I forgot to celebrate on (or at least near) the correct date!
4
Average: 4(4 votes)
Comments
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
nope, just a reminder.....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Not mine, but.. ;-)
''So who needs to do something as tedious as fact-checking when a meme and a fruity-voiced comedian tells you things you like to hear? Well, perhaps a true rationalist....What is clear, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence linking December 25 to Mithras. Given that the claims about a “virgin birth” for that god are garbled nonsense and the stuff about shepherds and caves are total garbage, the fact that these things keep getting repeated uncritically by New Atheists is more evidence that people who are supposed to be “rationalists” simply don’t check their facts when it comes to history. '
Complains about facts about their religion, posts "disproving" garbage from religiously biased sources.
You might as well quote the bible.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christmas
Happy holidays.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Hello kettle? This is the pot..
I think you've got me confused with a biblical literalist again. We've already said that this is your perfunctory understanding. But most Christians have no problem acknowledging that Christmas is celebrated on 25Dec due to Constantine converting and allowing us to celebrate with the rest of Rome on/around the time of the solstice.
This is merely the reverse -engineering of Mythras's story by an outspoken atheist comedian doing a bit so it more closely resembles and what..(discredits?) that of Christ.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"I think you've got me confused with a biblical literalist again."
No, not at all, I think only very few people would be happy with the bible or their religion if they would take it literally.
What I say is you actually should, must actually, take every bit of it literally, only then can you recognise what kindergarten level silly storytelling it actually is.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
I dunno. It's been shown that stories and parables are the best way to transmit lessons learned generation to generation. It starts off with God separating the light from the dark after all. Nothing there about harnessing the power of the hydrogen atom in a sustained fusion reaction. Helped sheep herders get past page 1 in any case.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
So if it is a lessons learned, why did they stop at kindergarten level, haven't we (well most of us) advanced a little past that?
You are putting too much importance into your storybook. If read literally, considering the era of writing, what is written probably made perfect sense at the time and there is little difference to other, including polytheistic, religions, they all have their creator(s) and heroes and more or less interesting, disgusting or hillarious stories. They also have in common that they try to sell the ultimate truth and theocracy as well as the believers always resist any change to their "truth" and thus a "holy book" is only educational in the sense of being an example of how not to teach.
Just for the fun of it put likelyhood on the following scenarios (feel free to add):
Maria was impregnated
by god
by rape
because she was a bit of a slut that had no practicable means of contraception
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Rape or being a slut? Look at what you've resorted to, on Christmas day no less. If you're wondering why anyone might take offense, my reply could easily have been: Rape or being a slut? When did this become about you/your birth. Oh, now you feel it.
In any case at least you're predictably consistent this time of year. See you at Easter. (Ramadan is sooner tough guy, just saying).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Oh dear, I specifically asked you to give more options, but hey, can't think of any can you.
I simply asked what is more likely, the likelhoods would make you look bad so you decided to "get offended".
If you get offended then (at least some) truth is attached to the "offensive" statement.
Now my remarks were not personal, you, however, turned it into a personal thing (or tried to) by mentioning my mother, a person (in contrary to Mary) of which I am 100% certain she existed.
Now was my mother a slut? Considering that I am the only offspring and my mother was married to my father for quite a bit before I was conceived I would say I am at least 80-90% certain she wasn't, I cannot speak to her relationship bahaviour prior to marrying my father, though.
So, here I am, not offended at all how you talk about my late mother, time for you to grow up (and a pair) so you can have adult conversations.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Any reference to your birth was offered obliquely, and clearly by way of counterexample so you might appreciate how your suppositions about the Theotokos might be offensive to those who believe. And when did a divine miracle, the immaculate conception, the cornerstone of faith for billions get reduced to 'likelihood', as you would frame the question. Surely you can comprehend why someone might not be as interested in playing your game when an answer along the lines of faith eg. God or the Holy Spirit might cause you to have an epileptic seizure. Instead let me pose the question: Have you heard of Hanlon's razor? This is the old adage that you should never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by ignorance or even stupidity. So..unless you are truly daft, it's safe to say that the very predictable occurrence of your anti-Christian posts twice a year at Christmas and Easter time at the very least suggest malice as a possibility. So the question ultimately is, how badly did your childhood parish priest, Reverend Putz Arselecher, hurt little daffy for him to be so specifically anti-christian decades later. And when will you give us your take on...
tough guy. I mean, you must have a paragraph or 2 for us on this in the springtime, right? Otherwise, constantly going after the one religion that will turn the other cheek (while still capable of enjoying bacon...mmmmm... bacon) makes you out to be quite the pusspuss don't you know.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Oh dear, so you think I post this "out of malice", you obviously forgot how to turn the other cheek then, which could only be expected from a religious hypocrit.
Question regarding your picture above:
Was it posted out of malice (which I suspect)?
Or (worse?) from a feeling of superiority towards other religions?
Or was that an invitation for bashing other faiths' flaws together in a sort of bonding exercise?
Or is it a depiction of how (deeeeep down inside) you imagine your god choosing young Mary for conception of his son?
The post is made at the most appropriate time of the year. You taking such offense to it is just showing how much truth this is in it, same goes for the Mary example. Would jesus be soiled for you if he was born as a result of a rape? If "god did it" without her knowledge and consent how should this be looked at? Let us check the bible:
Luke 1:26-38
"The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her."
Not mentioning consent now did they? In the last paragraph it is sort of "consent after the fact", shouldn't Gabriel have asked her before, or did he not need to as she describes herself as god's "servant" (or maybe slave is a better word for it)?
My initial reply giving the Mary example I meant to be looked at period correct. If you apply modern standards, interpretations and definitions (like a more modern slut) to scripture, like you attempt to do, it completely loses sense.
Just imagine your 14yo daughter coming home and telling you that Gabriel appeared to her and she was pregnant with the lord's son which she is dupposed to name "Jesus", would you say: "Thank you dear and praise the Lord!", or rather
"Give me the address of your boyfriend Juan Carlos and I'll fucking sort him out!"
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Ok, so I think we've established that for an anti-theist you're of the armchair variety, putting in minimum effort and citing obscur sources from the corner of the web, apparently. I commend the part above where you actually cite original source (scripture) and pretty much give the recount of where the archangel Gabriel came to Mary and foretold of her upcoming immaculate conception (from the Holy Spirit; the 3rd aspect of the Trinity) and Mary gave consent by saying 'may this be fulfilled'. But then you twist it and say 'shouldn't Gabriel have asked before'... Did you miss the bit above? Informed consent given and received. Moving on.
You write: 'Question regarding your picture above: Was it posted out of malice (which I suspect)? Or (worse?) from a feeling of superiority towards other religions? Or was that an invitation for bashing other faiths' flaws together in a sort of bonding exercise?'
The picture of the autistic little girl being held up as the poster girl for the environmental movement you're using? Or do you mean from unknown artist depicting what appears to be a 9yr old little girl right before she has her insides rearranged by a 54yr old penis (you can confirm those ages in the Qur'an, easily). I think you're forgetting that this is about your hypocrisy, not mine or anyone else's. Playing whataboutism can't save your argument now. After all, to consciously belong to any religion is to say it's the best, isn't it?? Too deep thinking for you, eh? Jewish girls were betrothed anywhere from 12-15yrs of age and married between 15-16yrs to ensure mother and child could survive pregnancy. It's believed Mary was 17yrs old when she gave birth with Joseph (a widower with children from his first marriage) aoprox. 15-20yrs older than Mary, so..again,..this new-age tendancy to make Mary as young as Aisha is more whataboutism, usually from armchair antitheits such as yourself. What else you got for me? Let's see.. Oh, I respect anyone's right to their religion, I however am not obligated to agree with the religion itself, am I. The Taliban on the other hand don't even respect your right to any other religion, so..come to think of it, you might be more successful teaming up with them. Good luck.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The ONLY person in this thread guilty of whataboutism is YOU, every time the conversation gets too difficult and/or uncomfortable for you to answer you divert to other shit, which you obviouisly deem as "being worse", all this despite me stating my opinion on fundamentalist islam many a time on here, thus rendering your tantrums completely and utterly unnecessary.
Then you accuse me of not quoting scripture correctly, it was taken from this source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201%3A26-38&version=NIV
Here is another link from the king james bible, pretty much stating the same:
https://thekingsbible.com/Bible/42/1
Stay on topic or don't answer, diverting like before only makes you look desperate, insecure and stupid.
Remember all this started by me asking a simple question of likelyhood of events, I'll rephrase it so it is less "offensive"
What is the likelyhood of mary being impregnated from (considering the methods available at the time of writing the bible)?
"God did it" Sexual activity (consentual or not) "Aliens did it"
My prediciton is you will remain to be too chicken to answer.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
YOU stay on topic, pup. Ramadan is on 22Mar this year, so given you're no hypocrite we'll be waiting for your contribution to the festivities. I can see it now,
See you at Easter, tough guy.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
lol, of course I was correct, too chicken to stay on topic.
Why would I post something for this, is anybody on here celebrating this? All the devout muslims and apologists have left so there is no point.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
A few of us on here wished eachother a 'Merry Christmas' so I guess you take that as validation of your position that folks need saving (by you) this time of year. Regarding your assertion that from other religions have run away from the site... I must have missed the part where you sent out a survey.
Anyway, you enjoy your self-proclaimed victory, tough guy. Meanwhile here's the lovely Marina with 'today's word':
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Tell you what I'll make a post about Ramadan (as it has a pagan origin) when people on here start to encourage members to celebrate it.
Victory? Who made this a competition rather than a conversation where one asks really, REALLY simple questions? When cowards are "chickening out" of the conversation it doesn't make the other person a "winner", both actually lose.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Ok. I see where the potential disconnect is. Nobody here is encouraging you to celebrate anything. Though I really think you going back to your home town and kicking ol' Rev. Arschelecker in the nuts might be good for you. On the whole. Now send over some 'the Best of 2022 photos', please...assuming you celebrate. ;-)
When you need to create a "loving" in order to do evil, tour reliion has gone to far.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Clarify bf. I don't understand.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
boldfart (Long Spike)
When you need to create a "loving" god in order to do evil, your reliion has gone to far. E.G.
Gott mit uns logo on Nazi troops belt
Spanish inquisition.
Magdalene laundries
Jewish Ghettos
The list is endless, but as you will fefuse to acept one there is no point.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Boldfart, your last sentence above suggests that any pushback from me renders further discussion pointless. Can I concede that while upwards of 95% of Germans at the time of WW2 identified as Christian (rather than Catholic, Hitler and his ilk identified as 'German Christian' whatever that is) that many of the Europeans and North Americans that fought and died to stop the Nazis were also Christian. Don't even start me on the Roman Catholic Church's stance during WW2, which basically aligned with Italy's. I've said before that I'm Greek (Orthodox) and it's a matter of record that little Greece fought and bled hard to hold back the Nazi advance. I'll also say regarding your reference to the Spanish Inquisition that the ability of men in power (including the church at points in history) to be corrupted doesn't mean you dismiss the beauty of the message and the life that came before. You have every right to be discerning. Just try not to throw the baby (message) out with the bathwater. Otherwise you've potentially been cheated out of something beautiful, which is equally tragic.
Comments
(Site Administrator)
(Old Spike)
nope, just a reminder.....
(Site Administrator)
Not mine, but.. ;-)
''So who needs to do something as tedious as fact-checking when a meme and a fruity-voiced comedian tells you things you like to hear? Well, perhaps a true rationalist....What is clear, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence linking December 25 to Mithras. Given that the claims about a “virgin birth” for that god are garbled nonsense and the stuff about shepherds and caves are total garbage, the fact that these things keep getting repeated uncritically by New Atheists is more evidence that people who are supposed to be “rationalists” simply don’t check their facts when it comes to history. '
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-jesus-simply-a-retelling-of-the-mithras-mythology/
https://historyforatheists.com/2016/12/the-great-myths-2-christmas-mithras-and-paganism/
And Merry Christmas
(Old Spike)
Now here is one for a meme:
Complains about facts about their religion, posts "disproving" garbage from religiously biased sources.
You might as well quote the bible.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christmas
Happy holidays.
(Site Administrator)
Hello kettle? This is the pot..
I think you've got me confused with a biblical literalist again. We've already said that this is your perfunctory understanding. But most Christians have no problem acknowledging that Christmas is celebrated on 25Dec due to Constantine converting and allowing us to celebrate with the rest of Rome on/around the time of the solstice.
This is merely the reverse -engineering of Mythras's story by an outspoken atheist comedian doing a bit so it more closely resembles and what..(discredits?) that of Christ.
(Old Spike)
"I think you've got me confused with a biblical literalist again."
No, not at all, I think only very few people would be happy with the bible or their religion if they would take it literally.
What I say is you actually should, must actually, take every bit of it literally, only then can you recognise what kindergarten level silly storytelling it actually is.
(Site Administrator)
I dunno. It's been shown that stories and parables are the best way to transmit lessons learned generation to generation. It starts off with God separating the light from the dark after all. Nothing there about harnessing the power of the hydrogen atom in a sustained fusion reaction. Helped sheep herders get past page 1 in any case.
(Old Spike)
So if it is a lessons learned, why did they stop at kindergarten level, haven't we (well most of us) advanced a little past that?
You are putting too much importance into your storybook. If read literally, considering the era of writing, what is written probably made perfect sense at the time and there is little difference to other, including polytheistic, religions, they all have their creator(s) and heroes and more or less interesting, disgusting or hillarious stories. They also have in common that they try to sell the ultimate truth and theocracy as well as the believers always resist any change to their "truth" and thus a "holy book" is only educational in the sense of being an example of how not to teach.
Just for the fun of it put likelyhood on the following scenarios (feel free to add):
Maria was impregnated
(Site Administrator)
Rape or being a slut? Look at what you've resorted to, on Christmas day no less. If you're wondering why anyone might take offense, my reply could easily have been: Rape or being a slut? When did this become about you/your birth. Oh, now you feel it.
In any case at least you're predictably consistent this time of year. See you at Easter. (Ramadan is sooner tough guy, just saying).
(Old Spike)
Oh dear, I specifically asked you to give more options, but hey, can't think of any can you.
I simply asked what is more likely, the likelhoods would make you look bad so you decided to "get offended".
If you get offended then (at least some) truth is attached to the "offensive" statement.
Now my remarks were not personal, you, however, turned it into a personal thing (or tried to) by mentioning my mother, a person (in contrary to Mary) of which I am 100% certain she existed.
Now was my mother a slut? Considering that I am the only offspring and my mother was married to my father for quite a bit before I was conceived I would say I am at least 80-90% certain she wasn't, I cannot speak to her relationship bahaviour prior to marrying my father, though.
So, here I am, not offended at all how you talk about my late mother, time for you to grow up (and a pair) so you can have adult conversations.
(Site Administrator)
Any reference to your birth was offered obliquely, and clearly by way of counterexample so you might appreciate how your suppositions about the Theotokos might be offensive to those who believe. And when did a divine miracle, the immaculate conception, the cornerstone of faith for billions get reduced to 'likelihood', as you would frame the question. Surely you can comprehend why someone might not be as interested in playing your game when an answer along the lines of faith eg. God or the Holy Spirit might cause you to have an epileptic seizure. Instead let me pose the question: Have you heard of Hanlon's razor? This is the old adage that you should never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by ignorance or even stupidity. So..unless you are truly daft, it's safe to say that the very predictable occurrence of your anti-Christian posts twice a year at Christmas and Easter time at the very least suggest malice as a possibility. So the question ultimately is, how badly did your childhood parish priest, Reverend Putz Arselecher, hurt little daffy for him to be so specifically anti-christian decades later. And when will you give us your take on...
tough guy. I mean, you must have a paragraph or 2 for us on this in the springtime, right? Otherwise, constantly going after the one religion that will turn the other cheek (while still capable of enjoying bacon...mmmmm... bacon) makes you out to be quite the pusspuss don't you know.
(Old Spike)
Oh dear, so you think I post this "out of malice", you obviously forgot how to turn the other cheek then, which could only be expected from a religious hypocrit.
Question regarding your picture above:
Was it posted out of malice (which I suspect)?
Or (worse?) from a feeling of superiority towards other religions?
Or was that an invitation for bashing other faiths' flaws together in a sort of bonding exercise?
Or is it a depiction of how (deeeeep down inside) you imagine your god choosing young Mary for conception of his son?
The post is made at the most appropriate time of the year. You taking such offense to it is just showing how much truth this is in it, same goes for the Mary example. Would jesus be soiled for you if he was born as a result of a rape? If "god did it" without her knowledge and consent how should this be looked at? Let us check the bible:
Luke 1:26-38
"The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her."
Not mentioning consent now did they? In the last paragraph it is sort of "consent after the fact", shouldn't Gabriel have asked her before, or did he not need to as she describes herself as god's "servant" (or maybe slave is a better word for it)?
My initial reply giving the Mary example I meant to be looked at period correct. If you apply modern standards, interpretations and definitions (like a more modern slut) to scripture, like you attempt to do, it completely loses sense.
Just imagine your 14yo daughter coming home and telling you that Gabriel appeared to her and she was pregnant with the lord's son which she is dupposed to name "Jesus", would you say:
"Thank you dear and praise the Lord!", or rather
"Give me the address of your boyfriend Juan Carlos and I'll fucking sort him out!"
(Site Administrator)
Ok, so I think we've established that for an anti-theist you're of the armchair variety, putting in minimum effort and citing obscur sources from the corner of the web, apparently. I commend the part above where you actually cite original source (scripture) and pretty much give the recount of where the archangel Gabriel came to Mary and foretold of her upcoming immaculate conception (from the Holy Spirit; the 3rd aspect of the Trinity) and Mary gave consent by saying 'may this be fulfilled'. But then you twist it and say 'shouldn't Gabriel have asked before'... Did you miss the bit above? Informed consent given and received. Moving on.
You write: 'Question regarding your picture above: Was it posted out of malice (which I suspect)? Or (worse?) from a feeling of superiority towards other religions? Or was that an invitation for bashing other faiths' flaws together in a sort of bonding exercise?'
The picture of the autistic little girl being held up as the poster girl for the environmental movement you're using? Or do you mean from unknown artist depicting what appears to be a 9yr old little girl right before she has her insides rearranged by a 54yr old penis (you can confirm those ages in the Qur'an, easily). I think you're forgetting that this is about your hypocrisy, not mine or anyone else's. Playing whataboutism can't save your argument now. After all, to consciously belong to any religion is to say it's the best, isn't it?? Too deep thinking for you, eh? Jewish girls were betrothed anywhere from 12-15yrs of age and married between 15-16yrs to ensure mother and child could survive pregnancy. It's believed Mary was 17yrs old when she gave birth with Joseph (a widower with children from his first marriage) aoprox. 15-20yrs older than Mary, so..again,..this new-age tendancy to make Mary as young as Aisha is more whataboutism, usually from armchair antitheits such as yourself. What else you got for me? Let's see.. Oh, I respect anyone's right to their religion, I however am not obligated to agree with the religion itself, am I. The Taliban on the other hand don't even respect your right to any other religion, so..come to think of it, you might be more successful teaming up with them. Good luck.
(Old Spike)
The ONLY person in this thread guilty of whataboutism is YOU, every time the conversation gets too difficult and/or uncomfortable for you to answer you divert to other shit, which you obviouisly deem as "being worse", all this despite me stating my opinion on fundamentalist islam many a time on here, thus rendering your tantrums completely and utterly unnecessary.
Then you accuse me of not quoting scripture correctly, it was taken from this source:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201%3A26-38&version=NIV
Here is another link from the king james bible, pretty much stating the same:
https://thekingsbible.com/Bible/42/1
Stay on topic or don't answer, diverting like before only makes you look desperate, insecure and stupid.
Remember all this started by me asking a simple question of likelyhood of events, I'll rephrase it so it is less "offensive"
What is the likelyhood of mary being impregnated from (considering the methods available at the time of writing the bible)?
"God did it"
Sexual activity (consentual or not)
"Aliens did it"
My prediciton is you will remain to be too chicken to answer.
(Site Administrator)
YOU stay on topic, pup. Ramadan is on 22Mar this year, so given you're no hypocrite we'll be waiting for your contribution to the festivities. I can see it now,
See you at Easter, tough guy.
(Old Spike)
lol, of course I was correct, too chicken to stay on topic.
Why would I post something for this, is anybody on here celebrating this? All the devout muslims and apologists have left so there is no point.
(Site Administrator)
A few of us on here wished eachother a 'Merry Christmas' so I guess you take that as validation of your position that folks need saving (by you) this time of year. Regarding your assertion that from other religions have run away from the site... I must have missed the part where you sent out a survey.
Anyway, you enjoy your self-proclaimed victory, tough guy. Meanwhile here's the lovely Marina with 'today's word':
(Old Spike)
Tell you what I'll make a post about Ramadan (as it has a pagan origin) when people on here start to encourage members to celebrate it.
Victory? Who made this a competition rather than a conversation where one asks really, REALLY simple questions? When cowards are "chickening out" of the conversation it doesn't make the other person a "winner", both actually lose.
(Site Administrator)
Ok. I see where the potential disconnect is. Nobody here is encouraging you to celebrate anything. Though I really think you going back to your home town and kicking ol' Rev. Arschelecker in the nuts might be good for you. On the whole. Now send over some 'the Best of 2022 photos', please...assuming you celebrate. ;-)
https://spikednation.com/announcement/sat-2022-11-05-1254/updated-send-your-weekly-image-gallery-submissions-here
(Old Spike)
(Long Spike)
When you need to create a "loving" in order to do evil, tour reliion has gone to far.
(Site Administrator)
Clarify bf. I don't understand.
(Long Spike)
When you need to create a "loving" god in order to do evil, your reliion has gone to far. E.G.
Gott mit uns logo on Nazi troops belt
Spanish inquisition.
Magdalene laundries
Jewish Ghettos
The list is endless, but as you will fefuse to acept one there is no point.
(Site Administrator)
Boldfart, your last sentence above suggests that any pushback from me renders further discussion pointless. Can I concede that while upwards of 95% of Germans at the time of WW2 identified as Christian (rather than Catholic, Hitler and his ilk identified as 'German Christian' whatever that is) that many of the Europeans and North Americans that fought and died to stop the Nazis were also Christian. Don't even start me on the Roman Catholic Church's stance during WW2, which basically aligned with Italy's. I've said before that I'm Greek (Orthodox) and it's a matter of record that little Greece fought and bled hard to hold back the Nazi advance. I'll also say regarding your reference to the Spanish Inquisition that the ability of men in power (including the church at points in history) to be corrupted doesn't mean you dismiss the beauty of the message and the life that came before. You have every right to be discerning. Just try not to throw the baby (message) out with the bathwater. Otherwise you've potentially been cheated out of something beautiful, which is equally tragic.