Mousetrap: I'm personally inviting any hot women to find out what it's like to be straight in Toronto ...............sorry mouse, couldn't resist

(V): There was a program on Tv the other week about it. The narrator who is gay himself went over to find out what it really was like to be gay in Uganda and everyone he spoke too really hated gays.

Artful Dodger:

Sure, I am wrong, then how do you explain what he did in the radio show when he was mocking Malia Obama's voice?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/glenn-beck-attacks-presid_n_593587.html

"Daddy? Why do you hate black people so much?"

Who is missing the point? Me and my "ultra liberal" mind? Like I said before, Glen Beck can sound honest and smart through all of his sarcasm. But when stops thinking about what he says, he shows a side of his thinking that points to his deep seated prejudices. In reality it is not only him. Rush Limbaugh has said some things that make Glenn Beck look tame.

Artful Dodger:

I understand that Mr. Beck is getting at how both Bush presidents were hammered on accounts of the Exxon-Valdez and Hurricaine Katrina, while Barrack IObama was left relatively unscathed by the BP oil spill. However, Mr. Beck does clearly say that the president hates black people, and further repeats it in that joke at Malia Obama's expense. It is all I am getting at. Beck has called the president a racist both against black and white people. He called justice Sotomayor a racist too. There is a pattern there.

Artful Dodger: Yes. Many a time I have.. But you never understand...

Must be an ideological black hole or something.

Artful Dodger: Perhaps you can explain the context and how you see it rather than just say ..."you still have it wrong"

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=064rdvK16TQ

Artful Dodger:

> btw, you got that wrong. YOu really should know what you're talking about first before you post about it.
> This was NOT the main thrust of the full context. So try again.

Here is the original from Glenn Beck's website. Note that in his website Glenn Beck edited a sentence out "Is it the white part of Barrack Obama?". Obviously Mr. Beck did not want to appear racist once he had time to think about what he said live in his radio show.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41203/

It is clear, Beck said that Obama hates black people. Well, you can justify this on accounts of the Gulf Oil spill, but what about the tasteless jokes at Malia Obama's expense? "Daddy why do you hate black people?" Clearly Mr. Beck thinks Obama is a racist who hates both black and white people.

Well, the point I was tyring to make is that Mr. Beck has been attacking the president for a long time now, grasping at anything he could to discredit the president. In accusing the president of being a racist, Mr. Beck projects his own racial prejudice.

Artful Dodger: Really.. I have to shut up because you say so!!

Übergeek 바둑이: They did DNA tests on several 'white folk' in the UK as part of an experiment regarding genetic heritage. The people who were tested had all expressed concerns over certain minorities and their influence in the UK.

... Their genetic heritage showed that all of them had genes that proved their family tree including such minorities and as a matter of course all 'white folk' in the UK had some DNA that could be traced back to non white folk genetic heritage.

Artful Dodger: I think[Übergeek 바둑이 has given fine examples of how Beck Manipulates things.

I can find more if you want.. and you know I'll find them.. if you are honest on the subject that is...

Glenn Beck talking about Obama's response to the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico:

"Now wait a minute. Hang on just a second. That’s James Carville talking about Louisiana. Why does Barack Obama hate black people? Is it the white part of Barack Obama? Once again, Louisiana, let me tell you something. If this was happening in the very white state of…"

In May, 2010, Beck's radio show aired a very insulting series of jokes in which Beck mocks Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia. In it Beck insinuates that Obama hates black people.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025

The most recent, and the one that cost Beck his job:

“This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

“I’m not saying that he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. He has a - this guy is, I believe, a racist.”

The following day, Beck stood by the remarks: “I think the president is a racist.”

So President Obama hates both Black and White people.

I am no Sigmund Freud, but it seems to me that in attacking the president Glenn Beck is projecting his own hatred. Beck's vitriolic attacks are an effort to mask his own insecurities and racial prejudice.

(V):

It is not the first time Glenn Beck does this. In 2009 Sonia Sotomayor was nominated as the first female Hispanic justice of the Supreme Court. After her nomination Glenn Beck called her a racist after she insinuated that in some cases a Hispanic woman who had the life experience of a Latina might be better equipped to deal with interpretation of the law than a white male who did not have the life experience of a Latina. Glenn Beck went onto call her a racist repeatedly just based on a single comment taken out of context.

Beck has a history of racially motivated remarks. His comments on migrant Mexican workers borders on xenophobia. So does his fear of Moslems, and his hatred of President Obama. Beck has gone so far as to say that Barrack Obama chose his name because it is a deliberately unamerican name that represents the values of his "radical" father. Calling Obama a racist who hates white people is stupid. How quickly Mr. Beck forgets that Mr. Obama's mother is Caucasian. To Mr. Beck anything not remotely resembling his narrow view of "white culture" is unamerican and a threat.

While there are times when Glenn Beck might sound coherent and smart, this time around he put himself forward as somebody prejudiced and ignorant. He has no clue of what he means when he says "white culture". Does he mean German culture? Italian, French, Russian, Romanian, etc.? To him white people and white culture are the American Anglo-saxon right-wing middle class. Anything else is unamerican, and therefore a threat to that narrow view of white culture. In making this comment, as well as several other racially insensitive actions and remarks, he has portrayed himself as a xenophobe. It comes as no surprise that advertisers in and out of the USA have withdrawn their support for his show.

400 advertisers did not like "I think Obama is a racist... deep-seated hatred for white people" and hence boycotted his show.

Artful Dodger: I saw reasons why yesterday. Flicking through the news channels here I caught a glimpse of Glenn and his way of manipulating data. Same as a Conservative MP on Question Time last night. To quote a figure whilst not giving an accurate representation of what it signifies is a con. On Question Time the MP was called on his loose use of a meaningless yet leading statistics.

As to Glenn in the future, sure those who like his style will keep lining his pocket for a sound bite that makes them feel righteous over their view on America. Feeding conspiracy theories whilst those lining his pocket through 'sponsorship' line their pockets through old out of date cold war rhetorical mumblings.

As for Obama hating white folk... why? I've seen more in the way of hate towards him from white folk, I can understanding having annoyance at such can't you?

No doubt if Beck can't sell his venom through a political 'talk' show he'll turn to religion and slime his way into some church who's willing to use his manipulation as a means to get more donations.

Artful Dodger: stay out of it and let them kill themselves...it will eventually happen.

Coalition friendly fire kills 13 rebels in Libya.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9124801/coalition-friendly-fire-kills-13-libyan-rebels/

"A NATO-led air strike killed 13 Libyan rebels, a rebel spokesman said on Saturday, but their leaders called for continued raids on Muammar Gaddafi's forces despite the "regrettable incident.""

As was reported earlier, Al Qaeda has infiltrated the rebel ranks. Is it a coincidence that NATO is bombing the rebels too? The Obama administration has admitted that CIA special forces are on the ground in Libya. If that is the case, they might be passing intelligence about the location of high ranking members of Al Qaeda's AQIM army. It should come as no surprise if we see more of these "friendly fire" incidents.

Besides, even during his early 2010 heyday, Fox was unable to generate advertising revenues to match Mr. Beck’s ratings, since no reputable company would sign on to sponsor the guy who accused Mr. Obama of harbouring a “deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Mr. Beck’s ratings plummeted 31 per cent in the first three months of 2011, compared with the same period last year. His audience among viewers in the key 25-to-54-year-old cohort plunged 38 per cent to fewer than 500,000.

Mr. Beck has still been drawing almost two million viewers during his 5 p.m. time slot, which is more than the number who tune in to the four competing cable news channels combined. But Beck diehards tend to be older, while serious political news junkies are returning again to CNN.

For months, reports have been surfacing about a souring of the relationship between Mr. Beck and Fox president Roger Ailes. Notwithstanding its “Fair & Balanced” tagline, the network owned by Australian magnate Rupert Murdoch is an unapologetic champion of the right. But Mr. Beck’s bombastic, and regularly offensive, commentary had become a drag on the Fox brand.

hiccup

http://www.kcci.com/r/27453689/detail.html

Mousetrap: I saw.. It seems such Christians as that site exemplifies have been visiting Uganda. Thanks to the worry of the high levels of HIV/AIDS infection and the moral guidance of USA evangelicals, the already harsh laws on homosexuality (imprisonment as being gay is illegal) were to be strengthened by a Ugandan MP private bill. He put a bill up to make being gay a punishable by death crime.

The Col: sounds like the perfect politician

The Col: I don't want that clown.. just another BS artist

"The Donald" has not personally filed chapt 11, though he came close in 1990, but many of his businesses have.Do you want Trump running the "business" of the USA?

the effects of recession left Trump unable to meet loan payments. Trump financed the construction of his third casino, the $1 billion Taj Mahal, primarily with high-interest junk bonds. Although he shored up his businesses with additional loans and postponed interest payments, by 1991 increasing debt brought Trump to business bankruptcy[13] and the brink of personal bankruptcy. Banks and bond holders had lost hundreds of millions of dollars, but opted to restructure his debt to avoid the risk of losing more money in court. The Taj Mahal re-emerged from bankruptcy on October 5, 1991, with Trump ceding 50% ownership in the casino to the original bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates on the debt and more time to pay it off.[26]

On November 2, 1992, the Trump Plaza Hotel was forced to file a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection plan after being unable to make its debt payments. Under the plan, Trump agreed to give up a 49% stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders. In return Trump would receive more favorable terms on the remaining $550+ million owed to the lenders and retain his position as chief executive, though he would not be paid and would not have a role in day-to-day operations.[27]

By 1994, Trump had eliminated a large portion of his $900 million personal debt[28] and reduced significantly his nearly $3.5 billion in business debt. While he was forced to relinquish the Trump Shuttle (which he had bought in 1989), he managed to retain Trump Tower in New York City and control of his three casinos in Atlantic City. Chase Manhattan Bank, which lent Trump the money to buy the West Side yards, his biggest Manhattan parcel, forced the sale of a parcel to Asian developers. According to former members of the Trump Organization, Trump did not retain any ownership of the site's real estate - the owners merely promised to give him about 30 percent of the profits once the site was completely developed or sold. Until that time, the owners wanted to keep Trump on to do what he did best: build things. They gave him a modest construction fee and a management fee to oversee the development. The new owners also allowed him to put his name on the buildings that eventually rose on the yards because his well-known moniker allowed them to charge a premium for their condos.[29]




In 1995, he combined his casino holdings into the publicly held Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts. Wall Street drove its stock above $35 in 1996, but by 1998 it had fallen into single digits as the company remained profitless and struggled to pay just the interest on its nearly $3 billion in debt. Under such financial pressure, the properties were unable to make the improvements necessary for keeping up with their flashier competitors. Finally, on October 21, 2004, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts announced a restructuring of its debt.[31] The plan called for Trump's individual ownership to be reduced from 56 percent to 27 percent, with bondholders receiving stock in exchange for surrendering part of the debt. Since then, Trump Hotels has been forced to seek voluntary bankruptcy protection to stay afloat. After the company applied for Chapter 11 Protection in November 2004, Trump relinquished his CEO position but retained a role as Chairman of the Board. In May 2005[32] the company re-emerged from bankruptcy as Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings

2008 financial crisis

Trump has been caught in the 2008 financial crisis as sales for his Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago have been lagging and he failed to pay a $40m loan to Deutsche Bank in December.[35] Arguing that the crisis is an Act of God, he evoked a clause in the contract to not pay the loan and initiated a countersuit asserting his image has been damaged.[35] Deutsche Bank has in turn noted in court that 'Trump is no stranger to overdue debt' and that he has twice previously filed for bankruptcy with respect to his casino operations.[35]

On February 17, 2009 Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; Trump having stated on February 13 that he would resign from the board.[36] Trump Entertainment Resorts has three properties in Atlantic City

source : wiki

(V): That site is obvious very bias. No one mentioned the radio in her head and when you try to register to reply you have to finish off a Bible quotation. What the heck?

... I saw a strange story on the BBC news wewbsite regarding an attack on a painting by a Christian woman. The painting by Paul Gauguin called "Two Tahitian Women" depicts two women's bare breasts.

I thought seeing as the news article did not go into two much detail I'd check out the web for more detail and found this.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=725611

.. at the bottom ...

"The information presented here is Biblically accurate. Opinions concerning the technical difficulties, fitness requirements, safety, and ratings of self-crucifixion, flagellation, stoning, destroying enemies of GOD utterly, without mercy, and other activities inherent in Christianity are subjective and may differ from yours or others' opinions; therefore be warned that you must exercise your own judgment as to the difficulty and your ability to safely protect yourself from the inherent risks and dangers. Do not use the information provided on this site unless you are a True Christian ™ who understands and accepts the risks of participating in these activities. Landover Baptist Church makes reasonable efforts to include accurate and up to date information on this website, errors or omissions sometimes occur, therefore the information contained on here is provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind either expressed or implied. Viewing, reading, or any other use of the information contained within this web site is purely the voluntary will of the viewer or user. You, 'the viewer' or 'user' shall not hold the publisher, owner, authors or other contributors of The Jesus Experience responsible for any incidents related directly or indirectly to the Experience. Landover Baptist Church, et. al., assumes no liability or responsibility for your actions."

Bwild:

> I'm beginning to think Donald Trump has the answer.

It is OK as long as Mr. Trump doesn't run the government like he did with his casinos!

An empty crude tanker arrived in Lybia today near one of the rebel strongholds. The tanker can carry up to 1 million barrels of crude oil. The shipping company that owns the tanker is refusing to give details about the shipment. The buyer of the crude is unknown, but it is believed to be UK oil refiners Vitol:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110405/tot-uk-libya-oil-loading-1c89468.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libyan-rebels-to-resume-oil-exports-through-tanker-1322911.php

The tanker is registered in Liberia, a country notorious for its illegal black market in diamonds and other minerals.

"The rebel-led government said it had concluded a deal with Qatar to market crude oil and had discussed plans with a U.N. envoy to exempt its oil exports from sanctions that have been imposed on Gaddafi entities."

"Jakob Larsen, maritime security officer with BIMCO, the world's largest private shipowners' association, said a tanker had been diverted last month by coalition naval units."

So the heroic NATO allies are already making a profit from oil trading, and helping the rebels make money to buy weapons.

" "The current wording of the U.N. Security Council resolution leaves considerable room for interpretation as to which cargoes are regarded as contraband and can therefore not be discharged legally in Libya," Larsen said."

So the UN resolution is nothing more than a favoritist excuse for attaking Gaddafi, while trading weapons and oil with the rebels.

That might be OK if the rebels had an interest in true democracy in Lybia, but as I mentioned a few posts ago, the rebels have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda's AIQM forces.

In essence NATO is helping the rebels trade oil for weapons, and those weapons will end up in the hands of Al Qaeda's army in North Africa.

Way to go empire, you just shot yourself in the foot!

Artful Dodger: I'm beginning to think Donald Trump has the answer.

Artful Dodger: I think it's hopeless for the US to think they can effect meaningful change in Afghanistan.

I had thought this was a post by the geek....

my bad, I just wanted to point out why the US liberals even think about changing the way we have done business here in the past 200 + years? Afghan has been around for how long... and you think we are doing something so wrong that we need a radical change?

Bernice: Thats why I love you Bernice!

Übergeek 바둑이: Yes he did.It is a question if he were the son of God or a prophet. But he certainly did exist. Jesus was a well used name in those days so he certainly existed as a man.

Czuch: the only reason I agree with you is that every time I disagree with someone in here, my posts either get deleted or changed to fit the "particular persons" ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

Artful Dodger: From long programs here looking at the matter.. it's a gradual process. Any effective change in the mind set of the general population is going to take years if not at least a decade. The effects of decades of manipulation and the support of militant groups does not just dissipate over night.

According to recent news reports, the rebels that are trying to topple Gaddafi have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. Apparently, Al Qaeda unveiled its full Lybia wing in 2007 and for the last few years has been trying to topple Gaddafi.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110315/ts_dailybeast/12919_alqaedaslibyaplans

Here is an interesting article of how complex the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Lybian people is, and how Gaddafi has tried to exterminate Al Qaeda in Lybia.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=307

There are claims now that the USA and its NATO allies provided weapons to the rebels trying to topple Gaddafi. Since Al Qaeda infiltrated their ranks, Al Qaeda has syphoned off weapons to its own AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). This is the North African army organized by Al Qaeda to topple North African governments, specifically Algeria, Lybia and Egypt. Among the weapons stolen is a cache of surface-to-air missiles.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=76232

If these claims are true, this could seriously jeopardize efforts to support regime change in Lybia because the end result might be not the democratic government that our western governments desire, but rather an extremist Islamic government controlled by Al Qaeda.

Artful Dodger:

> the Koran burning upset our Muslim allies in Afghanistan

The truth is that this points to the sorry state that Afghanistan is in.

This is all the product of our western desire to get rid of communism in Afghanistan. When Afghanistan had its socialist revolution, they tried to do away with this kind of ignorance. The climate of fear of the Cold War caused our western governments to provide money, weapons and training to the Moujahaideen. Arab states in the Middle East openly called for a Jihad against the godless communists and over 100,000 volunteer insurgents swelled the ranks of the Moujahaideen. They were provided by weapons, training and military intelligence by several western governments, most notably the USA. Pakistan provided a base of operations from where these insurgents could be trained, armed and sent to fight over the mountains in Afghanistan. The Moujahaideen succeded in driving out the Soviet Union after sending 1 million Afghans to their deaths.

Today the same men who 20-30 years ago were fighting against the Soviet Union are now running the Taliban and Al Qaida. They wanted to create for themselves an extremist, fundamentalist Islamic state and they succeeded. After the 9-11 attacks the USA saw itself forced to take action against these people and now there is no end in sight to that conflict. I consider the current conflict in Afghanistan to be the aftermath of the Cold War. So are the confilcts in Rwanda and the People's Republic of Congo.

The killing of the UN workers was the product of insurgents infiltrating the ranks of what started as a peaceful protest. There have been a lot of protests in other places, not just Afghanistan. These insurgents are using the burning of the Koran as an excuse to terrorize foreign aid workers, and to cement the culture of fear that Afghanistan is grappling with.

Bernice: Oh Bernice... you always agree with me, just to be equitable ;)

Artful Dodger:

> That Jesus the man existed is a well established historical fact. You make the same mistake many make in regarding the Bible as something other than a historical text, which it clearly is. It passes the same historical tests other ancient document must pass.

This is an issue of faith, and it is complex. Outside of the New Testament there is no mention of Jesus during his own lifetime. The New Testament itself has a colorful history and the Gospels describe some historical events described by other sources outside the Bible, albeit with contradictions, ommissions and no sense of dates other than vague references to some of the events. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek and not Aramaic. This has caused scholars some concern because Jesus and the Apostles spoke aramaic rathern than Greek. Scholars believe that the gospels proceed from one and possibly two earlier sources which could have been documents but most likely were an oral tradition. The oldest extand copies of the New Testament proceed from nearly 200 years after the death of Jesus. Then there were many versions of the Gospels and the church did not fix their form until the 4th century AD, nearly 400 years after the death of Jesus.

Outside of the New testament there are basicly 3 extremely small descriptions of somebody who could be interpreted as being Jesus. Pliny the Younger wrote in 112 AD that Christians were worshipping Jesus rather than the Roman emperor. Tacitus wrote in 116 AD that Nero prosecuted Christians in 64 AD and blamed them for starting the great fire that burned Rome. Suetonius wrote at around 120 AD that Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome at around 50 AD because they were causing disturbances by a man who called himself Chrestus. These three Roman sources speak of events that had happened 50-70 years earlier, and the events were recorded over 110 years after the death of Jesus.

Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD, and he mentions Jesus there. However, most scholars believe that the passage was rewritten by a later scribe and dismiss the passage as either partially corrupt or entirely false.

Other mentions of Jesus such as the Talmud, Thallus, Lucian and Celsus are vague and even later, dating to near 200 AD.

Most of the documents outside the Bible were translated from Greek into Latin during the Middle Ages, so they in essence represent translations of vague references and second-hand evidence. Most scholars struggle with this, in particular those who are not skeptics but who are looking for corroboration outside the Bible.

Whether the Bible is a historical text is a matter of faith because the life of Jesus cannot be corroborated unambiguosly from other sources. The evidence outside the New Testament is very weak. Those who have faith see the Bible as a fully historical document. Those without faith see it as best a weakly historical document. Archaelogical evidence can show the life of Jews at the time of Jesus, but it cannot prove whether Jesus lived or not.

Evidence for the Old Testament is even weaker. To date scholars cannot prove at all that the main figures of the Old Testament existed. There is no proof at all of the existence of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Saul. As for David there is a stone tablet that could be interpreted as having his name. Nothing else beyond that. Scholars have been looking for archaelogical evidence from solomn's reign but have found nothing conclusive yet. Some day perhaps.

> To what code do you appeal in your protest against hypocrisy?

To the simple code that people claim to follow a higher moral principle, and then contradict themselves with their actions. Then when confronted with the contradiction, they go on to make excuses. I see it as simple: "I am a good Cristian, but it is OK to send our soldiers to kill somebody in another country". "I believe in democracy, but it is OK to prop up a fascist dictator if it is politically and economically convenient." "I believe in human equality, but it is OK for a rich to use others to make himself richer." When confronted with a simple, straight forward contradiction our most cherished principles fall apart, so we proceed to make excuses. "We are sending soldiers because they are evil and we are not. So what if we kill 4000,000 of them? I am still a good Christian." "So what if some dictator in Latin America killed 200,000 people? They were probably communists and our companies are still making a big profit." "So what if a lot of people end up poor? Businesses are still making a profit and we are still all equal, right?"

> It always surprises me when an atheist talks about personal failings. What they really mean by this is what we all mean when we talk this way: We have failed to live up to some sort of accepted standard. For the Christian, that standard comes from God. But what's the source for an atheist?

Is it possible for a sense of right and wrong to come from something other than religion? Is God the only source of good? No offense, but Christians are not the great arbiters of good and evil. There is extensive literature about good and evil OUTSIDE of the Bible. Philosophers have grappled with the questions for thousands of years. In the end everybody has a sense of right and wrong, even Atheists. We all have set rules for our behaviour (except maybe for psycopaths). Otherwise society would not function. Approximately 15% of the population of the world is atheist. Does that mean they are all evil? Without a sense of right and wrong, or remorse? If religion is the source of good, then why do religious people do wrong? Religion gives people some set of ethical standards. It does not mean people will follow them. Likewise atheists have ethical standards too. It might not come from religious faith, but it does not meant it is less valid.

Czuch: only her "bits and pieces" have changed...her ability to run, play etc is still female ability....let her/him play with the girls.....might get hurt playing with the boys LOL....
I agree with you tho...born a girl, play with the girls.
Testosterone don't count.

Female.... homosexual.... sex change operation.... is now a man....plays basketball in college for the woman's team.....

I say as long as she is not taking testosterone, she is still a woman, and it is ok.

But.... if this person says she is really a man and she is no longer called a she but now he, why still get the benefit of playing on the girls team?
Why not go all the way, and play for the boys or just dont play at all?

But, then if you feel this way, what if a guy says he is a girl, then do you make/let him play with the girls?

I think I am with the if they are born a girl, they play with the girls, and visa verse, exception, if they take 'illegal' sports enhancing drugs IE testosterone, then to me too bad so sad, you are a dude, and play with the dudes or dont play at all!

Try telling that to the likes of the Phelps family.

Czuch: Yes and no.. Historically the God of Jews and Christians as laid down in the Bible is a mass murderer. He has wiped out nearly all life on this planet (according to a literal interpretation of the story .. and according to a literal interpretation of Revelations a great deal of humans are going to die rather violently.

But that is a literal interpretation (black/white) with no allowance for interpretation based on the history of the matter written.


Some elements in all religions go by that literal and try hard to do God's will based on that literacy...... seeing as God kills... as God's children..

Perversion ..

As such even if a fellow member of the faith (eg is ok with gay but does not like abortions) they would be considered a heretic and condemned to a life ever after in "hell"

.. yet forgetting that one part of the original names for hell has gone being it a historical place at the time of writing.

...getting away from the topic a bit?

Artful Dodger: Historically Jesus did not (why the Jewish do not recognise him as Messiah) fulfil all what was prophesied he would. In fact according to the Jewish historians another bloke came up as fulfilling the Messiah role better.. at least for the Jews.

.. The intepretation that many Christians hold is it is God's plan (who Jesus is the Son of and must obey the word of God.. him being the Father) to kill and destroy most humans on this planet (no accounting for other planets it must be said) ..

Revelation 21
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

.................. Rather violent that of our God isn't it?

http://www.armyofgod.com/


... Rather violent are they not?

Artful Dodger: Hmmm that many of the passages you'll probably find on your sites promoting hate of Muslims and the Koran will not quote the history of the writings. That at the time of Mohammed and the formation of the Islamic faith they were fighting for their lives yet.. Allah saw it wise to promote something akin to the Geneva Convention over a thousand years before we Christians did.

Mousetrap: Went into a local shop and they were watching the match on the laptop. When they won!!!!

Artful Dodger:

I know that my last post sounds harsh, but I am trying to get a point across. Book burning of any kind is wrong. A person could burn a Bible, a Koran, etc. It is nothing more than ignorance and fear.

>> " But then I think Jesus did not exist, and if he existed, he was a false prophet too ..."

> Utterly false. Jesus DID exist. It's an historical fact.

My point is, calling Mohammad a false prophet might be OK is you don't believe in his teachings, but to somebody who does it is rather insulting. It is like saying that Jesus was a false prophet and did not exist. My sentence questions Christian faith at its core. For most Christians the existence of Jesus is a given and central to their faith. It is immaterial that there is no historical proof of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible (as an aside, there is no historicity to the existence of Jesus and there are no confirmed literary descriptions of Jesus outside the Bible). It is faith that makes Jesus real in the eyes of a Christian believer. Likewise, it is faith that makes Mohammad a prophet in the eyes of Moslems.

> Bibles are burned everyday somewhere. Flag burning bothers me more but I don't take to the street for it.

The answer is that burning the Koran was a symbolic act, just like burning a flag is. In reality burning the Koran makes no damage to Islam, just a burning the flag makes no damage to the country it represents. It is symbolic act of disapproval, anger, defiance, and in some cases even hatred.

> Even atheists are hypocrites.

Hypocrysy is EVERYWHERE. A catholic priest will go and preach on a Sunday to his congregation, then he will go and abuse a child. An evangelical pastor will preach to his congregation, then he will ask them for money and use that wealth to maintain his mistresses. An imam will preach of moslem piety, then send young men and women to die in a suicide attack. A politician will talk of freedom and democracy, then send troops to kill thousands in another country. A communist will talk of equality and the rights of the working class, then arrest his opponents and send them to prison. Humanity is eternally caught in its contradictions and its hypocrysy. That hypocrysy will go from petty, every day acts, to the biggest and most horrendous crimes.

> The actions of ONE man do not reflect on an entire group.

That is the reason why any religion survives. If we were to judge Christianity for the actions of those who do wrong, then Cristianity would fail to pass the test. Chirstianity has been mired in inquisitions, witch hunts, religious wars, hatred, intolerance, etc. People like Terry Jones are passing judgement on Islam based on the actions of what in essence is a very small minority of fanatical terrorists. It would be like passing judgement on Christianity based on the actions of the Borgias or the Holy Inquisition. It would be like passing judgement on all Marxists based on the actions of Joseph Stalin. Or like saying that the criminal jailers in Abu Graib represent ALL the American people. Those generalizations are destructive, and obscure the good things that people have done irrespective of religion or ideology. We insist on passing absolute judgements of good and evil, and we are unbale to acknowledge that there is good in Christianity, as there is good in Islam, Judaism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc.

> If that is your standard, then you have to accept the fact that you too are a hypocrite.

Nobody is immune from hypocrysy, and I am the first to admit my own failings. I know that in some ways I am good, and in others I am wrong. I am not one to quote the Bible much, but "let he who is free from sin cast the first stone."

In the eyes of the fanatic, his/her actions are ALWAYS right. The hypocrite sees himself as always in the right, and when he doesn't, he doesn't care about the consequences of his actions. When caught doing something bad, the hypocryte will blame somebody else, or blame the circumstances around him. When there is nobody to blame but himself, he will fall down on his knees and beg for forgiveness. He will even try to be sincere in his repentance, but deep inside he will callously ignore that what he did was wrong. He will make excuses and find religious or ideological justifications for his actions, and when that fails, he will call to higher moral principles and impose his views in a rigid, fanatical way. He will exploit fear to promote hatred, and then use that hatred and fear to further his own ambitions and greed. When asked to justify himself, his rethoric will fall on self-righteous ideology and the higher principles that everyone aspires to or admires. Those who believe in him will follow him blindly, because following blindly is easier than accepting that they must use critical thinking and avoid being duped by a fanatical demagogue.