posted April 23, 2007 03:07 AM         

Your statement would be true.

posted April 28, 2007 07:52 PM           

I don't get offended over stupidity and that was a stupid, biased article obviously written by someone who hasn't bothered to get past their own narrow minded predjudices to actually do any kind of investigation into most Christian religions.

Anyone can shoot off their mouths in America without bothering to get educated over what they are talking about. It's a democracy.

Seems to me this person is also using fear and all the things he accuses Christians of doing and this person is every bit as narrow minded and prejudiced and dogmatic as he accuses the Christians of being.

posted May 05, 2007 07:18 AM         

quote:

---

And that article is not stupid.

---

Ummm, yes it is. It's a completely over-zealous exaggeration about Christianity. The whole thing tries to back up its argument about Christianity with either old 15th Century problems or practices of the Radical Evangelicals/Fundamentalists. It doesn't consider every angle of Christianity so is therefore completely biased and has little factual basis. There is nothing objective or rational about it; its just ridiculous propoganda designed to scare the masses.....much like those Evangelicals you're against (don't you love irony).

*edited to add*

quote:

---

*If you are a Christian and you believe that god created the world in seven days around 5000-6000yrs ago as the genesis says, I completely understand why you would believe this if you are hundreds of years old or come from a very poor, uneducated country but in this day and age….We now know that this is ‘not the case’..

---

Yeah, and in my religion class they were careful to teach us that it is largely a story meant to teach a lesson just like any other myth about creation. They're warn us not to believe it word from word. Believe it or not, the church is improving in that area.

quote:

---

We are in an International environmental crisis at the moment. And with half the world (slight exaggeration) following the belief that ‘all the animals and all the trees were put here for human benefit so lets just abuse it all’ is not quite the clear thinking attitude we need at the moment

---

posted May 05, 2007 02:48 PM         

You are oversimplifying a very complicated argument concerning the creation of the world in 7 days and if that is your only argument, then it is incredibly weak.

Many believe that the 7 day theory doesn't mean human days or our time. It is more symbolic. Some say that a day to God could be 2000 days to us...

If one compares the Geologic time table to the 7 days of creation one will see that the event line up, albeit over a much longer period of time than 7 days. I outlined this in my Creation vs Evolution seminar that I had to take along with a semester of Evolution in college.

There are still massive holes in the theory of Evolution, yet some hold onto that theory as though it was a religion.

Keep in mind that while there are those that adhere strictly to the theory that the Bible is 100% factual and infallible, there are some that believe many of the stories are more as a guide and inspired by God.

It depends on the school of thought.

What I would like to ask you is this, why did you chose Christianity to attack? What religion are you if any? Can you not find these outrageous issues in ALL religions or do you just have a bone to pick with Christianity?

The article you posted IS dumb in that is defeats itself with, as Dulce Luna put it, gross exaggerations.

pidaua

posted May 05, 2007 11:47 PM         

They not only found him, but his whole family including mother Mary, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son!

So much for the resurrection!

posted May 06, 2007 02:50 AM         

Not to mention ONE HUGE glaring fact. The body.. important word here "BODY" of Christ was left behind. After the resurrection (remember after he had made his decent into Hell and ascent into Heaven) he came back in human form in order to prove he was the Son of God. It does not say how the "flesh" body was returned.

Let me ask you this, how is it you and others are so eager to believe in this thing we call astrology, paganism, astral projection and Wicca (all of which calls for a leap of faith in the unknown) YET.. you cannot WAIT to do away with "Christ"?

I believe it is fear that keeps you from being able to acknowledge another persons faith or believe that counters your own. Should you believe in God then you would have to believe in a higher power..

Then again.. what exactly DO you believe in? You seem to preach enough about protests, anarchy and such.. but what do you really believe in?

Oh wait.. I forgot.. you don't answer questions.. instead you just switch topics or question the person..

posted May 06, 2007 08:38 AM         

quote:

---

They not only found him, but his whole family including mother Mary, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son!

---

posted May 06, 2007 12:27 PM         

I was a Christian when I was younger (6th-9th grade). I learned a lot about the teachings. How it is practiced today by many priests ect I can not agree with. The teachings as I saw them, were built on a solid foundation of fear and guilt (the need to be forgiven). And I ask you if it is not based on fear: than what happens to non Christians when they die?

Of course the answer I always received is: They don't go to heaven. Even if they are kind souls who are enlightened and live an honest life? "They still go to hell if they are not Christian!" It was an evangelical church that I frequented at the time with my friends family.

I do resent you saying I am uninformed. But make whatever assumptions you would like, I can't stop you from that. But here is an idea: maybe we should NOT keep things personal, as insults on intelligence are not very nice...not very Christian like I would think. To equate my writings with "non-answer"? Well, I don't have time to spend with that type of stuff. Either debate, or don't bother responding to me anymore okay? or if you do, I will not bother with it as I don't need to shift through the fluff (insults) to get to your key point. I believe I have provided adequate replies when needed and not just "non-answers".

I simply post that link as it has stirred up a lot of talk elsewhere. I posted about the documentary, a recent find, (which is hardly uninformed, I would figure being ignorant of it would be uninformed, haha)

thats how I feel. talk about it, comment on it, but leave out the uninformed/any other insulting quotes. I don't need it. you find your own truth and as long as you feel enlightened, good for you. I will find my own truth. But there are over 1 billion of us Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist types in the world, and growing. Though I do subscribe to a lot of the Buddhist teachings as I believe they are flexible too... in that you yourself search for your own truth. no fear. no guilt.

posted May 06, 2007 02:44 PM         

quote:

---

I was a Christian when I was younger (6th-9th grade). I learned a lot about the teachings. How it is practiced today by many priests ect I can not agree with. The teachings as I saw them, were built on a solid foundation of fear and guilt (the need to be forgiven). And I ask you if it is not based on fear: than what happens to non Christians when they die?

Of course the answer I always received is: They don't go to heaven. Even if they are kind souls who are enlightened and live an honest life? "They still go to hell if they are not Christian!" It was an evangelical church that I frequented at the time with my friends family.

---

Please note that you said that this was an Evangelical Church, a very radical school of Christianity that most Christians don't even belong to. What is it gonna take for people to get through their heads that Christianity is not that radical, its the fundamentalists/Evangelicals. Heck, this goes for every religion from Christianity to Islam or whatever. I'm sick of reiterating this crap over and over again.

posted May 06, 2007 10:01 PM         

Saying you are uninformed is NOT an attack, it is an observation. How is it you can make your observations and feel you do not have to be questioned when others feel your words are offensive, yet you cry foul when someone calls you on your narrow-mindedness.

Dulce is 100% right. You are talking about extremists and applying a whole group based on the actions of a few (meaning a few sects within the Christian realm). It is absurd and close-minded to act in such a way and makes you seem uninformed.

Not all of us that experienced Christian upbringing has the bejesus scared out of us. As to what happens to non-Christians, I am not God so I cannot make that judgement. There are those that call themselves Christians that don't walk the walk, again, that is up to God to judge, not me.

posted May 07, 2007 01:18 AM         

In fact...they were born again...

But Baptist..

gosh, they switched around a lot in fact. don't know if they were devoted to one section, don't think so.

sorry it was so long ago.

posted May 07, 2007 02:37 AM         

PID: QUOTE “You are oversimplifying a very complicated argument concerning the creation of the world in 7 days and if that is your only argument, then it is incredibly weak.” Obviously that is not my only argument (quoteKJ: ( I’ll just give one example that is scientifically proven) …and yes I understand that this is an complicated subject….(but not that complicated..)

PID:: What I would like to ask you is this, why did you chose Christianity to attack? I didn’t mean to attack, I posted that article because I think sometimes people do not like to question their own faith as it is like questioning their own life. But it has come to a point in evolution where we must get a better grasp on reality.

What religion are you if any? I believe in science, yet I am agnostic. Can you not find these outrageous issues in ALL religions or do you just have a bone to pick with Christianity? Of course there are outrageous issues with all religions. But i have most of my problems with christianity.

posted May 07, 2007 02:49 AM         

I am an anti-religionist myself.

posted May 07, 2007 05:14 AM         

So you believe in Science. That's great. I have two degrees in Science - Biology and Chemistry. I have spent most of my career in science / research- in Biotechnology, Diagnostics and Bioterrorism. Yet.. I am truly objective in that I look at all sides.

Science cannot tell you what to believe. It cannot tell you if it is right or wrong but only what the potential consequences are. I suggest you look deeper into the realm of science and what it means before you start professing that you "know it all".

LMAO.... My personal belief about you is that you got burned down the line, so now you have made it your personal mission to blast Christianity as a whole.

That is your right, but you made one HUGE mistake. For someone that proclaims to believe in Science, you only demonstrated one side yet you did not back it up with any scientific facts.

Science 101.. make sure you explore ALL possibilities not just the parameters that you have set to prove only your point.

posted May 07, 2007 08:38 AM         

we are governed by the Universal Laws
that are immutable, you get what you give,
you reap what you sow, an eye for an eye,
Karma, the only way to stop the circle of
Karma, is complete Forgiveness of what is
done wrong to you, turn the other cheek, so
to speak, it's all simple...God does not judge,
we are judged by the Laws, of Karma...
However your life is, there is no One to
blame, for it was set in Motion, by your
own actions. ...

posted May 07, 2007 10:50 AM         

quote:

---

I added that ‘that article was not stupid’ because I was standing by my word, after ‘mirandee’ reminded me that some one ‘narrow minded’ had written a ‘stupid’ article. When I obviously believe it has much relevance. By saying “Umm, yes it is stupid” is implying that I and others must be stupid to believe it.

---

I'm sorry but Mirandee was correct to call it so. And no I don't believe you and the others are stupid to believe it, but I do believe you are wrong to believe that the article has alot of relevance when it is sooooooo one sided and therefore biased and therefore has little factual basis. You should probably do more research on every aspect of Christianity before consulting to that article as be all and end all tenet of everything-you-need-to-know-about-Christianity.

And Pidaua is right, how can you be scientific if you are approaching Christianity in the way you are? Because a truly scientific person would do their own research on it first before believing this piece of propoganda you just posted as the encyclopedia of Christianity.

posted May 07, 2007 04:02 PM         

You put it perfectly

posted May 08, 2007 09:52 AM         

Some people use religion to justify their atrocities and biases. Imo, that doesn't necessarily speak the whole truth about the religion itself or, more personally important to me, the teachings behind the religion.

posted June 08, 2008 10:18 AM         

quote:

---

not only that there are multiple Father and Lord God in the Bible. the Crooks who wrote it to fool everyone left a lot of loopholes. when does Christ ever call the Lord God HIS Holy Father.
all u need to do is read with an open mind.
the Gnostic and Essenic documents that have been discovered in the last 100 years preach a very differnt Christianity. not to mention the tomb they have discovered in India and the fact that the missing elevan years that the Bible skims thru were spent in INDIA,
and they far predate the TEXTBOOK printed and issued by the Vatican to its SHEEP.

the sheep that dont try to question why the Vatican had to murder hundreds of thousands of Jews, Moslems AND Christians ( who were original followers of christ, not baptised by the Roman church ) in the name of acquring the HOLY LAND.

why the Vatican murdered 9 MILLION women in the Middle ages .
by the way i have a PDF copy of " Malleus Malicforum "
interesting reading, asking all children of the church to condemn as witches the following

healers
psychics
midwives
widows
herb gatherers
astrologers
immortal women
unmarried women --

basically back in the middle ages if u were neither married nor a prostitute and were making ur own money or were highly Spiritual not a Religious church goer , a woman EVE would be proud of --- U were considered fit to be raped, torturted by clergy ( by raping u the priests are purging u of ur evil ) and then u would be tied to a stake for the whole town or village to see so they wouldn't dare to be like u and ofcourse roasted like hot turkey.

WHY ??

becoz it is hard work to destroy the Pagan belief system that was in practice in Europe that equated a woman as a Goddess, an Equal to man.when u want to sell to ur consumers u have to burn the competition like Bill Gates..

but ofcourse , are it is easy to go to church and pray to a Lord God becoz these things happened so many centuries ago, becoz, it is not one of our friends, wives, sisters, family in danger from the Same church TODAY .or that those hundred thousands innocent butchered in the crusades had no right to live on our Holy Land. they had it coming.

that is not to be compared to what our noble christian missionaries did in India when they found original followers of Christ who were following the Real christianity long before any church even opened office in India. too disgusting to type, google on " christian conversion tactics used in India "

if i have offeneded any pious , church goer, bible thumping Christian / Catholic, i am not going to apologise for yelling the bare truth out for everyone.

---

posted June 08, 2008 10:23 AM         

quote:

---

posted December 02, 2007 09:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENTING
The Holy Inquisitions

The Church

"Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma must be burned without pity."

- Pope Innocent III

The Inquisition was an ecclesiastical court and process of the Roman Catholic Church setup for the purpose towards the discovery and punishment of heresy which wielded immense power and brutality in medieval and early modern times. The Inquisitions function was principally assembled to repress all heretics of rights, depriving them of their estate and assets which became subject to the ownership of the Catholic treasury, with each relentlessly sought to destroy anyone who spoke, or even thought differently to the Catholic Church. This system for close to over six centuries became the legal framework throughout most of Europe that orchestrated one of the most confound religious orders in the course of mankind

The Holy Witchhunts

The term witch comes from the Old English word wicca, which is derived from the Germanic root wic, meaning to bend or to turn. Such accounts of witchcraft are found extensively in antiquity from Medea who employed sorcery to help Jason win the Golden Fleece, to the Witch of Endor in the Old Testament by whom King Saul consulted.

Most justification of the persecution of witches in Europe all later based themselves on such biblical percepts as commanded through that,

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (with Exodus.22:18 )",

or that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. (1 Cor. 10:20)"

These imputations from the 8th century and up then saw witchcraft becoming highly associated with apostasy with extensive and very violent campaigns taking place to mark its spread.

in The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe provided a baseline on the 300 year period of witch hunting from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, in what R.H. Robbins calls "the shocking nightmare, the foulest crime and deepest shame of western civilization," that ensured the European abandonment of the belief in magic. The Church created the elaborate concept of devil worship and then, used the persecution of it to wipe out dissent, subordinate the individual to authoritarian control, and openly denigrate women.

The witchhunts became an eruption of orthodox Christianity's vilification of women, or "the weaker vessel," in St. Peter's words. The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote:

"Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy,

"Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."

Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether women had souls. In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared,

"To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."

The thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman:

"nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."

Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all. Orthodox Christians held women responsible for all sin. As the Bible's Apocrypha states,

"Of woman came the beginning of sin/ And thanks to her, we all must die."

It is women who are often understood to be impediments to spirituality in a context where God reigns strictly from heaven and demands a renunciation of physical pleasure. As I Corinthians 7:1 states,

"It is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with a woman.
"Victims were charged for the very ropes that bound them and the wood that burned them. Each procedure of torture carried its fee. After the execution of a wealthy witch, officials usually treated themselves to a banquet at the expense of the victim's estate."

The process of formally persecuting witches followed the grinding inquisitional procedure. Once accused of witchcraft, it was virtually impossible to escape conviction. After cross-examination, the victim's body was examined for the witch's mark. The historian Walter Nigg described the process:

...she was stripped naked and the executioner shaved off all her body hair in order to seek in the hidden places of the body the sign which the devil imprinted on his cohorts.

Warts, freckles, and birthmarks were considered certain tokens of amorous relations with Satan. Should a woman show no sign of a witch's mark, guilt could still be established by methods such as sticking needles in the accused's eyes. The confession was then extracted by the hideous methods of torture already developed during earlier phases of the Inquisition.

"Loathe they are to confess without torture," wrote King James I in his Daemonologie.

A physician serving in witch prisons spoke of women driven half mad:

"by frequent torture... kept in prolonged squalor and darkness of their dungeons... and constantly dragged out to undergo atrocious torment until they would gladly exchange at any moment this most bitter existence for death, are willing to confess whatever crimes are suggested to them rather than to be thrust back into their hideous dungeon amid ever recurring torture."

Unless the witch died during torture, she was taken to the stake. Since many of the burnings took place in public squares, inquisitors prevented the victims from talking to the crowds by using wooden gags or cutting their tongues out.

[[ "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother,

it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman...

I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function
of bearing children."

- Saint Augustine (the prominent pioneer of Western theology) ]]

The sexual mutilation of accused witches was not uncommon. With the orthodox understanding that divinity had little or nothing to do with the physical world, sexual desire was perceived to be unGodly. When the men persecuting the accused witches found themselves sexually aroused, they assumed that such desire emanated, not from themselves, but from the woman. They attacked breasts and genitals with pincers, pliers and red-hot irons.

Some rules pardoned sexual abuse by allowing men deemed "zealous Catholics" to visit female prisoners in solitary confinement while not allowing female visitors. The people of Toulouse were so convinced that the inquisitor Foulques de Saint-George arraigned women for no other reason than to sexually abuse them that they took the dangerous and unusual step of gathering evidence against him.

Old, wise healing women were particular targets for witch-hunters as well.

"At this day," wrote Reginald Scot in 1584, "it is indifferent to say in the English tongue, 'she is a witch' or 'she is a wise woman.'"

Common people of pre-reformational Europe relied upon wise women and men for the treatment of illness rather than upon churchmen, monks or physicians. Robert Burton wrote in 1621:

Sorcerers are too common; cunning men, wizards and white witches, as they call them, in every village, which, if they be sought unto, will help almost all infirmities of body and mind.

By combining their knowledge of medicinal herbs with an entreaty for divine assistance, these healers provided both more affordable and most often more effective medicine than was available elsewhere. Churchmen of the Reformation objected to the magical nature of this sort of healing, to the preference people had for it over the healing that the Church or Church-licensed physicians offered, and to the power that it gave women. As a by-product of the witch hunts, the field of early medicine also transferred to exclusively male hands and the Western herbal tradition was largely destroyed.

---

consisted of sharpened iron nails that could be heated red hot from below.

The victim would be bound and then slowly roasted

in the open air as the coals heated the iron. ]]]

The Pear
The pear was a torture device used on females. This device was inserted into the vagina, or mouth of the victim and then expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture setting of the victims cavity. The antrum would then irremediably become lacerated, nearly always fatally, ripping the tissue, flesh and membranes.

This item became extensively applied throughout the Spanish Inquisition to force confessions from those accused of Witchcraft. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve better to rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. Many paid dearly when the Pear was their fate.

posted June 08, 2008 10:24 AM         

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian apologists for what happened goes like this:

(1) Ignore, suppress and pass it over in silence. Keep the person in the pew ignorant of church history.

(2) "Luther was a child of his times." Answer.
Religion set the spirit and laws of the time.

(3) Admit in the vague and abstract, then minimise and play down the atrocities, but say they were not committed by "true" Christians.

(4) Reply: Every cruel act can be justified by direct unambiguous quotes from the bible. The principles of the Bible themselves are PERVERSE, like its practitioners.

(5) This one beats the lot: It was not the "witches" themselves, but the mad delusion of those who persecuted them that came from the Devil. The Inquisitorial judges were the deluded agents of Satan. (Nigg)

How does one refute that infallible argument, except to say that anyone who believes the fairy tales of the Christian religion are technically certifiable? But how and why have the Christians got away with their Orwellian lies for nearly 2000 years? The Christians, if they had the political power, would do the same again and do so in the drug laws.

THE DRUG LAWS

The drug laws are based not on the pharmacological harm of the drugs but authoritarian Christian and Moslem temperance religious wowsers getting control of the U.N.W.H.O. Narcotics Commission and determining drug policy for the whole world. The death penalty, confiscation of property and anonymous dobbing-in (Operation Noah) are world wide and have all the characteristics of the earlier world-wide heresy and witch hunts.

The same religious mentality.

PS. The loving Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following offences: