Hatred of Christianity!

[not nom]

Youre and Heathen Hammer are the ones

by the way, do you mean to imply "nobody else"? that would suggest illiteracy or dishonesty.

or do you think a false dichotomy is not fallacious? that would suggest stupidity.

take your pick and keep it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I see religions in general, and Christianity in particular, as being enablers. They enable great good or great evil.

In much the same way, dynamite is an enabler. It can enable a farmer to remove a stump from his field with greater efficiency than he'd otherwise be able to achieve. And, likewise, the same dynamite can enable a terrorist to blow up a school bus and kill children with greater efficiency than he'd otherwise be able to achieve.

Religion is like dynamite. It is not the sole cause of good or evil. But it often enough enables good and evil to be done on a larger scale than they would otherwise have been done.

For example, homophobia has been with us since time immemorial. But backed by religion, it becomes a consuming wildfire.

The best explanation I have ever seen on the social and political affects of religion. Simple yet profound.

Thank You.

 

[Quagmire]

lol?

quagmire has brought up the connection of norse mythology and white supremacy,

Wrong. and that's been explained to you several times by now.

then asked who brought that up, then stubbornly refused to acknowledge any of that. like 4-5 times, wtf hahahaha.

Less ranting, more reading.

the information that has been presented was mostly in response to strawmen. like to me, that "not all christians blah di blah". as if I didn't know that. and so on. but I didn't avoid that, I just think pointing it out 3 times or more is enough.

Doesn't matter how many times you point it out if you go on to contradict yourself.

you mean twisting my words? hahah. of course it's nonsense, but why would I stop "complaining"?

Because your complaints are nonsense.

because when I responded to it, I got nothing but jokes and repetition of those. when I say A and someone says B, I respond with C and they say B again, I become impatient real quick. I called it a loop of derp for a reason.

That's all pretty loopy alright.

now when I said "so how did I misrepresent what went down?", he didn't really point that out.

Well, I only pointed it our 2 or 3 times. How many times does it usually take to get through to you?

he said "just read it again", -- again, a loop. when heathen hammer answered a question, someone else says "who cares".

who's making excuses? quagmire for example, "I always ignore fabricated evidence.", referring to ******* QUOTES OF HIS OWN WORDS.

Because that's what it was.

you don't even blink and have the gall to post the above? seriously, just don't talk to me. send your scent or whatever the **** it is you jokers are doing, but otherwise leave me alone, or be so kind and explain the ignore feature to me.

Maybe you should go back and read the rules first.

 

[Quagmire]

right. those quotes, they have links in them.

in short, you got nothing. you just bluff a lot. you're a clown, go pat some toys on the back

You're the one who made the charge, you're the one who needs to provide the evidence. I know you can't because evidence for your argument doesn't exist, but that doesn't excuse you from providing back up for your accusations.

 

[fallingblood]

lol?

quagmire has brought up the connection of norse mythology and white supremacy, then asked who brought that up, then stubbornly refused to acknowledge any of that. like 4-5 times, wtf hahahaha. the information that has been presented was mostly in response to strawmen. like to me, that "not all christians blah di blah". as if I didn't know that. and so on. but I didn't avoid that, I just think pointing it out 3 times or more is enough.



you mean twisting my words? hahah. of course it's nonsense, but why would I stop "complaining"?



because when I responded to it, I got nothing but jokes and repetition of those. when I say A and someone says B, I respond with C and they say B again, I become impatient real quick. I called it a loop of derp for a reason.

now when I said "so how did I misrepresent what went down?", he didn't really point that out. he said "just read it again", -- again, a loop. when heathen hammer answered a question, someone else says "who cares".

who's making excuses? quagmire for example, "I always ignore fabricated evidence.", referring to ******* QUOTES OF HIS OWN WORDS.

you don't even blink and have the gall to post the above? seriously, just don't talk to me. send your scent or whatever the **** it is you jokers are doing, but otherwise leave me alone, or be so kind and explain the ignore feature to me.

This is what I'm talking about. More complaining, and a refusal to actually address the material that has been presented. This was the last post I presented that you have either ignored, dismissed, or the like: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2669388-post492.html


Now maybe instead of complaining about something else, you can go back and deal with the issues.

 

[not nom]

Now maybe instead of complaining about something else, you can go back and deal with the issues.

my complaints weren't about "something else" but simply about the bull you spouted. and you don't address a word of it, yet order me to "deal with the issues", LMAO!!! nice one, at least you don't make me feel bad about disrespecting you, because stuff like

So you're trying to pin antisemitism on Hitler because of some quotes about God (he doesn't say Christianity there), yet also admit that he also despised the religion. Really not an argument here.

just makes me groan and go "no". that's not what I said, that's not what I meant with what I said, and since I'm not into repeating myself, I didn't say anything at all. but okay, one last time. from then on I WILL ignore anything that doesn't address what I actually said, if it just authoritatively puts words into my mouth. I'm tired of it, you won't get good discussion out of me in this thread, I'm totally appalled by the clown show and the backpatting and the wanking.

And then you admit that Muslims treated Jews, to a point, similarly. It shows that antisemitism does not belong along with Christianity, but with society.

LOL! one might also simply deduce that shows it belongs to the religions that base themselves off the jews, while shunning judaism.

but that's such a far out idea, isn't it ^^

they were not always forced into ghettos.

I know, and I never claimed they were, nor do I deny they isolated themselves as well. I'm just saying, looking at history, that pressure went mostly against them, pushing them away, instead of them pushing themselves away. I guess we disagree on that.

You need to follow what you've been saying as well. What does that suggest? That antisemitism does not belong more in Christianity than elsewhere as you claimed.

going back in the posts, that means for "the fact that more and more Christians are becoming less antisemitic" suggests that "antisemitism does not belong more in Christianity than elsewhere". which is a non-sequitur.

That is involved with isolating themselves. When a group isolates themselves, it makes rumors surface. It makes people talk. Those rumors and talk make people suspicious. You seem to want to continue to change the subject.

^ in response to it made people even more suspicious because they had this "we're the good guys" religion. "why would the jews not be baptized and do all the stuff we do? oh that's right, they rejected god in the flesh".



errrr.... no, you know what, I don't want to change the subject, I simply want to swap out the people I'm discussing it with, or not discuss it at all.

Yes, there were some special circumstances with the Jewish-Christian conflict, but much of it wasn't that unique.

so? that goes for everything. nothing is unique in all aspects. again, that's why I simply don't bother. it's so much filler and strawmen laced and weak attempts at ad-hominems.

More so, you are talking about something we weren't addressing. So I couldn't be missing it, if it hasn't been brought up. You seem to be doing that quite repeatedly.

in response to "you are repeatedly missing that there needs to be a collective that thinks it's correct, for there to be friction with a smaller collective that also thinks it's correct."

holy crap! you missed that like someone might say you missed gravity if you're not aware of it. it's logic! you say "they isolated themselves", that always implies *from* something. let's say they thought "they were right" or chosen or whatever. that would only annoy someone else who also has an ego, christianity in practice and history did have that ego. (as did the romans and the nazis. and the muslims, just because the more, the merrier. maybe I left someone out, I apologize.)

you simply don't get what I say, and instead of asking "how did you mean that" you say I am "doing that a lot", claiming people missed things I never brought up. that's not true in this case. so... any other cases in mind? seeing how you just completely ignored a whole post refuting ********. but I digress..

if the jews just were snobs, but didn't hurt anyone, why would that **** anyone off? so many people want nothing to do with me and I don't mind, they can just go play with themselves, you know? but it was about the same god, and/or about clashing with state religion. same problem with the muslims. I'm not saying that's the only factor, but I think it really is a huge factor.

saying muslim antisemitism disproves that is backwards, it actually strengthens my case if anything. because I never said it's for a reason which doesn't apply to islam as well, did I. it's just you read all into these things because I happen to deal with christianity more (as does this thread, surprise). for starters, I know next to zero about islam, and I'm a white european, so I think I'll start in with the specks in the belief I was about to blindly adopt, and rant about the nazis as well, kthxbye. the loop ends here... you know, I'm not even reading quagmire's posts anymore. a few repetitions are enough. the end.

 

[krsnaraja]

Those who hate Christianity are envious of Christianity.

They are not atheists, Buddhists or Hindus. They are polticiains who love to make war not love. They are the ones who dropped the two atomic bommbs at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Japan in the early 40s. They are the very rich whose money are deposited in the bank to sleep. They are the bankers & lenders who wipe the poor dry.

 

[not nom]

They are the ones who dropped the two atomic bommbs at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Japan in the early 40s.

no, I had nothing to do with that. I murdered john lennon though :/ I was drunk, it was a bet, I'm sorry :sad: (also for the guy who went to prison in my stead)

 

[krsnaraja]

no, I had nothing to do with that. I murdered john lennon though :/ I was drunk, it was a bet, I'm sorry :sad: (also for the guy who went to prison in my stead)

John Lennon was an atheist. Poor guy.

 

[not nom]

They are not atheists, Buddhists or Hindus. They are polticiains who love to make war not love. They are the ones who dropped the two atomic bommbs at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Japan in the early 40s. They are the very rich whose money are deposited in the bank to sleep. They are the bankers & lenders who wipe the poor dry.

I would say all religions are subverted partially by that, too, in practice. all those little and big sects who are busy politically and with propaganda... none of them are true to the core of their religions, are they? so yes, the divide, if there is such a thing (I'd say it's gradual and we're all just humans), is hardly between atheists and believers.

but I don't think all rich people are "evil", and all poor people "good". (kinda like I don't think christians are automatically antisemites, no matter how my posts seem to get read ) there actually do exist wealthy hard working people who don't screw others over, and to label them criminals just for that, doesn't exactly encourage them to keep not being criminals I think. just like the poor thinking they're saints because they're poor, can't be constructive IMHO.

 

[not nom]

John Lennon was an atheist. Poor guy.

he seemed to like peace though, maybe that evens it out a little ^^

 

[krsnaraja]

he seemed to like peace though, maybe that evens it out a little ^^

JL was a peaceful atheist.

[youtube]aIFY9h8DImg[/youtube]
Imagine - John Lennon with Lyrics - YouTube

 

[not nom]

[youtube]EqP3wT5lpa4[/youtube]
Instant Karma - John lennon - YouTube

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin' to do
It's up to you, yeah you

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna look you right in the face
Better get yourself together darlin'
Join the human race
How in the world you gonna see
Laughin' at fools like me
Who on earth d'you think you are
A super star
Well, right you are

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well we all shine on
Ev'ryone come on

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you off your feet
Better recognize your brothers
Ev'ryone you meet
Why in the world are we here
Surely not to live in pain and fear
Why on earth are you there
When you're ev'rywhere
Come and get your share

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
Come on and on and on on on
Yeah yeah, alright, uh huh, ah

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
On and on and on on and on

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun



is that atheism? hmmm maybe, but it seems neither here nor there to me

 

[krsnaraja]

[youtube]EqP3wT5lpa4[/youtube]
Instant Karma - John lennon - YouTube

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin' to do
It's up to you, yeah you

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna look you right in the face
Better get yourself together darlin'
Join the human race
How in the world you gonna see
Laughin' at fools like me
Who on earth d'you think you are
A super star
Well, right you are

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well we all shine on
Ev'ryone come on

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you off your feet
Better recognize your brothers
Ev'ryone you meet
Why in the world are we here
Surely not to live in pain and fear
Why on earth are you there
When you're ev'rywhere
Come and get your share

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
Come on and on and on on on
Yeah yeah, alright, uh huh, ah

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
On and on and on on and on

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun



is that atheism? hmmm maybe, but it seems neither here nor there to me

It`s dedicated to you not nom.

 

[not nom]

It`s dedicated to you not nom.

yeah, he did well with that one. plenty of other songs he and the beatles certainly did not write for me... but that one I'll take. thanks john ^^

 

[krsnaraja]

yeah, he did well with that one. plenty of other songs he and the beatles certainly did not write for me... but that one I'll take. thanks john ^^

So, that explains your name. Gotcha!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Wrong. and that's been explained to you several times by now.

It would be exactly the same thing if, for instance, someone had it in their head that all followers of the Nordic traditions were white supremists and asked you "So why do you condone the attempted extermination of the Jews?", and you replied with "I don't", and the person debating you came back with "So you're denying the Holocaust happened?"

That's your quote.
While it is true you did not present this perceived connection as your own, you were, in fact, the person who used the terms first, in a sentence implying a connection. And we all know that by bringing up an emotional issue like racial supremacy it's going to get people talking about that subject, whether it's the original one or not.

And, in point of fact you later went off on a brief screed, saying that European history itself is a tableaux of 'white supremacy', did you not? You did present that concept as your own, with no anecdotal/metaphorical person speaking those words 'as an example', did you not?

What are you talking about? The bulk of Euro-centric history is a catalog of the repercussions of white supremacy. Are you really saying there's nothing about slavery, the conquest of the Americas, or the Holocaust in the history books? What school did you go to?

It's really time for detractors to cease pulling the false 'you don't read well' attacks.

How about we simply put this to rest at last, since Not Nom and I are essentially vindicated; let the thread go on to its original subject.

 

[fallingblood]

LOL! one might also simply deduce that shows it belongs to the religions that base themselves off the jews, while shunning judaism.

but that's such a far out idea, isn't it ^^

Or if we look at the bigger picture, we can see that it was just a common idea running through society as a whole. Saying that it belongs more in one place than other, simply is not supportable.

I know, and I never claimed they were, nor do I deny they isolated themselves as well. I'm just saying, looking at history, that pressure went mostly against them, pushing them away, instead of them pushing themselves away. I guess we disagree on that.

I agree that, at least at times, they were pushed away. However, we also see many examples of them already settling in their own communities, and isolating themselves to a point. This is something that nearly all minorities do. It makes sense, as it gives them a sense of security, of community, and helps them keep in touch with their roots.

However, all I'm saying is that a side effect of that is that it can raise suspicions about them, as they seem secretive, and isolated from the community as a whole.

going back in the posts, that means for "the fact that more and more Christians are becoming less antisemitic" suggests that "antisemitism does not belong more in Christianity than elsewhere". which is a non-sequitur.

It isn't a non-sequitur. It makes sense. If it is becoming only a minority of Christians who are antisemitic, it suggests that the idea does not belong more with them than others. Why? Because they are giving up the idea.

so? that goes for everything. nothing is unique in all aspects. again, that's why I simply don't bother. it's so much filler and strawmen laced and weak attempts at ad-hominems.

This is the problem I have with your debating style. You don't debate. You simply dismiss by saying something is a logical fallacy, without supporting such a claim. When I see that, all I think is that the person using such claims simply can not support what they are saying, so they have to dismiss.

if the jews just were snobs, but didn't hurt anyone, why would that **** anyone off? so many people want nothing to do with me and I don't mind, they can just go play with themselves, you know? but it was about the same god, and/or about clashing with state religion. same problem with the muslims. I'm not saying that's the only factor, but I think it really is a huge factor.

Because they were deemed to be different. Because they are a minority. Because rumors spread about them as a whole. And it wasn't even about religion many of the times. Judaism is more than just a religion, it references a people. And the problem wasn't with the religion, it was with the people as a whole.

They weren't clashing with state religion, they were being persecuted simply because of being a Jew (and again, that does not mean they were religious. They could be atheists or agnostics).


I ignored the majority of your post because it simply didn't contain actual arguments, but complaining, and rants. If I missed something, please point it out, and I will address it, but I just didn't feel like spending too much time wading through rants.

 

[Quagmire]

That's your quote.
While it is true you did not present this perceived connection as your own, you were, in fact, the person who used the terms first, in a sentence implying a connection.

In a friggin analogy.

And we all know that by bringing up an emotional issue like racial supremacy it's going to get people talking about that subject, whether it's the original one or not.

I'm not responsible for someone else's lack of self-control.

And, in point of fact you later went off on a brief screed, saying that European history itself is a tableaux of 'white supremacy', did you not?

Two sentences is a big "screed"?

You did present that concept as your own, with no anecdotal/metaphorical person speaking those words 'as an example', did you not?

Yes. :yes:

And I stand by it. What's your point?

It's really time for detractors to cease pulling the false 'you don't read well' attacks.

When people start reading other people's posts as their written it will be time etc, etc, etc....

How about we simply put this to rest at last, since Not Nom and I are essentially vindicated; let the thread go on to its original subject.

You're excused. That isn't the same as being vindicated.

And I've already put it to rest. I know when I'm wasting my time.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes. :yes:

And I stand by it. What's your point?

You kept denying you ever talked about it

It's interesting: I travel to work via the subway in NY, at off hours, late at night. There are often poeple there, unwashed and talking to themselves, living a lonely existance sleeping in the mass transit system.

Trying to talk to them would have been more productive than talking to you.

Its you who've been dismissed. I simply understand I don't get far talking to children.