inject rationality into a system designed for unquestioning obedience lest one face eternal punishment.
Not what I am trying to do at all. I am reasoning about why people cling to belief, I am neither embracing nor denying it. Just saying they’re nuts is not helpful. Can you show every religious person is demonstrably insane? It is an opinion based on opinion and scientifically irrational in itself.
You have perfected The Theory of Everything? You know the Absolute Truth? You can express it in finite terms? Spare me.
You are projecting your own metaphysical belief. Not science. Not sane.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 6:55 PM By positive attribution, I mean God is x, as opposed to a negative attribution, God is not x.
Not positive in an ethical sense. In a logical sense.
Clear?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 7:05 PM WickyWoo,
You seem to believe that Divine Retribution is the totality of religious ethical development. It is not. It is only the first level of any system of ethical development, associated with parental authority over toddlers. It is the most ancient and most basic ethical understanding we have and the ineluctible foundation for further development. Ethical development progresses through various levels as the individual matures. The highest level of development we have so far identified is the spiritual ideal of universal ethical understanding. There is, as yet, no scientific verification of this level, but it is comprehensible. This is what spiritual teachers like Jesus are trying to convey. It is difficult and subtle and it is no wonder that followers of such teachers often fall short of perfect understanding.
That you have no awareness of this is not surprizing at all.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 7:32 PM Yeah, definition 6. Live with it.
As I said, definition 6 does not apply to many, if not most atheists, and only those of us who see that we have to fight fire with fire against the theists. The other ones can continue to get run over by the theistic steamroller and demonized, I don’t choose to go quietly to the gas chambers of marginalization.(bet Mikey will love that one), while ignorance and mental illness are celebrated and financed with public dollars.
Not what I am trying to do at all. I am reasoning about why people cling to belief, I am neither embracing nor denying it. Just saying theyre nuts is not helpful. Can you show every religious person is demonstrably insane? It is an opinion based on opinion and scientifically irrational in itself.
Do they believe in invisible people who affect the world for whom there is no evidence, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, insist they are real and give money to, and create organizations around said invisible people to convince others? That’s mental illness to a T. They are delusional, whether a delusion involves one person, a thousand, million or a trillion doesn’t make it any less of an delusion.
You have perfected The Theory of Everything? You know the Absolute Truth? You can express it in finite terms? Spare me.
I don’t have to. I’m not making a claim, I’m merely calling BS on the claims of others. It is up to the claimant to prove it correct,
To put it more simply:
I don’t have to prove that your miracle cure for all cancers doesn’t work, it’s up to YOU to havea 100% success rate with all those treated over a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise you’re just selling snake oil.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 3, 2007 at 7:33 PM Wicky
If you read Gensis you will find that Chapter two is not a new creation but a defining of the process of creation. Verse 4 says “These are the generations of the heavens and earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb had sprung up- for the Lord God had not caused it rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground” then the text describes the process of the creation of man in detail. This is confusing to many.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 3, 2007 at 7:45 PM Sorry, they’re different and contradictory
For example:
First story, Humans made after animals, and man and woman created at the same time
GENESIS
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he themSecond Story. Humans created first, Man, then animals, then woman
GENESIS
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 3, 2007 at 7:53 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Zack Exley
- Preaching Revolution
A new evangelical movement offers lessons for the left
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
