Who Said It? Osama, Jerry or Pat?
POSTED BY: Mavourneen
UPDATED: Friday, October 13, 2006 19:25
VIEWED: 4734
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
I don't think Osama tries to "spread his theocracy" with mass murder. He wasn't trying to convert the non-Muslim U.S. population to Islam when his organization flew planes into the towers. All 3 are modern religious zealots, using their interpretation of a holy book NOT written by any god to justify hatred, violence, oppression, and ignorance.
They are all three equally atrocious.
i agree wtih this... in the same way the christian/occultists who hail Bush as Jesus' incarnate are not interested in truly liberating Islam by the truth of Jesus' and his message of peaceful submission and cooperation.. but rather they have been decieved into supporting a formulated (occult) pentagon agenda which caused 9/11, and is initiating(on hehalf of the central banks) the final phases of the global government agenda; with the intent to sabotage the world religions.
the moral being that the theistic fiaths are inherintly susceptable to diception, and must be vigilante against herecies which deny doctrines that are fundemental to peace
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:I mean two are acceptable religious lunatics who are to be given a voice and allowed to try and spread theocracies. The other is to be bombed.
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yes... Jerry and Pat are as bad as they come
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
I mean one tries to spread his theocracy with mass murder and the other two try with ridiculous bible blabber. Who is worse? Dunno? You can't be equating these. Or can you be? I wouldn't put it past you to trivialize mass murder just because you hate religion.
I don't think Osama tries to "spread his theocracy" with mass murder. He wasn't trying to convert the non-Muslim U.S. population to Islam when his organization flew planes into the towers. All 3 are modern religious zealots, using their interpretation of a holy book NOT written by any god to justify hatred, violence, oppression, and ignorance.
They are all three equally atrocious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
Sass, he has told America to convert or die after 9-11. That sounds like spreading his religion by the threat of murder to me. And the other two babbling on about the bible and Adam and Eve are not nearly as atrocious as OBL, clearly you must see that. Or is someone having a religious based opinion, different than your own, really that scary and atrocious to you as mass murder?
Where did he say that because I never heard anything about it. I don't care if someone has a religiously based opinion different than mine. I tend to believe that ANY organized religion is just a tool of some sort and that majority of influential religious people would rather control people than perpetuate the "true message". There is a difference between spirituality and religion. What I do care about is when someone's religiously based motives are being used to direct policy that affects people who don't share their same views. Whether or not mass murder is involved is irrelevant to ME. I find Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell equally threatening as Osama bin Laden, but perhaps in different ways. In short form, they could be considered a form of domestic terrorism.
The "War on Terrorism" is theoretically a response to 9/11. It's since become a "War on everyone possibly threatening to the U.S. and we're going to attack them under the premise of WMDs . . . wait, s*** they don't have any . . . uh let's make it humanitarian, yeah". However, in my opinion, the reality is the Red Scare all over again. If one reads a variety of books about the Vietnam War (particurly post-French war, just prior to U.S. one), one can substitute "terrorist" for "communist" and "Middle East" for "IndoChina" and read the same things we read and hear now. Same basic drama, different time period.
Furthermore, would Osama/Middle Eastern terrorists have as much against the U.S. if we didn't continually support Zionism? It seems that we have a bad habit of arming and training our own future enemies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:I mean two are acceptable religious lunatics who are to be given a voice and allowed to try and spread theocracies. The other is to be bombed.
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yes... Jerry and Pat are as bad as they come
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.]
I mean one tries to spread his theocracy with mass murder and the other two try with ridiculous bible blabber. Who is worse? Dunno? You can't be equating these. Or can you be? I wouldn't put it past you to trivialize mass murder just because you hate religion.
I don't think Osama tries to "spread his theocracy" with mass murder. He wasn't trying to convert the non-Muslim U.S. population to Islam when his organization flew planes into the towers. All 3 are modern religious zealots, using their interpretation of a holy book NOT written by any god to justify hatred, violence, oppression, and ignorance.
They are all three equally atrocious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
Sass, he has told America to convert or die after 9-11. That sounds like spreading his religion by the threat of murder to me. And the other two babbling on about the bible and Adam and Eve are not nearly as atrocious as OBL, clearly you must see that. Or is someone having a religious based opinion, different than your own, really that scary and atrocious to you as mass murder?
Where did he say that because I never heard anything about it. I don't care if someone has a religiously based opinion different than mine. I tend to believe that ANY organized religion is just a tool of some sort and that majority of influential religious people would rather control people than perpetuate the "true message". There is a difference between spirituality and religion. What I do care about is when someone's religiously based motives are being used to direct policy that affects people who don't share their same views. Whether or not mass murder is involved is irrelevant to ME. I find Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell equally threatening as Osama bin Laden, but perhaps in different ways. In short form, they could be considered a form of domestic terrorism.
The "War on Terrorism" is theoretically a response to 9/11. It's since become a "War on everyone possibly threatening to the U.S. and we're going to attack them under the premise of WMDs . . . wait, s*** they don't have any . . . uh let's make it humanitarian, yeah". However, in my opinion, the reality is the Red Scare all over again. If one reads a variety of books about the Vietnam War (particurly post-French war, just prior to U.S. one), one can substitute "terrorist" for "communist" and "Middle East" for "IndoChina" and read the same things we read and hear now. Same basic drama, different time period.
Furthermore, would Osama/Middle Eastern terrorists have as much against the U.S. if we didn't continually support Zionism? It seems that we have a bad habit of arming and training our own future enemies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
Just google it.. there are many...here is the top one
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/index.html
I think your idea that Robertson or any other religious kooks being domestic terrorists is a little unfounded. Osama on the other hand is a terrorist and a mass murderer. How can they be equally threatening in "different ways"? Don't worry so much about Bush's religiously based motives...he will be gone soon enough. We will have a nNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We supported the policy of Zionism under all of the Presidents you mention. I never once said that we were bombed because of President Bush. I suggested that it's our current Middle Eastern foreign policy that pissed the people off and started this.
Also, I'm not justifying murdering innocent people, I'm just saying maybe we should take a step back and see what role our own actions have played in it.
Terrorism has always existed, it will continue to exist, and there isn't a lot we can do about it.
Falwell and Robertson haven't propagated as much violence, but they have spread just as much hate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We supported the policy of Zionism under all of the Presidents you mention. I never once said that we were bombed because of President Bush. I suggested that it's our current Middle Eastern foreign policy that pissed the people off and started this.
Also, I'm not justifying murdering innocent people, I'm just saying maybe we should take a step back and see what role our own actions have played in it.
Terrorism has always existed, it will continue to exist, and there isn't a lot we can do about it.
Falwell and Robertson haven't propagated as much violence, but they have spread just as much hate.
EDIT: I just looked at the link and it doesn't mention 9/11, just mentions possible future attacks. So he hasn't actually "tried to spread Islam by murder" just yet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If Christianity or any other religion is being used to bring about violence yes. Do you think someone would just randomly bomb an abortion clinic? Why can't we say that is a Christian motivated attack if it is motivated by someone wanting to enforce the Bibles morality on someone else?
Originally posted by antimason:
im not excusing any christian who blatantly sins..but why make the distinction of "christian" with the negative connotation.. when all human beings have been murderes and lyers throughout history? i think thats a double standard, because no one ever has anything to say about the athiest population, myself included.. because i have no factual bases to make such assumptions; but christians and other religions are fair game; i think thats hypocritical
The thing about organised religion is not that it creates the human desire to commit acts of violence, it's that it legitimises it, gives it scope, even makes it a good thing. It's that it can be used as a tool by the unscrupulous to push otherwise normal people to commit terrible acts because those terrible acts are a good thing as legitimised in religious work X.
It's the nature of faith that makes it pretty much the only thing that can be used in this manner. And its the nature of organised religion and how it directs faith that makes it such a glorious tool.
But if you think that it's some shadowy NWO Occult conspiracy behind the perversion of Christianity or any other religion you're sadly mistaken. A good deal of violence is dished out based on what is said in the Bible. If the Bible and other religious works could have their contradictions (such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and "Turn the other cheek") removed, in the previous example taking away the eye for an eye bit, we'd see a lot less violence in the world. Of course these contradictions can not be cleared up, these holy books can not be reworked, and these holy religions can not be questioned, even in the light of a changing world.
Therein lies the problem. The Bible and other religious works represent the morals of a world where saying Yahweh was a crime punishable by an excruciating death. These books teach these morals by virtue of that being what they were written to do. That was fine back then, but we no longer live in that world and these books have not and can not change to reflect that. These morals are unacceptable now, but they are still a core part of these ancient works, but by the nature of faith and organised religion this discrepancy can not be removed. Therein lies a problem.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dang, not one person got more than 13. I got 11 because I decided they were just being cute and all the answers were Jerry/Pat.
I don't care for any of them but I currently regard the Muslims as the greater threat. Not because of direct aggression (unless they get nukes - that changes everything), but because of the gradual spread of population, culture, religion combined with the threat of violence, that could eventually take control of Western democracies and replace them with total doo-doo (read: Sharia).
Not that Jerry/Pat are going anywhere much different, they just don't seem to have as much momentum. And they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, as violent.
It's okay to leave them to die.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If Christianity or any other religion is being used to bring about violence yes. Do you think someone would just randomly bomb an abortion clinic? Why can't we say that is a Christian motivated attack if it is motivated by someone wanting to enforce the Bibles morality on someone else?
i acknowledge your point. my thing is.. i could not justify bombing an abortion clinic, or anything even remotely closed to an act of agression..since that behavior is inherintly antithetical to my personal knowledge of the message of scripture, being unconditional love; which is why i question such an individuals true motivation, since it is clearly not christ-like. it should be more correctly likened to the pharisees, who were exposed time and again as hyprocrites, who only honored God with their lips, and not their actions, ultimately hurting their people while leading them astray as 'false teachers'.
Jesus says "if you hold to my teaching, you are REALLY MY DISCIPLES. then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. i know you are Israels descendants. yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. if you were Abrahams children, then you would do the things Abraham did. as it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that i heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. YOU are doing the things YOUR OWN FATHER DOES(satan). you belong to your father(the prince of this world), the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desire. he was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. he who belongs to God hears what God says. the reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."John 8
the NT is full of such quotes.. which is why Jesus emphasises, strictly, that only those who do his will, of peace, are his true disciples..otherwise anyone could claim to be christian
Quote:
The thing about organised religion is not that it creates the human desire to commit acts of violence, it's that it legitimises it, gives it scope, even makes it a good thing.
Jesus says "do not judge, and you will not be judged. do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. forgive, and you will be forgiven." surely, atleast you recognize that people who do otherwise are not actually following Jesus' example?
i dont believe there are any examples in the NT that legitimise or excuse or condone violent or negligent behavior, but if you know of some then please show me the verses so that i may study them. the OT is something else entirely..but is also a great deal more complicated; its important to keep in mind that Israel also murdered all of their prophets from God, constantly defied his word and ultimately worshipped idols and 'angels'. the Jews may have claimed to be acting on Gods behalf, but they simply could not recognize God from the fallen angelic, luciferian occult perversions; which culminated in the murder of Jesus and his disciples, by the Jewish leaders of the time. this was clearly not what God had intended, and i would argue that the Abrahamic faiths are still no different today
Quote:
It's that it can be used as a tool by the unscrupulous to push otherwise normal people to commit terrible acts because those terrible acts are a good thing as legitimised in religious work X.
ok, but how are they more susceptible then anyone else, when they are supposed to be following Jesus' commands? i would argue that to legitimize terror would be to completely deny the message of Jesus. Jesus says 'if you love me, you will obey what i command' then he says 'the most important (command) is this: Love the Lord your GOd with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. the second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. there is no commandment greater then these".. because as he later says "love does NO harm, and is the fullfillment of the Law". we are told to resist the our fallen, instinctual nature, "for from within, out of mens hea
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's based on their reading of Christianity, they think their doing the Christian gods work, it's motivated by Christianity. If there was no basis for people to do these things from within Christianity Christians wouldn't do it in the name of Christianity.
Originally posted by antimason:
i acknowledge your point. my thing is.. i could not justify bombing an abortion clinic, or anything even remotely closed to an act of agression..since that behavior is inherintly antithetical to my personal knowledge of the message of scripture, being unconditional love; which is why i question such an individuals true motivation, since it is clearly not christ-like. it should be more correctly likened to the pharisees, who were exposed time and again as hyprocrites, who only honored God with their lips, and not their actions, ultimately hurting their people while leading them astray as 'false teachers'.
Quote:Yeah Jesus says said a lot of things, some of them kept out of the Bible because they preached against a Christian church. Incidentally guess whose religion has the largest church?
Jesus says "if you hold to my teaching, you are REALLY MY DISCIPLES...
the NT is full of such quotes.. which is why Jesus emphasises, strictly, that only those who do his will, of peace, are his true disciples..otherwise anyone could claim to be christian
Quote:The bible is chock full of legitimised violence, people are committing crimes in the name of Christ and the Christian God. You yourself have said people are incapable of following Jesus, so by your own definitions there are no Christians.
Jesus says "do not judge, and you will not be judged. do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. forgive, and you will be forgiven." surely, atleast you recognize that people who do otherwise are not actually following Jesus' example?
Quote:A few examples:
i dont believe there are any examples in the NT that legitimise or excuse or condone violent or negligent behavior, but if you know of some then please show me the verses so that i may study them.
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mark
7:9-10
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Jesus criticising Jews for not fulfilling Old Testament law by not killing disobedient children.
Luke
12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Jesus telling us we should fear God because God can kill us and send us to hell on a whim.
John
3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemened: but he that believeth not is condemened already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God
Jesus tells us that as long as you believe in him you're ok. So you could be the nastiest bastard in the world and still go to heaven, as long as you believe Jesus was the Son of God, adversely you could be the greatest saint, but if you're not a Christian it's straight to hell.
3:36
He the Believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the son shall see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him
God hates non-believers. If God hates non-believers god's hardly going to have much of a problem if a believer were to drop a bomb through a non-believers letter box.
15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Burn non-believers.
Acts
3:23
And it shall come to pass, that ever soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
More killing of non-believers.
5:1-10
Peter and God scare Ananias and Sapphira to death for not handing over all the money fro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ok... youre right Citizen, the bible is evil, and christians, jews, and muslims are evil
its funny... when youre a theist, any action is assumed inseperable from your worldview; every consequence being the result of a premeditated religious cause
but if your an athiest, there are absolutely no guidelines... infact, you can do anything, and your worldview will never be scrutinized; A never leads to B
if your a theist.. its religiously motivated
if your an athiest.. it is an individual mistake
sure its a double standard... but equality is only relative right? like truth?
basically murder, greed, envy, adultery, lying, stealing... these are exclusively theistic traits, performed by religious people
no athiest would ever committ such "sins", nor has an athiest ever committed such "sins", since its clear that only religion(not the lack thereof) causes destruction
athiesm is benevolent; atheists are Gods, as they are perfect human beings who share none of the same character faults as the lesser, subhuman theists..
if an athiest commits a crime.. he was probably conditioned by ' a church'
am i right?
i mean... a religious persons worldview leads us to murder and crime
meanwhile your worldview, being whatever you wish, is infallable, inherintly perfect and void of all human imperfections
i just find it ironic:
you constatly say that its our worldview that causes inequality and divisiness.... but meanwhile you look down upon us, condescendingly, only to suceed in purpetuating your own set of indifference and intolerance
your world view is no better then ours, since you too are imperfect,and you too perpetuate your imperfections
what solution do you have to change human nature? your singling yourself out as more intelligent, more ethical as atheists, is a self righteous act of judgement; something the bible actually condemns
all human beings CITIZEN have these sinful desires, no one is perfect, so who are you to hold yourself as more righteous then we?
what do you contribute but un-needed degredation and division?
Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler.. i suppose they were theists aswell? afterall, only religiously motivated people are criminals right?
Quote:
'Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in Hegel' (Sutton, 118). It is here that one arrives at the Hegelian nexus where Darwin, Marx, and Hitler intersect. Recall that Nietzsche-ism, Darwinism and Marxism were all mentioned together in the Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion. This was no accident. Nazism (a variant of fascism) sprung from Nietzsche-ism (Carr, XIV). Communism sprung from Marxism. Both were based upon Hegelian principles. Moreover, both were 'scientific dictatorships' legitimized by the 'science' of Darwinism."Quote:
“However, Fascism or Marxism, right wing or left - all these are only ideological roads that lead to Aldous Huxley's brave new world [i.e. scientific dictatorship], while the foundation for each of these roads is Darwin's theory of evolution. Fascism is aligned with biological determinism and tends to emphasize the unequal struggle by which those inherently fittest shall rule. Marxism stresses social progress by stages of revolution, while at the same time it paradoxically emphasizes peace and equality. There should be no illusions; Hitler borrowed from Marx. The result is that both Fascism and Marxism finish at the same destiny - totalitarian rule by the elite.” (Taylor, 411)Quote:
The interest of both Hitler and Marx in Darwinian evolution is a matter of history. While he was living in London, Karl Marx attended lectures on evolutionary theory delivered by T.H. Huxley. Recognizing the odd synchronicity between the communist concept of class war and the Darwinian principle of natural selection, Marx sent Darwin a copy of Das Kapital in 1873. Enamored of evolution, Marx asked Darwin the permission to dedicate his next volume to him six year later. Troubled by the fact that it would upset certain members of his family to have the name of Darwin associated with an atheistiNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME