Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 10-04-2003, 05:17 PM

The basis of this belief is purely Protestant and goes back to the Anglican Church and that crazy man Henry VIII, who just wanted to have sex.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X · 10-04-2003, 06:01 PM

He should have done what both Popes did . . . not advertise it. . . .

Anyways, even the NT has Junior spouting some rather "less-than-charitable" passages.

One can, and will, "justify" just about anything in scripture. The writers themselves sought to do just that.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby · 10-04-2003, 07:11 PM

Edited by moderator.

Doctor X · 10-05-2003, 08:20 AM

Peter:

This poem of your's did not, perchance, involve a man from Nantuckett?

--J.D.

contracycle · 10-06-2003, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DamagedGoods
I have heard some really scary things from people I used to go to church with. One guy - now a Navy officer - thought that the US should have conquered the world when we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, and filled the world with "christian" nations. I really don't know why American christianity seems to be thrilled by our ability to kick the ass of less technologically advanced countries. Maybe that's just what normally happens to the dominant religious belief in whichever country happens to be at the top of the heap for a generation or two.

I think you are correct, as it was very much the espoused motif of the British empire.

10-06-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DamagedGoods

I really don't know why American christianity seems to be thrilled by our ability to kick the ass of less technologically advanced countries.

In the bible "American [-like] Christianity" is called "the gates of hell" and such will never conquer the world because truth is just opposite to their idea of it.

Doctor X · 10-06-2003, 02:03 PM

It helps if we all read the same book. . . .

--J.D.

Bob K · 10-07-2003, 10:30 PM

Thomas Jefferson said: The essence of all law is that no man should [be allowed to] injure [cause a loss of life, limb, liberty, or property] another [innocent man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.

Does anyone seriously think he has the right to sacrifice the lives, limbs, liberties, and properties of his loved ones and others because of a belief that he should turn his cheek to injury?

Those who intend to injure innocent individuals are themselves not innocent.

When we face threats to the lives, limbs, liberites, and properties of our loved ones and ourselves, and others we care about, then we must respond with overwhelming force for the purpose of protecting our loved ones and those others and ourselves.

No Bibles are needed for this rational and therefore undeniable truth.

contracycle · 10-08-2003, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob K

When we face threats to the lives, limbs, liberites, and properties of our loved ones and ourselves, and others we care about, then we must respond with overwhelming force for the purpose of protecting our loved ones and those others and ourselves.

No Bibles are needed for this rational and therefore undeniable truth.

Son in other words, "christian" nmorality is an empty lie and just as opportunistic as any other political philosophy. I don;t mind - but then don;t go around claiming that christiantiy provides a message of peace and love, for clearly hatered and anger are more powerful than christian teaching.

Celsus · 10-08-2003, 01:48 AM

This thread is drifting to a more general topic, so off to GRD this goes. It's a pity no one has decided to consider CJD's post here.

Joel

10-04-2003, 07:11 PM	#13
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	A poem I like *Edited by moderator.*

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2003, 05:17 PM	#11
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	The basis of this belief is purely Protestant and goes back to the Anglican Church and that crazy man Henry VIII, who just wanted to have sex. best, Peter Kirby

10-04-2003, 06:01 PM	#12
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	He should have done what both Popes did . . . not advertise it. . . . Anyways, even the NT has Junior spouting some rather "less-than-charitable" passages. One can, and will, "justify" just about anything in scripture. The writers themselves sought to do just that. --J.D.

10-05-2003, 08:20 AM	#14
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Peter: This poem of your's did not, perchance, involve a man from Nantuckett? --J.D.

10-06-2003, 02:03 PM	#17
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	It helps if we all read the same book. . . . --J.D.

10-07-2003, 10:30 PM	#18
Bob K Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Durham, NH USA Posts: 5,933	Thomas Jefferson said: The essence of all law is that no man should [be allowed to] injure [cause a loss of life, limb, liberty, or property] another [innocent man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary. Does anyone seriously think he has the right to sacrifice the lives, limbs, liberties, and properties of his loved ones and others because of a belief that he should turn his cheek to injury? Those who intend to injure innocent individuals are themselves not innocent. When we face threats to the lives, limbs, liberites, and properties of our loved ones and ourselves, and others we care about, then we must respond with overwhelming force for the purpose of protecting our loved ones and those others and ourselves. No Bibles are needed for this rational and therefore undeniable truth.

10-08-2003, 01:48 AM	#20
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	This thread is drifting to a more general topic, so off to GRD this goes. It's a pity no one has decided to consider CJD's post here. Joel

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.