1
   

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 04:57 pm
The itinerary says we'll be visiting Osijek on a tour which is supposed to have more "history" than Vukovar. We are also going to be hosted for lunch by a Croatian family. I would like to bring a small gift to our host family, and wondered if you can make some suggestions on what they might appreciate from the states.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 05:15 pm
MyOwnUsername wrote:
you see - this is exactly what I am talking about - you have no idea about some things.

First of all, I am absolutely sure that this is NOT thing ANYONE should be proud of - but in Croatia ordinary people can own firearms (and that has nothing to do with war ten years ago, it was same before). And in many other countries as far as I know.

And once again, I think that there is much much bigger freedom in fact that our kids are allowed to play videogames without constant bitching of 11,000 "moral" associations and groups (sorry for moderators if I am not allowed to use this word) that they will become criminals, they can watch almost all movies except porn and really extreme extreme violence, they can see ancient roman statues without moral ladies screaming....


As for "our" european presidents I don't see difference between taking money from Saddam and from same or maybe even worse dictators like Saudi's.


In England today, citizens cannot own firearms and keep them at home. There have been infamous cases of people trying to protect themselves from armed intruders in their own homes in England and going to prison for it in recent years. Americans rightly view that as a judicial system gone mad.

Moreover, you read these horror stories about teen gangs siccing trained barbary apes on victims in France and the people apparently are not allowed to carry any sort of defensive arms, even knives.

As to problems with antique statues or video games in America, you 've clearly been listening to somebody who's never been to America. There simply are no such problems here; that's fiction.

As to taking money from Saddam Hussein, I've never heard or seen anybody try to claim any sort of a moral equivalence between that and having ordinary business relations with Saudi Arabia before. Did you make that up yourself or is that something which you've seen or read elsewhere?

Quote:

So I can just shortly say: almost all leaders of partisan guerilla and anti-nazi troops in Balkans were Croats...


As I've read it, the Serbs were the only people in the balkans who didn't side with Hitler and the axis powers. What they say about Zagreb, and which I've read in numerous places, is that it's the only major city on Earth in which you could build a statue of Hitler and half the people would salute it as they walked by. That's why I mentioned the possibility...
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 10:18 pm
Zgreatarteest wrote:
It is a thread, mesquite, that runs through the Bible from
the front cover to the back. But, why should you care?
For what reason on this earth would you be interested?
I seriously would like to know. There are many verses,
chapters and whole books in the Bible that point to that
conclusion, I said, that you are questioning.

It is really quite simple. When you made the statement "you are either with god or against him" it sounded very similar to GW's phrase "you are either with us or the terrorists". I thought that maybe it was a takeoff of a biblical saying, but evidently it was just his ordinary old black or white, nothing in between, simplistic thought.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 10:30 pm
Coastalrat wrote:
Hey, how about human sacrifices. I hear some cultures have done that too. Should I just roll over and allow someone to make that legal here if they want to?

Isn't that the very basis of Christianity as per John 3:16?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 10:37 pm
It's been stated before but I feel the need to reiterate the point. Christians believe that we non-christians are going to burn for eternity in a lake of fire. That to me is an excellent incentive to attempt to refute their ridiculous ancient superstitions.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 10:44 pm
Wilso wrote:
It's been stated before but I feel the need to reiterate the point. Christians believe that we non-christians are going to burn for eternity in a lake of fire......


That's not universally true. I'm a Christian, and I believe you're going to be reincarnated as a cockroach.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 10:58 pm
I think most Christians, including me, believe Christians have neither power nor duty to assign anybody else's place in eternity. But then again, if it isn't true, why the need to refute it?

And Mesquite, neither the ancient or modern Jews nor ancient or modern Christians have ever practiced or condoned human sacrifice.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 10:59 pm
swolf wrote:
Wilso wrote:
It's been stated before but I feel the need to reiterate the point. Christians believe that we non-christians are going to burn for eternity in a lake of fire......


That's not universally true. I'm a Christian, and I believe you're going to be reincarnated as a cockroach.

You are a fine example of your faith.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 11:11 pm
mesquite wrote:
swolf wrote:
Wilso wrote:
It's been stated before but I feel the need to reiterate the point. Christians believe that we non-christians are going to burn for eternity in a lake of fire......


That's not universally true. I'm a Christian, and I believe you're going to be reincarnated as a cockroach.

You are a fine example of your faith.


Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you don't read stories about idiot yuppies being reincarnated as cockroaches is that cockroaches can't communicate?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 11:15 pm
mesquite wrote:
swolf wrote:
Wilso wrote:
It's been stated before but I feel the need to reiterate the point. Christians believe that we non-christians are going to burn for eternity in a lake of fire......


That's not universally true. I'm a Christian, and I believe you're going to be reincarnated as a cockroach.

You are a fine example of your faith.


Yep, ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 12:15 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I think that is true only if the terms are very narrowly defined. I refuse to accept Christian doctrine that is illogical; therefore my faith is implicitly logical.


You must realize how ridiculous that was.

"I refuse to accept that the sky is blue, therefore it must be orange."
"I refuse to accept that I'm wrong, therefore I must be right."

Seems mighty delusional. Either something is illogical, meaning it fails to follow the laws of logic, or it is logical, meaning it does follow those laws. I have yet to see a Christian (or any theist for that matter) follow the laws of logic. Indeed, because belief and faith in things unknown and unseen is a violation of those laws, holding said beliefs and faiths is an exercise in illogic.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 12:17 am
zgreatarteest wrote:
Yes, because I took some good advice.


At least you admit to being screwed up and backward.

Come on back when you get some psychiatric help.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 12:21 am
I'm going to post this one on several forum on A2K.
***********
Harsh judgement, sure, but do they have a point?




"Are we sure that the extreme Christian fundamentalists who lurk behind President Bush, with their hair-raising attitudes to gays and abortionists, are a lesser threat than the extreme Muslim fundamentalists who lurk behind several Middle Eastern regimes?"

Flaws in the American way of life

What the New Statesman and several of its commentators such as John Pilger and Ziauddin Sardar have said for the past two years is now being accepted across the political spectrum. The Independent's ex-editor Andreas Whittam Smith compares George W Bush and Tony Blair to Stalin - a comparison at which even the most dedicated anti-Americans would have baulked until now.

In the London Evening Standard, the political commentator Peter Oborne calls the US "a rogue state". The editor of Newsweek International,
Fareed Zakaria, acknowledges that, to much of the world, the US is "an international outlaw". The proposition that America had the slightest
interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people, and that a humanitarian mission could piggyback on its invasion, now looks wholly absurd.
Attacked by Arabs on 9/11, it wanted to take the battle to Arab territory (that they were different Arabs was neither here nor there); alarmed by China's growing demand for oil, it wanted to strengthen its position in the oil-rich Middle East; dedicated to aggressive capitalism, it wanted to
impose its ideology on the only region still largely resisting it.

As always, US leaders try to present America's crimes as an aberration. What happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, we are told, does not
represent "American values". Yet, the only exceptional thing is that Americans did the torturing themselves. More often, over the past two
years, the US has used secret planes to move prisoners to allied regimes that have more skill and experience in torture. Again, the deaths of
hundreds in Fallujah must be another aberration - or perhaps they didn't die at all or perhaps they were all armed terrorists.

Why we expect so much of America is a puzzle. During the Korean war, it bombed the north so intensively that it ran out of targets. In the 1960s
and 1970s, it killed an estimated three million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. At the end of the first Gulf war, it killed retreating Iraqi
conscripts in their tens of thousands. In Chile and Nicaragua, it helped armed opponents of democratically elected governments. It has tried to
squeeze the life out of Cuba for decades and took new measures to stop Cuban Americans sending cash to their families back home only the other
day. It opposes a host of international treaties - on banning nuclear tests and controlling carbon-dioxide emissions, for example - and now abjures
the Geneva Conventions as well.

How a country conducts its internal affairs is a good guide to how it will behave abroad. It may treat foreigners worse than it treats its own people, but it will not treat them better. This is why tyrants' professions of peaceful intentions should never be trusted. What misleads us about the US is its commitment to many liberal values: free speech, a free press, a robust legal system and lots of voting, for example. But this is also a country that incarcerates two million (about one in every 140) of its residents - the world's highest rate of imprisonment. One in three black men spends some part of his life behind bars. Prison regimes are sometimes harsh and abuse is frequent. The US also executes more than 50 people a year, some of them children.

The American way of life has many other shameful features: the subordination of politics to business interests; the uncontrolled possession of guns; huge social and racial inequalities; the pitiful provision of health and welfare for poor people. We tolerate these as an ally's flaw, rather as we might tolerate a few drunken binges in an otherwise amiable friend. We do not see how they add up to a vision of the world that America wishes to export - a way of life that seems comfortable enough for middle-class opinion-formers, but that brings misery to millions of others. We share, we think, "western values" and must unite against a common enemy. But are we sure that we and the Americans share the same understanding of western values? Are we sure that the extreme Christian fundamentalists who lurk behind President Bush, with their hair-raising attitudes to gays and abortionists, are a lesser threat than the
extreme Muslim fundamentalists who lurk behind several Middle Eastern regimes?

Scoff if you like, and observe that the US does not behead people in cold blood. But who knows where its unshakeable belief in its own righteousness may lead it? Wiser rulers than Britain's would hedge their bets rather more, lest they find themselves obliged to defend worse things than beatings and sexual humiliation in a Baghdad prison. America, some say, is in a "pre-fascist" era. That now looks just a little less implausible than it did a month ago.

-- The New Statesman, 17 May 2004
http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_People&newDisplayURN=200405170001

When the Franco fascists attacked their own government and the people of Spain in the 1930s, passionate people from across the globe joined in
the fight to save the country from fascism. Can we expect a similar call, one day and possibly soon, to fight to save America from itself?

********
My comment: This was sent to me by a friend in Australia, and it pretty much summarizes what I've been contending for many months. The idea that Bush and his bush-wackers are trying to bring democracy to Iraq is outrageously stupid for people to accept as "our cause." It's good to know I'm not alone in being able to see how rediculous the justifications for this war in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 01:44 am
swolf wrote:

Moreover, you read these horror stories about teen gangs siccing trained barbary apes on victims in France and the people apparently are not allowed to carry any sort of defensive arms, even knives.

As to problems with antique statues or video games in America, you 've clearly been listening to somebody who's never been to America. There simply are no such problems here; that's fiction.


As for crime, I really don't see any point in arguing about it. You can be as big patriot as you want to be, but it's clear where crime rate is worse. And as for teens, I can remember one school shooting in Europe in last few years (of course, maybe there were few more I can't remember because of no casualties...) but I can remember few every year in USA.

Ancient statues is not fiction but Reuters news - it happened few years ago in small american town - I will check with my e-friends from USA if they remember where exactly because we discussed it through e-mails (statue was first covered in town museum, then either Italy or UK /whoever donated it at first place/ requested removal)

Quote:


As I've read it, the Serbs were the only people in the balkans who didn't side with Hitler and the axis powers. What they say about Zagreb, and which I've read in numerous places, is that it's the only major city on Earth in which you could build a statue of Hitler and half the people would salute it as they walked by. That's why I mentioned the possibility...


Of course you read it. You could read that as well for Russians (just not about Balkans, but all Europe), but since you were in cold war with them you weren't buying that. Nazi government was installed in Serbia as well, and most of inhabitants of Serbia fought in chetnik guerilla that changed absolutely every side in WW2, they were fighting against all armies, and with all armies, and also commited numerous terrible atrocities (as well as croatian Ustashas who were even worse because unlike Chetniks they had their own territory and therefore wider possibilities for genocide).
Serbs from other parts of Balkans (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia...) were important part of partisan guerilla and anti-nazi movement.
Crap about Zagreb and Hitler's monument I would rather not comment. Especially not to someone that has little Hitler wannabe as president. Maybe you are planning to move to Croatia when Bush loses on elections? I must disappoint you, you will not find too much of your kind then (if that's the case, of course). If you read that much you could as well read that Tito (as main leader of anti-nazi movement in all Balkan) was Croat, and that first croatian president (often thrashed by strong serbian lobbies in ex-yu embassies all over the world) was active fighter against nazism in partisan troops. You could as well read that Zagreb was liberated by croatian partisan troops and Belgrade (that's serbian capital you know) by russian Red Army.

And, AFTER ALL, it's funny how you jump into your own mouth with that crap. You can hardly find few countries in the world with so many devoted Christians like in Croatia. Poland, Ireland, Phillipines...and that's about it. So, what does crap you are talking about Croatia says about your comments about Christians and Christianity? Comments I disagree with, by the way.

Finally, when someone mentiones that he read NUMEROUS articles about Zagreb as city where people would salute Hitler's statue (wonder what is it based on), it would be nice that he provides at least one link of those NUMEROUS articles (Edit: please note that I gave you my opinion about nazi scum like Ustashas, so spare me of articles about their deeds, I am asking you about something completely different).


It would be just like I sad something like: you know, NUMEROUS people from this forum send me PM when we started our debate, saying that I should stop debating with you because you are well known member of Ku Klux Klan, denier of holocaust and activist of small group that has a plan of extradicting all Muslims from USA.
NUMEROUS people also said to me that you live in city where almost 80% of people think God talks to them, and most of married couples are actually cousins.
Then I searched your city on Google and found NUMEROUS articles that in your city actually there is Hitler's statue in some guy's garden. Along with Milosevic's and Bush's.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 01:51 am
C.I. Osijek is nice city, but I would really suggest sight-seeing Vukovar (then later you can inform swolf what Serbs as only anti-nazi fighters in Balkans can do in their spare time) and checking vineyards in Ilok - if there's a free time Smile

As for small gift, I'll think about it and let you know on PM - do you know how old they are?
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 01:54 am
shees, now I had struck of lightning! Eureka!
Now I see why balkan wars started at first place. Because Serbs are only anti-nazi fighters in Balkans. It's so clear now. First they attacked Slovene Nazis. Then Croatian Nazis. Then Bosnian Nazis. Then Albanian Nazis in Kosovo.
It was actually small "Project Freedom"!!!
Ah, swolf, why you haven't informed your president before? And NATO bombed Serbs! What a shame, when they could get rid of at least Slovene Nazis with one bomb (it's a very tiny country, you know).
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 05:47 am
MyOwnUsername wrote:

As for crime, I really don't see any point in arguing about it. You can be as big patriot as you want to be, but it's clear where crime rate is worse.


I wouldn't expect a catholic country like Croatia to have much of a crime rate. Albania and Kosovo on the other hand we all know about; there's nothing in the Western hemisphere comparable to that. Other than that, crime in England has soared completely out of control with immigration and the total disarming of the English people to the extent that crime rates in England now exceed those of the United States and England is cited as a textbook example for the rationale for the second ammendment.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 06:03 am
MyOwnUsername wrote:


Crap about Zagreb and Hitler's monument I would rather not comment.




Given the history of Croatia, both recent and long past, that's understandable. You want a source on that one? Try this:

http://antiwar.com/orig/jatras.php?articleid=1495

Quote:



The guy mainly responsible for that 78-day bombing, of course, was one William J. (Slick) Clinton, who was mainly concerned with taking the Chinagate and Juanita Broaddrick stories off the front pages of American newspapers.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 06:08 am
okay, when I talk about Europe I talk about civilized countries - Kosovo is one of the most un-civilized places on planet, and Albania is not on that level, but not very far from it - however, I really really doubt that in peace times even Kosovo crime rate is as high as one in USA. You can't compare now when it's almost constant civil war situation in Kosovo and USA as country without war on its territory for 50 years.

UK, especially England, is exception from my point, I accept that, although I do doubt that their rates exceed those of USA. But, yes, they do have high crime rates. Unlike France, Spain, Germany, all Scandinavia, all middle Europe (Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic /don't know about Slovakia but I suspect it's the same/), Hungary...in ex-YU, Slovenia and Croatia have probably extremely low rates, even Bosnia I think, and even Serbia would be in that company but they had huge problems with mob.

And I was actually thinking more about particularly bad and terrible crimes. You can find robbers everywhere, but, for example, in my life I can remember only one child abduction in all Croatia and all persons involved were mentally retarded (including child) - in my city I can think of less then 10 murders and rapings in my all life - excluding war of course, people are being murdered in war.

Fact is that I still think there is more freedom in Europe. USA does have some very liberal laws in a way, and freedom in some areas - as you said, you can built Hitler's statue while in Europe you probably can't do that, but on the other hand you have enormous amount of censorship and I really wouldn't say that young people in USA are very free - especially not before 21. I mean, I would rather my kids to have benefits they have in Europe, then ability to built Hitler's or Stalin's statue, if on the other hand they are not allowed to go anywhere before they are 21, they are not allowed to see a lot of movies without me and stuff like that.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 06:27 am
as for another rubbish article about Croatia:

1. as of Ustashas I said what there is to be said - yeah, they were terrible murderers. So were Germans, Italians, Russians, Latvians, Hungarians, Poles and many others. Excluding Germans, I doubt that all of them together killed as many as Americans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Using more sophisticated methods for killing innocent people does not give better light on your deed.

2. Croats will kill people for colour of their skin is the funniest thing I ever heard. Actually, it's pretty sad. Especially since American said that. Not only that there is no racism in Croatia (oh, of course, there are few skinheads like in every european country and in USA I suppose), but only black people that lived or live in Croatia are highly popular basketball players or some (not many) British and American war-dogs (I am not sure if that is word, that would be direct translation from Croatian) that fought in Croatian Army during Independence War.

3. Oh gee, Croats committed a crime during war. They were attacked by three times bigger country and they committed a crime on our territory? Did that EVER happened on some other place? What's your point? Of course there were crimes in war. Do you know some war without such crimes? Vietnam maybe? Or burning children with napalm is not enough for article in Washingon Times?

4. Other things are pure rubbish. It would be good joke if some people like you wouldn't buying it obviusly. Yeah, yeah, all Croats were all around country wearing ear necklesses. And wherever we see Germans we yell "Heil Hitler". Ask Walter Hinteler, 90% of Germans came to Adriatic as tourists at least once, whenever we see them we wear nazi uniforms and sing nazi songs. I really can't believe anyone can actually buy such crap.


5. Finally, will you at least TRY to understand that ex-Yugoslavia was after Tito's death transformed in Great Serbia and that unlike Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians and Macedonians, Serbs had extremely strong lobbies all around. Yes, official "Croatia" (writing it this way because majority of people fought against government) in World War Two was retarded genocide Hitler's puppy. That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Balkan wars in 90's.
I mean, do you have your own mind? Can you think about it for a while? Croats as nation were so terrible in WW2 and then Serbs (strange that there were some Serbs left because by their calculations more of them were killed then ever existed), so human and nice as always were decided to leave with them in peace and harmony. With those that were slaughtering them? Once again - can you think for yourself for a while? And they lived together for 50 years, and then Croats (as well as Slovenes and Bosnians, bit later Macedonians as well) decided that they are tired of serbian domination in what supposed to be federation and gained independence (granted by Yugoslavian Constitution from 1974th) and suddenly they all become terrible murderers.
How cool.

Only thing that is true in your articles are quotes about WW2. I mean, I don't know if they are complete true, because all stories tend to be exaggarated through time, but generally they are true. I mean, part about "Croatia" is true - not part about Serbs.
What happened in 90's was pure serbian agression on other countries.

Do you know that not a SINGLE BULLET was fired on serbian territory during Balkan wars? /of course, excluding their own civil war in Kosovo/ Do you know that Serbs attacked Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia and Herzegovina?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:35:35