This is an example of the all pervasive mind fuck these religious arseholes are spreading through time and the lives of others....
Going back a few thousand years... the "jews" were holocausting the fuck out of the middle east...
All sorts of off springs of that evil cult, were slaughtering millions over the centuries in Europe and where ever they spread their plauge by "missionary".
Then comes the people in Germany..... the most christian country in the world.
Alois Hitler June 7, 1837 – January 3, 1903) was the father of Adolf Hitler. Baptized Roman Catholic at infancy. Remained Roman Catholic his whole life.
Cathoholic / Alcoholic - used to bash the crap out of Adolf when he was a child...
Klara Hitler (August 12, 1860 - December 21, 1907), was the mother of Adolf Hitler by her husband Alois. She was a devout Roman Catholic and went to church regularly.
"I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits", said Hitler... "Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party... I am going to let you in on a secret... I am founding an Order... In my "Burgs" of the Order, we will raise up a youth which will make the world tremble... Hitler then stopped, saying that he couldn't say any more.." Hermann Rauschning, former national-socialist chief of the government of Dantzig: "Hitler m'a dit", (Ed. Co-operation, Paris 1939, pp.266, 267, 273 ss).
And lately:
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8396/Anti-gay-hatemail-hits-Melbou...
Residents of Melbourne (Australia) are disgusted that “nasty, discriminating hatemail” has arrived unsolicited into their mailboxes this week.
The ‘10 Reasons Why homosexual ‘marriage’ is harmful and should be opposed’ pamphlet is courtesy of Catholic group Australian TFP and their new campaign Defending Natural Marriage.
Included among the ‘reasons’ the leaflet details are a number of anti-gay slurs designed to vilify homosexuals as sinful and unnatural.
The fear-mongering ‘slippery slope’ argument has rarely been as nakedly employed as it is here. Quote: “If homosexual ‘marriage’ is universally accepted as the present step in sexual ‘freedom’, what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?”
It is not known how many properties have received the leaflet this week.
“It’s just wrong that they do a letter drop,” says a concerned Melbourne resident who shared it on Facebook today, prompting several shocked reactions.
“I’m not gay, however my housemate is, and so are many friends of mine,” he tells Same Same. “I have no issue with the church being opposed to gay marriage, it’s a religious ceremony. But do go to these lengths, and to basically go into letterboxes saying how wrong it is to be ‘gay’ is just unfair.”
“Disgusting, discriminating junkmail,” comments about the pamphlet on his Facebook page summed up. “It’s thoughtless nonsense like this that divides society.”
The full text of the pamphlet is shown below.
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarily in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
“The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So this is all of the same mind fuck bullshit used by arseholes like Bill Wilson and the christian cult, and their mind fuck bullshit in the AA "spiritual" program of recovery.
You want to know why AA is so bad, why is so dangerous for the recovering person?
Because it's cult based.
Comments
FrankM
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 04:34
Permalink
No Unhinged, I just don't
No Unhinged, I just don't believe that everything in this world was created by accident. I have had things happen in my life that I don't think just happened by chance. I don't view my beliefs as an insurance policy. Lol
Unhinged
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 04:41
Permalink
FrankM.
"I just don't believe that everything in this world was created by accident."
Who said the world was created by accident?
"I have had things happen in my life that I don't think just happened by chance."
Care to share?
FrankM
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 04:59
Permalink
Unhinged, you either believe
Unhinged, you either believe in intelligent design or you believe this entire universe is here by chance, or a progression of events outside of intelligent design. Is there another belief?
Unhinged
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 05:11
Permalink
FrankM.
Something from nothing.
I don't believe in intelligent design. I don't believe the entire universe is here by chance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing:_Why_There_is_Somet...
So please share with me the things that have happened to you that couldn't have happened by chance.
FrankM
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 05:38
Permalink
If that is your view so be it
If that is your view so be it. Happy trails, not here to debate religion.
Unhinged
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 05:49
Permalink
FrankM
You were debating with 'Jesus-is-Fraud' about religion.
Let's talk about the things that have happened to you that couldn't possibly have happened by chance. Go on.
Jesus-is-Fraud
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 06:37
Permalink
Ummmm no - that is another teaching of the religious neurotics
I say what I say... because I like really enjoy calling the religious manipulators on their mind fuck bullshit.
What you have on your screen is lots of little black marks, that you choose to interpret as having certain meanings, and to which you choose to tell yourself that you must have certain reactions.
That is all your fault, and it's all your problem.
"Oh I believe" - not because I have any evidence, it's because that is what everyone has told me that I must do.
OK so your blaming me for all the bullshit that goes around inside your own head, and the bullshit that you have going around inside your own head, is as a result of what other people have impressed upon you, that you must have going around inside your own head - and the fact that you have chosen to make yourself upset, is all my fault.
OK..... so what is part 2 in Frank M's lessons in Emotional Health?
Unhinged
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 06:43
Permalink
Jesus-is-Fraud.
Jesus, Jesus-is-Fraud,
You've certainly cut down on the profanities. You only said "fuck" once.
avogadno
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 09:16
Permalink
By your own argument JiF, the
By your own argument JiF, the little black spots in Frank M. 's posts that you are criticizing come from your mind which was influenced by other forces, occurring all through your lifetime.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
FrankM
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 13:17
Permalink
J.I.F,
J.I.F,
You seem to me to be the one making the accusations. I am not blaming you for anything but vulgar posting, which by the way, turns a lot of people off. So you think I am blaming you for what's in my head, don't flatter yourself. Quite frankly, I perceive you as an arrogant know it all bully type with a very strange take on life. I am quite happy with what's in my head, and believe me you had nothing to do with it's content. I hope for your sake that your views are correct.
Persephone In Exile
Sat, 05/12/2012 - 19:46
Permalink
They're not stopping at that,
They're not stopping at that, either:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/12/tennessee-governor/
Well, I realize I could go on and on with the litany of insanity being dreamed up by the anti-science and sex crowd this past year, but I'm a bit tired tonight. Effing Nazis.
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
Jesus-is-Fraud
Sat, 05/12/2012 - 20:13
Permalink
The TEX-ARSE Govenor....
The religious nutters, and the bullshit they pedal has permeated all levels of society.
It's not a standard of emotional health, it's and example of fencing in people and controlling what they must think, how they must react, by defining the insane as sane.... and everyone MUST conform, to them and their bullshit.
ALL the religions are run by lying, manipulative nutters - including AA.
Pogue Mahone
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 06:00
Permalink
Oh poo!
Oh poo!
genejoe
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 06:53
Permalink
1. OH MY GOD!
1. OH MY GOD!
From #6: Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception.
The people or persons who wrote this article are obviously Catholic. They are saying that using a condom is to do violence! I remember Christopher Hitchens ripping Mother Theresa a new 'you know what' in pointing out that she taught, openly, that to get AIDS and suffer and die was to glorify God and you would have eternal life in heaven. But to use a condom to prevent AIDS or unwanted pregnancy was to commit a sin and you would spend eternity in hell.
Folks. This is sick, perverted thinking. It truly shows what the power of faith can do to a persons mind.
2. In my first reply I mentioned that we start with our beliefs, and then find external stuff to support our beliefs. External evidence does not cause us to believe anything. I have beliefs, and then the external world supports my beliefs.
If I believe that the world is a big scarey place and that daddy needs to protect me, I will be more likely to believe in a god, for example. And certainly it depends mostly on where in the world that I was born as to which god I will believe in. I may also view my boss at work as a 'daddy' figure. This is not to say that religion is the only expression of this exampled belief.
The two biggest issues with AA and other religions that I see expressed on this forum are the hypocrisy and damage caused to others.
Here's a common example of hypocrisy: I will allow you to believe whatever you want to believe, but you must express it in the manner that I dictate. LOL Sounds like "don't ask, don't tell".
3. If I reply to something Jesus-is-Fraud said, and I mistype with Jesus-is-Freud, would that be a Freudian slip? (Just a bit of humor.) I did appreciate your last post, J-is-F.
In case some haven't seen this before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UA578yQ5g&feature=related
genejoe
The Invitation, by Oriah Mountain Dreamer
becket
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 06:57
Permalink
Actually, the focus of #6 was
Actually, the focus of #6 was the frustration of the end of the act with a condom, not violence per se. Catholics believe that interrupting the possible fertilization of the egg during intercourse is a mortal sin - no artificial birth control allowed. They call it being "Open To Life". I wouldn't be too concerned about the brainwashing tactics of the Vatican, however; "Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women." (Guttmacher)
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
live_free_or_die
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 07:24
Permalink
becket said "I wouldn't be too concerned
about the brainwashing tactics of the vatican.
Why the fuck not?
Are sexaully experienced catholic women any good in bed or are they feeling shame & guilt during the act becket? You're catholic right?
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
becket
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 08:23
Permalink
I am one woman. I am not
I am one woman. I am not millions of women. If you want an answer to your question design and distribute a questionnaire. Better yet, why not distribute your own sexual prowess amongst the Catholic population and decide for yourself.
Is a good fuck the only thing you're worried about the Vatican interfering with? That's truly typical, thinking with your gonads.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
live_free_or_die
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 13:08
Permalink
kidding allowed becket?
becket I was just wondering if the vatican or the catholic religion got in the way of your lovemaking.
To be honest for once, becket, I am always in search of a good lay. ; ) Never laid a practicing catholic women though, hence my question.
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
becket
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 17:19
Permalink
Catholicism, no; rape and
Catholicism, no; rape and other incidents of physical violence, yes.
There is no such thing as "a catholic women".
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
live_free_or_die
Mon, 05/14/2012 - 21:53
Permalink
ok fine you got me
smiles.
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
gigi
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 08:00
Permalink
#6
Well....I wouldn't be too concerned about the Catholic women who were able to answer that survey question. They obviously had access to birth control and the freedom to choose to use it or not. We should be concerned with the Catholic missionaries-like the sainted Mother Theresa-who make their life's work "helping" people who are too impoverished and oppressed to have these choices available. They "help" by refusing to teach about or provide access to birth control or condoms for prevention of the spread of HIV. All in the name of God. I'm concerned about that. You should be too.
"If I forget who I am, I am myself. If I remember who I am, I am you."
becket
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 08:29
Permalink
Although I take offense at
Although I take offense at your telling me what I should do, I will say that I agree with you on the point of Catholics withholding information and access to birth control or condoms. Women are entitled to control over their own bodies, particularly their reproductive systems. If choices are not available because of religious beliefs to which most of these women to not subscribe, it's a travesty and a disgrace.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Persephone In Exile
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 09:09
Permalink
I guess I really shouldn't
I guess I really shouldn't say, "Amen" to that, Becket, considering the topic...but agreed!
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
Jesus-is-Fraud
Mon, 05/14/2012 - 05:04
Permalink
Your a cathaholic women?....
Hmmmm practicing contraceptive free sex then.....
"Damn you must go through a lot of vaseline!"
becket
Mon, 05/14/2012 - 10:37
Permalink
I am seventeen years past
I am seventeen years past menopause, arsehole. I have no need for contraceptives.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Unhinged
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 07:00
Permalink
Fuck.
genejoe,
I enjoyed that video.
Small minds eh?
Pennywise
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 08:19
Permalink
http://www.reverbnation.com
http://www.reverbnation.com/arnoldzedville#!/artist/artist_songs/1263881
View Lyrics: SHOW ME THE LOVE
Viewing lyrics for SHOW ME THE LOVE by Arnold ZeDville.
SHOW ME THE LOVE
10/3/10
Bb
OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS
Bb
HAVE COME AND GONE
GM
STILL THE FEAR AND APATHY REMAIN
CM
TIME MARCHES ON AND ON
DM
AND STILL DECEIVERS ARE DRONING ON
Eb F
BUT NO ONE CAME AND NO ONE’S COMING AGAIN
Bb
WE ARE ALL WE ARE
Bb
NO SAVIOR’S COMING FROM AFAR
F
WE ARE HEAVEN AND HELL
Bb
WE ARE WHERE LOVE DWELLS
CM
YET WE REMAIN OUTSIDE OURSELVES
F G
UNDER SEPARATION’S SPELL
CHORUS:
Bb
SHOW ME THE LOVE
Bb
NOT DISCONNECTION
F
SHOW ME THE LOVE
Bb
THERE’S NO SALVATION
Bb
SHOW ME THE LOVE
Bb
THAT DWELLS WITHIN YOU
F
SHOW ME THE LOVE
Bb
THAT’S SHINING IN OUR HEARTS
CM DM Bb
OH OH SHOW ME THE LOVE
Bb
OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS
Bb
HAVE COME AND GONE
GM
SINCE THEY SAY YOU CAME TO SAVE ME
CM
TIME MARCHES ON AND ON
DM
AND STILL YOUR LOVE IS GONE
Eb F
YOU’RE NOT COMING BACK TO SET ME FREE
Bb
WE ARE.....
CHORUS
SOLO: Bb CM DM Eb GM X2
Bb CM CM Eb F
Bb
WE ARE.....
CHORUS
Copyright Ron DeVillez 2010
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
humanspirit
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 11:11
Permalink
gay marriage
The bible says many things that no-one sane would take literally. Clara’s lobster bisques, for example, contain as their major ingredient something that is forbidden by the bible. No-one, whether they believe in God or not, takes the myth of the world being created in seven days seriously, unless they are mad. There may be some texts in the bible (and don’t forget that the texts that were included in the bible are pretty random) that say homosexuality is an “abomination”, but those same texts do not condemn Lot for getting drunk and shagging his daughters, for example (the man obviously wasn't working a good program!). The bible forbids eating pork, and how many Christians avoid that particular meat? How many fundamentalist religious people really take the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” seriously? What was seen to be appropriate societal advice and a myth-based interpretation of the world in the Middle East over 4000 years ago should not be used as evidence for conducting social policy now.
What concerns me is that when it comes to issues such a gay marriage, the religious seem to think that their views should hold a greater sway than those of anyone else, whereas the way any society chooses to define marriage should be a secular and democratic decision. If you do not want to enter into a gay marriage yourself, no-one is forcing you to, but why anyone would want to deny that right to others is inexplicable.
avogadno
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 12:41
Permalink
"What concerns me is that
"What concerns me is that when it comes to issues such a gay marriage, the religious seem to think that their views should hold a greater sway than those of anyone else..."
HS, I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to add that anyone's opinion on gay marriage (and a million other judgments), whether religious based or not isn't acceptable. For example, atheists trying to sway another person against their faith by calling them insane.
It would probably be no surprise to anyone that have read my posts to find that I'm Christian. I've claimed before that I can't help having faith any more than another can’t help their sexual preference. For me, there is no choice. I don’t choose to believe, I just do.
I am as disgusted as any by the abominable hypocrisy that extremists extend their supposed righteousness onto others. I pull myself as far away as I can while at the same time try and keep my own faith intact. It isn't easy. I have found myself in many precarious situations, those in which played a strong role in my preference to previously isolate myself.
Denying anyone the freedom of living their lives by their own choosing is hypocritical. They are taking advantage of the respect that they had been given. Politics and Government are the force behind the views.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
becket
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 17:14
Permalink
"For example, atheists trying
"For example, atheists trying to sway another person against their faith by calling them insane." This is a tactic that appears on this forum every single day. Does it not offend you here on the OPF?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
avogadno
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 20:42
Permalink
I disagree that the tactic
I disagree that the tactic (swaying another person against their faith) appears on this forum every day. I've seen people act out defensively, some become rude, some are joking, some are making a point, some are insults. I haven't interpreted anything as a deliberate attempt to change another's belief regarding faith.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
live_free_or_die
Mon, 05/14/2012 - 21:58
Permalink
The insanity of it all Avo
All AA "alcoholics" are, by definition supplied by Bill W (the jesus reincarnate), insane.
Get it becket?
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
avogadno
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 12:54
Permalink
Interestingly HS, the
Interestingly HS, the religious view on eating pork originates from sickness. There was a time when a vast amount of people were dying from eating pork because of diseased animals and improper cooking, etc. The result was a banning of consumption by the Church (in other words their Government) for safety reasons. This was interpreted to be religious doctrine when it is actually comparable to an FDA Administrative decision in today’s world.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
humanspirit
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 14:07
Permalink
Hi Avo
Yes, and that's exactly my point. There are many things in the bible that made absolute sense according to the times and the context in which they were written, the taboo against eating pork (and shellfish) being one of them. As you say, there were many very good, practical reasons for them. What seems to happen these days, though, is that people will latch upon particular bits of the Old Testament that supports their present-day prejudices (such as the prohibition on "man lying with man as a woman") while ignoring other things that suit their convenience. (And such people tend to completely ignore the New Testament too, interestingly.)
I really hope you don't think I was implying that anyone who believes in God is insane, though! I don't think that at all, and am truly sorry if that's what I seemed to be saying! I do have some problems with biblical fundamentalists, I must admit, especially when it comes to them using selective quotes from the bible to justify things that really are unjustifiable in today's terms.
avogadno
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 15:40
Permalink
I wasn't offended at all.
I wasn't offended at all. Really. Although it is sometimes difficult to determine in forum discussion, I didn't find your statements accusatory at all. Thanks for caring about me to double check though :=)
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
becket
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 17:05
Permalink
The ingestion of sherry is
The ingestion of sherry is forbidden in the Bible - where?? Or did someone write that lobster bisque itself is off limits?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
humanspirit
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 18:29
Permalink
fecket
No, the bible doesn't forbid sherry, nor any other kind of alcohol, come to that (until St Paul came along, that is, who told people they should "neither take wine nor strong drink as [their] stimulant". But he was a bit of a nutter in many ways, and best ignored). The bible forbids eating any kind of shellfish or crustacean quite categorically, though.
becket
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 18:32
Permalink
So St. Paul considered Christ
So St. Paul considered Christ a sinner for drinking at weddings?
I didn't ask about the crustacean thing, or about mixing meat and dairy within a dish. That's just good ol' Judaism.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
gigi
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 14:11
Permalink
There are restrictions
There are restrictions against eating pork (cloven hoofed swine) in the Old Testament and the Qua'ran. The animal was deemed unclean. What you're talking about is the one time prevalence of getting trichanosis (spelling?) from eating undercooked pork. Not the same thing. The religious restriction came well before anyone knew about such illness coming from undercooked food. Shrimp and lobster are bottom feeders. I believe that's where that restriction comes from. Personally, I go more with the idea that pork was forbidden because pigs are just a little too similar to humans...intelligent, skin instead of fur, squealing that sounds like a baby crying. Not that any of this really matters-I just think it's interesting.
"If I forget who I am, I am myself. If I remember who I am, I am you."
humanspirit
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 14:46
Permalink
prohibitions against pork
Yes, I agree it's not a matter of great importance, but quite interesting. I think that people probably did learn, over the generations, what foods might be dangerous to them in their particular society. I'm also not too sure about the pigs being close to humans thing either, as that seems to be a modern idea. It also doesn't explain why the Middle Eastern cultures forbade these, whereas in other cultures (for example, in China and much of Asia) the pig is the absolute staple meat, to the extent that if you just use the word "meat" in Chinese, the fact that it's pork is understood, whereas any other type has to be specified.
That's also why I was always puzzled by the story of the Gadarene swine in the new testamant. Why did people actually keep pigs in that society, if not for food? I asked the same question on a recent trip to India when I saw people keeping pigs, even though they are prohibited in both Islam and Hinduism (which tends towards vegetarianism anyway). The answer was that the poorest people - designated "low caste" in India - eat pork because pigs need little looking after, don't need grazing land, and will eat practically anything. I.e., like goats, they are a cheap source of meat. The practicalities of survival tend to override any religious concerns, it seems - quite understandably. I wonder if that's what was going on in the case of the Gadarene herd? (Who all jumped off a cliff anyway, so I suppose it's a bit of an academic question! :) )
avogadno
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 15:35
Permalink
HS and Gigi
Oddly, I was recently criticized by a Catholic (that was at one time a mentor of mine) because I don’t eat meat at all. My choice is not religiously oriented, which was why I was casted as being “wrong” (nice word) by her. Paraphrase, “Since the Bible doesn’t prohibit it, you should”. What I did consider doing, or saying to her, was that I only eating meat on Fridays. I'm glad that I didn't, as she is likely to forever be a part of my life and unfortunately is very sick in the mind. It is these cases that I can easily brush off. She influences no one (so to speak) and only applies this strict biblical interpretation to her own life.
Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
gigi
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 14:50
Permalink
Well, whatever the reason, I
Well, whatever the reason, I could never be part of anything that forbids bacon. Bacon makes everything better.
"If I forget who I am, I am myself. If I remember who I am, I am you."
causeandeffect
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 15:27
Permalink
Hey gigi
Check this out!
http://www.theblackpeppercorn.com/2012/04/bacon-cheeseburger-fatty/
Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
jonnijoy
Sun, 05/13/2012 - 17:04
Permalink
JIS Says;The fact the people
JIS Says;The fact the people USE these words, AND names of parts of the body - and there is SO much shaming about fucking, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, same sex, unmarried relationships, married relationships etc., etc., etc...
And all of this MIND FUCK bullshit comes from the religious people.
JJ says; I couldnt agree with you more brother! Can I get an Amen to that? ;D
Pages