There you go again assuming everyone who marries is are christian heterosexuals
Posted By: just me on 2009-05-29
In Reply to: No, it's not a human right.....contrary to your beliefs - sm
The middle east people don't marry according to our bible. The jews have their version, and so do all other religions. Even the bush people from Africa and Australia marry, and they don't marry based on the bible of christianity.
Talk about being screwed up! Trying to make a point with nonsense.
I sure can't want for all the states to follow suit and make marriage legal for homosexuals.
If you believe in christianity and the bible that's fine and good, but don't push your beliefs on everyone else, because we believe you are wrong.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Just participating in a Christian church does not make you a Christian (sm)
Everyone who goes to a Christian church is not automatically a Christian. Only God knows if you truly are or not. He could easily still have Muslim values and attend a Christian church. Does he? I have NO IDEA. I really don't know. What I DO KNOW is that the Christian church he attended did not teach what God wants to be taught. I know that from the Bible because we are not supposed to preach hate or damnation, yet that is what his minister preached, LOUDLY.
And you also I am assuming? What would...
your reaction have been if Obama had announced he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington (his job actually, campaign not withstanding...he IS still a senator and we are still paying him)to deal with this crisis? Be honest. What would your reaction have been?
now who is assuming
talk about ass-u-me ...
Because I am a Jew I am pushing sex, violence, other "worldly" things on you? Are you saying a Jewish life is corrupt because we aren't christian? Never said you should put up with it. You should voice your feelings to the stores, television stations, magazines, etc.
I didn't say you shouldn't have your "christian things" out in public, I said, don't assume Ben Stein speaks for the Jewish community. Got your feathers a little ruffled there, didn't ya? LOL!
I'm assuming you mean....
that it would be a bad thing to be a Muslim? It's been proven for 2 years that he is not a Muslim but a Christian, but that's not the point. What exactly makes it bad to be a Muslim?
You know what they say about assuming don't you?
I'm originally from Florida, which is the melting pot of the US for race dear. I have black, white, asian, indian, hispanic, etc etc friends. My problem is with the fact that people still want to whine about "oh unequal treatment" when really all that has happened is a reversing of treatment. Now white people can't get any help or decent positions if there is a minority going for the same help or position.
But hey, you must know everything, so I digress.
There you go again. Assuming.
I spent many days writing and calling my reps.
McCain and what happened with his first wife has noting to do with voting.
You also do not know who I voted for.
O is rushing too fast in his decision making from my point of view. He's putting the cart before the horse. He's not thinking of consequences of closing Gitmo, the stimulus package, ending the war in Iraq too early, letting Geithner become head of IRS, and choosing Emanuel.
We shall see what happens, and I hope its for the best, but he should slow down and take his time before making decisions that will affect all of us in the coming years.
Assuming that you are serious in your inquiry,
my response follows:
I have, thus far, seen no credible evidence to corroborate the notion that Bush willingly lied about the situation in Iraq. The information available at the time regarding WMD may or may not have been incorrect, but it was information that was accepted at that time by the world community, and I can no more condemn Bush for believing it than I can condemn Clinton or the UN for believing it. Given the state of the country in the aftermath of 9/11, it seems to me that allowing any country to disregard a 14th or 15th UN resolution with regard to accounting for WMDs would have been seen as insanity.
Another poster said something to the effect that the truth has not been presented, and I think this is true. We hear about the activities of the insurgency in Iraq, but we do not hear about the day-to-day successes there because bombings are more sensational and a better news story. A troop of soldiers building a road or delivering medical equipment or school supplies isn't a story. Iraqis working alongside American soldiers is not a news story. Suicide bombings and allegations of prisoner abuse are more sensational, and so that is what the public sees, and the Bush administration has done a really poor job of keeping the public updated on what the military is actually doing in Iraq and what advances are being made in the war on terror, thus allowing the media to be the only voice heard.
As far as prisoner abuses go, I don't think conservatives have their heads in the sand, but I think they (I) have a somewhat more cynical attitude toward such abuses. While such abuses should never be tolerated, they will always happen. There are bad eggs in any basket, whether it be a prison or any other community of people. When those people break rules and do bad things, they deserve to be investigated and appropriately punished, but allowing and encouraging the entire community/effort to be indicted by the actions of those few is counterproductive. In the instance of prison abuses, I consider it irresponsible and counterproductive for the mainstream media to engage in what seems to me to amount to broad-scale bashing of the administration on the basis of these incidents.
I also think conservatives are more inclined to weigh these incidents against the larger picture, whereas liberals seem more inclined to see the actions as unacceptable (and rightly so) and thus to condemn the entire system (not justified, IMO). In other words, the possibility that some Iraqi detainees are being mistreated is concerning, and the situation should be corrected, but it is not an indictment against the entire military or the entire administration. Such abuses must be minimized proactivly, and when they do occur, they must be dealt with, but it is unrealistic to expect that they will not happen at all or that they are any indication of acceptable behavior standards of the military or the administration.
As far as embryonic stem cell research, I personally believe that this is an area in which agreement is never going to be possible because the basic difference is more theological than anything else. I tried to explain my position on this on the conservative board, but I did it poorly. Most social conservatives/pro-life people approach the abortion and embryonic stem-cell research issues with the innate presumption that life - the presence of a new soul - begins at conception.
Regarding your above example of weighing the cells in the Petri dish versus helping the patient with Alzheimer's, the statement of the pastor you cited seems kind and loving IF one assumes that the Petri dish contains nothing more valuable than a few cells - in other words, if you assume that it does not contain a human soul. On the other hand, in the pro-life viewpoint, if I assume that the Petri dish contains a new human soul that is to be deliberately destroyed in order to help the woman with Alzheimers, I cannot be anything but horrified that one life, through no fault of its own and through no action on its part, is considered disposable for the benefit of the other.
Many conservatives find a puzzling dichotomy between the liberal abortion/stem-cell research position and the position regarding Iraq. The liberal position seems willing to accept the possibility of killing a human soul if we don't have firm proof that it exists, but the continuing US presence in Iraq in a situation in which premature withdrawal would almost certainly lead to chaos and, quite likely, the development of a Taliban or Iran-like theocracy is anathema.
Why do these divisions exist? I think that is probably a matter of who one listens to and believes, and what mindset one takes into their research. If you approach research with the mindset that America is at fault for most of her problems, that can be supported. If you take the position that America is basically just, that position can be supported. If your morality tends to focus most on social justice, that can be supported. If your morality focuses more on individual liberty, that can be supported. With the mainstream media being considered less reliable by both sides (considered a liberal mouthpiece by conservatives and a Bush puppet by liberals), I think more people are turning to online sources for their information. The danger of that, though, is that is very easy online to find sources that cater to one's preexisting position, thus widening the divide.
If I have said anything inflammatory or disrespectful above, my apologies.
You are stereotyping and assuming......
I believe you have never taken the time to reach out to gay people and see that the lifestyle is not any different from yours. Unfortunately, your bible thumping gets in the way.
You have a lot of nerve assuming these women
xoxoxo
I'm not assuming you are white. I simply
meant put yourself in the role that she was in, a minority in college. You are right though, I assumed that you weren't a minority for that scenario and I apologize. And, I didn't mention anywhere in my post about Wright, I was simply referring to her as a college student and the fact that I did not think her thesis was racist.
You people on the left are always assuming you
nm
That’s all you got??? I was completely honest – you’re the one who did the assuming
My words were “DH works in stocks/trading”. Which he does. Not everyone who works in stocks/trading goes into an office in Wall Street or a stockbrokers office. There are many people behind the scenes that research companies, and other jobs dealing with the markets, trading, buying, selling, foreign currencies, etc. Many of them write articles for the companies who have clientele with big $$$ to be trading and selling. Many of them attend meetings, sit in on conference calls, etc. Also, many people when dealing with portfolios whether they are your own or various clients know what is going on in the world of the markets/finance. I never said he buys or sells “just for ourselves” and I never once said he went into an office or even eluded to the fact that he went into an office, so there you go again “assuming”. I didn’t divulge any information about his clients or anything, and I never said what he did except that he works in stocks/trading, which he does. By the way… there are many people out there who buy/sell stocks and currencies for themselves and makes or loses $$$ a day. Tell them they “don’t work” in trading. Your too busy wanting to defend yourself and make excuses and you’re doing a poor job at it. Next time maybe you should read a post slowly before assuming anything.
One thing I do know is there is a lot more going on behind the scenes and if the markets go up or down it is not just because of who is the president. But you only like to point that out when the market goes up. You praise the enlightened one when the markets go up and claim he has now walked on water and the stock market has gone up just because of him and he along, and yet you remain as silent as the wind when the markets go down. Can’t have it both ways.
I'm assuming you've never watched....(sm)
the full versions of his sermons, just the sensationalistic clips on Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
It's all about context.
I'm assuming you are quite young, am I correct in
that assumption?
I'm assuming that was supposed to be a picture sm
of an angry mob, but I was unable to view it, but I get it!! That's hilarious. But I will say the comment about "first they laughed and then they died" will haunt my nightmares -- not so funny.
JTBB, I have to admire your tenacity dealing with these people. Tell me, what is it like being a pariah? I know this won't jive with your atheist beliefs, but you know that Jesus was the most famous pariah, so your're in good company!! LOL
Assuming I am the nameless one....and also for the umpteenth time...
not a Republican...I call Barack Obama a socialist because he is one, not because he supports social programs (the accused Republicans do also, to a point, otherwise there would be none), but because he wants to practice redistribution of wealth...taaxing one group of people and redistributing that money to people who did nothing to earn it...including people who already do not pay taxes.
I never said Obama was a communist. He has had communist influences in his life, that is proven, he mentions the man in his book Dreams of My Father. But I have never said Barack Obama was a communist. I don't know if he is or not. I do know he is a socialist.
Correction - I meant wait before assuming, not "want"
x
.Sure, O is Christian. His mother was Christian
his father Muslim. In Indonesia, where O spent 4 years, age 7 to 11, he attended a catholic school and received outside the school Islamic teachings.
When he was 12 his mother took him back to the US into the care of her mother and the rest is history......
I don't see anything Christian in it, either.
It looks like America is becoming a theocracy. I always thought that freedom of religion was one of the greatest things about America. I'm worried it isn't going to exist in a very short time.
The letter you posted is great! Thanks. 
49 out of 55 were CHRISTIAN
From WikiPedia:
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.[11]
Although not a religion, Freemasonry was represented in John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.
Well I am a Christian
and I don't want the lack of morals and judgments in this country forced on me but they are everyday. I can't turn on the t.v., open a magazine, or walk into the mall without seeing sex, violence, drugs, etc.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible or Christ, you cannot argue that this country wouldn't be a better place if people followed the rules and laws that are laid out by Jesus in the new testament.
Christians have been passive far to long in this country. We've sat back while God was pushed out of everything. Well it's high time we stood up and pushed back. Don't tell me the fact that this country has gotten so liberal minded and anti-God and the fact that murders, school shootings, robberies, unwanted pregnancies, drugs, etc have skyrocketed isn't a coincidence.
To christian enough
christian enough for what? You said in one of your posts below that, "I find it especially interesting that black churches cannot be "angry" but white churches are free to do a shout out of the next anti-christ?
Hello? If a black church is preaching hate towards white people, I would call that "angry." If a white church is preaching about the coming of the anti-christ, how is that "angry?" Please tell me. One church is teaching racial hate, the other teaching Bible prophecy. Please tell me what you mean?
I dont know what kind of church you have been to, but it must not have been a good experience. God talks about the need for church in the Bible. We are supposed to worship him, keep the sabbath holy and all of that. You seem very sarcastic when you speak of Christianity. I hope that your sister is praying for you.
You are a Christian?
Judy, I am not being ugly here, but reading this post it sounds like you claim to be a Christian and then I read the ugly statements you posted yesterday and it just floors me.
How can someone who says they vote based on the Bible talk and act that way. That brings shame on the church and its members, which I was taught in my Bible is wrong.
A Christian is supposed to be tolerant of others and not judgmental of others.
As a Christian, it is a lot to me actually...nm
s
How very Christian of you!
Is that what they teach you in Sunday school?
He's just as much a Christian
as Jeremiah Wright is!
A Christian according to you
is 'mentally disturbed', but a gay living a deviant lifestyle is perfectly normal and in the right?! Being gay is a mental disorder in itself. I think you know where you can put your stick, although you'd probably like that.
What lie? He said he's Christian.
him being Muslim, convince yourselves and those voices in your head that he is Muslim and then say he's lying about being Christian.
America is supposed to have freedom of religion. I don't care what his faith is. He's not my pastor. He's my president.
As a Christian..
I don't even like to use the terms homosexual, heterosexual, gay, straight or any other such term to describe a sexual behavior which is what all these are. I'm female myself and my sexual behavior is my business. People would assume that because I'm with a man that I'm "heteroseuxal" and they would be correct. However, I do not describe myself as heterosexual. As a Christian, I believe that's a behavior and not a lifestyle. sex is a behavior, regardless of whether your male, female, or animal. Not all forms of sexual behavior are acceptable. But it is quicker to type out "homosexual" than it is to type out "people who engage in sinful, dysfunctional, disgusting behavior." But I actually choose to not even acknowledge the terms homosexual, heterosexual, gay, straight, etc. as these are simply behaviors, just as you label someone who steals as a thief, someone who sells their body for sex as a prostitute and so on. That is why homosexuals demand "tolerance" but, since the country already tolerates these people, what they really want is "acceptance" and since I can't accept homosexuality as wonderful and good, I in turn cannot accept homosexuals as wonderful and good. Homosexual/homosexuality. They go hand in hand.
As the Christian you say you are...
didn't you ever learn not to judge your fellow man? It is not very Christian to be calling someone "dysfunctional and disgusting." I do believe He taught us to love our fellow man, and I don't think he specifically limited that to the ones we agree with.
As a Christian myself
I don't condone that lifestyle and I'm against same sex marriage. However, I do not see where ones listening to the music of a gay man is showing acceptance of that lifestyle.
Christian beliefs. sm
Then, I suppose my next question would be, why do posters who do not agree with how boards are handled and who do not agree with the political spirit continue to come here? And my second question would be why, with two boards, posters could not have maintained their thoughts to those boards. Objectively, I believe that is why TWO boards were set up. The people you seem to have the biggest problem with made a pact not to come here. They kept that pact. By the way, I see sickness of spirit on both sides. There were occasions on the other board when posters were were wished death and to burn in hell. Would you fight back against that? Personally, I would have left then. Both of these boards are a mess. And it solves nothing to sit here and talk about posters who will no longer be here. Move on.
A christian, hun?? I dont think so
Robertson calls for assassination of Chavez
Televangelist calls Venezuelan president a ‘terrific danger’ to U.S.
OMG, you used the word Christian! SM
Run!!!!! By the way, I totally agree. But they have to give it little names like fetus and things to keep from admitting it is a human being that God has helped create. Whatever floats their boat.
The Christian right isn't political at all. sm
There are many Democrats who belong to the Christian right. I am not sure why you feel politicizing religion is so important, but I realize how important labels are to you. It's unfortunate. Jimmy Carter just recently came out and spoke against the Democratic party for abandoning God. If Christians feel they have to place to turn but the *right*, whose fault is that? Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me. However, he is a good man and a Christian man. As far as calling for an assassination that's bogus and was taken out of context and anyone who cared to do their research would know that. But it's just way more convenient and fits into the left's philosophy to damn him to hell. THERE' s the left for you.
Democrat plus Christian
I resent you stating that Democrats are trying to get Christians mad. Do you not believe that there are Democrats that are Christians? I was born in a Christian Democrat family, all my relatives are Christian Democrats. If you are a Christian does not mean you have to automatically be Republican. This is a falsehood that actually I have only seen happening in the last 10 years or so. Believe me, there are plenty liberal Christian Democrats out there that are quite tired of Republicans giving the impression they are the only true Christians.
Ok here is a better example...my father is Christian
x
Jon Christian Ryter
By Jon Christian Ryter
McCain's "Palin" decision has already cost him the election.
Even though thousands of conservatives who had previously decided to sit out the Election of 2008 but have done an about face because GOP presumptive nominee John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, either the Election of 2008 or the fate of the 2nd Amendment may have been decided shortly before noon on Aug. 29 even though the voters will not officially speak until Tues., Nov. 4, 2008.
To appease radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the evangelical leaders who opposed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney because of—they claimed—his fuzzy view on abortion (when their unspoken opposition to Romney was really based from his Mormon faith), and Sen. John McCain's staff who surmised that the liberal Hillary Clinton-feminists who balked at supporting pro-abortion Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama (with whom they agree) would support a conservative pro-life, pro-gun, first term governor (with whom they vehemently disagree) just because she is a woman.
![](http://www.jonchristianryter.com/IMAGE/Palin1.jpg") This was the same type of mistake President George Herbert Walker Bush made in 1992 when he "courted" Ross Perot supporters. They were Ross Perot supporters because they had already made a conscious-decision not to be George Bush supporters. And, the Hillary Clinton supporters are Hillary Clinton supporters because they rejected the core tenets of the Republican Party. In other words, the wayward female Clinton supporters won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman. Many of the Clinton supporters who would have voted for left-of-center John McCain will not vote for him specifically because he added prolife Gov. Sarah Palin [R-AK] to his ticket.
McCain knew he was taking a calculated risk in naming Palin simply because she is virtually unknown to voters in the continuous 48-States. Furthermore, like Obama, she is completely untested on both the national and international stage. But even more important, like Hillary Clinton who unconstitutionally sought the office of President, Palin is also constitutionally ineligible to run or, be elected to, or serve as, Vice President of the United States because of the provisions of Article II of the Constitution.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution appears to establish only four ironclad qualifications for the job as President of the United States. The president must [1] be at least 35-years of age, [2] must be a natural born citizen and [3] have lived in the United States at least 14 years. And, finally, 18 times Article II reiterates that the President of the United States will be a man. What that means is that not only could Hillary Rodham Clinton not seek the office of President of the United States without Congress first adopting a constitutional amendment degenderizing the office of President, but Gov. Sarah Palin cannot seek the office of Vice President for the same reason. The Vice President is one heartbeat away from the office of President. Logic suggests that, constitutionally, since a woman cannot be President she cannot be Vice President either because the job of the Vice President is to be prepared to step into the Oval Office as President should anything happen to the commander-in-chief/head-of-state.
The news that McCain picked a virtually unknown running mate came on the heels of reports that the two key front-runners for the job—Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—confirmed to the media that neither made the final round. Former Washington Times reporter and Fox News Deputy News Director Bill Sammon correctly guessed that Palin would be McCain's choice several weeks ago. The McCain camp would not only not confirm he was right, but pooh-poohed the notion as "premature" when he tried to get a confirmation.
Palin was picked not only because she was a woman but, in 2006 when the Democrats swept both Houses of Congress and took the governor's mansions in several States, Palin orchestrated the stunning upset of two popular Alaska political figures. First she knocked off former four term US Senator and first term GOP Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski in the primary. Palin was involved in a three-way race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. ![](http://www.jonchristianryter.com/IMAGE/Palin2.jpg") She took 51% of the vote, bowling over both Murkowski and former State legislator John Binkley. Former governor Tony Knowles won the Democratic primary with 74% of the vote. Palin defeated Knowles in the general election. Knowles fully expected a cakewalk in the November, 2006 election. After all, his opponent was the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska—and a former local beauty queen, Miss Wasilla. Knowles should have know better. Palin earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" in high school because in athletics—as in politics—she was extremely aggressive.
When Palin's name was first bantered as a possible GOP veep candidate she told the Washington Post that her being picked by the presumptive GOP nominee as vice president was "an impossibility," even though the idea of serving in national office intrigued her.
When she answered Kudlow & Company Larry Kudlow's question about the possibility of her being picked as McCain's running mate a month ago, she said: "As for the VP talk...I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US, before I can even start addressing that question."
![](http://www.jonchristianryter.com/IMAGE/Palin_Vogue.jpg") But as good as she sounds—and as good as she looks—the only pick that would have been worse for McCain would have been Condolessa Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson—or Tom Ridge or Jeb Bush. But the entire blogsphere knows that while feminists will vote for a woman as vice president as long as she's on the Democratic ticket, they won't vote for one on the GOP ticket. At least, not with enough votes to bring the victory home to the GOP. Because in the conservative world, mom's "house" is home, not Congress—and it's certainly not a cozy pink Oval Office in the White House.
McCain's people should have gone back and looked at the 1984 presidential election results. The Democratic ticket that year consisted of former VP Walter Mondale for President and former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro for Veep. Ferraro made history by becoming the first woman at the top of a national party ticket when it was prohibited by the Constitution. While Reagan and Bush-41 took 54,455,472 votes against Mondale and Ferraro's 37,577,352 votes, Mondale took only one State—Minnesota in the worst political upset since 1820 when James Monroe took all but 1 electoral vote from John Quincy Adams. The voters flatly repudiated the notion of a woman Vice President in 1984—and most of them were not even aware that the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States—and those in line to become President—be male.
Christian beliefs
The Lord's Prayer:
...Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven....
This is a Christian prayer, for those of you who are unfamiliar. There is nothing radical about what she is saying. She is a faithful Christian woman.
HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN.....
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The phrase "separation of church and state" which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
Wikipedia - Separation of Church and State United States
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm
If he ever was a Christian, he certainly renounced it....
Nice try tho.
Was Hitler a Christian?
The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
That is their intrepretation. Those words DO NOT appear in the Constitution of the United States. There are just as many opinions that that is not what was meant by the letter. Bottom line...they are NOT a part of the Constitution.
again why do i have to repeat this over and over WHO SAID IM CHRISTIAN!
IVE NEVER said that and in fact in my first post said "not all people against gay marriage are christian".
sacred to me means something i believe strongly in no matter what "faith" has to do with it, sorry you have nothing like that
What kind of Christian
I have been a Christian my entire life. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, but branched out when I started studying theology on my own and not taking what I was told in church at face value.
The church I belong to, a congregation of PC-USA, considers itself pretty radical. Not all Christians are evangelical in theology. Jesus was a bit of a radical too. Lots of us are Obama supporters, but there are McCain supporters as well. Thing is, we don't question each others Christianity because of the way someone votes. Isn't really a Christian thing to do.
I see nothing wrong with keeping religion out of the government, and I actually prefer it that way.
I am not radical because I am a Christian....
You need to do your homework and stop believing things you know nothing about.
My Bible teaches to love everyone, even those that hate you. The Muslim Qur'an teaches hate, hate, hate, to hate anyone who is not Muslim and to pray for their demise and they pray daily for only themselves, not others. All men are not created equal under Islam, according to their teaching. They believe that even their own people who may be handicapped are not equal to them. They believe in different levels of human value.
You know nothing of what you speak because if you did, you would realize my faith is NOTHING like that.
All I know is as a Christian, I can't image
why the phrase "Muslim faith" would even come into my response when asked about my religion. His true beliefs came out ringing clear as a bell and that's when I said okay, enough, this guy is definitely not my president.
"I'm a Christian, so I'm a Republican"
I was talking to somebody yesterday who wanted to go to the McCain rally here... I said why, she said because she was a Republican, I said, well, there's your mistake right there (in a joking manner) and she said (not joking!!) Well, I'm a Christian so I'm a Republican.
Does anyone else ever think that the real values cited by Christ (love, compassion, etc.) are better embodied by liberal policy these days? I'm just watching all of the hate-mongering, the intolerance, the lying... if I were a Christian Republican I'd be ashamed to call myself such. I'm not religious myself, but I love studying religion, and it boggles my mind how hateful and intolerant and just plain mean and ignorant some of these people are.
(Though just to note -- I am not bashing Christianity here. Just confused that those who believe they hold themselves to a higher moral standard because they are Christians can also ally themselves to this political and social party. The crazy ones, who I do believe are the minority, give those sane and good and actually moral Christians a bad name, in my opinion.)
He is Christian but I am Muslim and I have to tell you.....
There are wonderful muslims just like there are wonderful Christians. Then there are those Christians who bomb abortion clinics. There is Timothy McVeigh who was a Christian. Obama is not a muslim, but what if he were? I think you are racist. Be ashamed.
Christian Terrorists
Christian terrorism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible and other Christian tenets of faith. From the viewpoint of the terrorist, Christian scripture and theology provide justification for violent political activities.
Abortion clinics have been frequent targets of violence. Christian anti-abortion terrorists and terrorist organizations include the Army of God, The Lambs of Christ, Clayton Waagner, Mike Bray, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill and Eric Robert Rudolph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Saying you are a Christian does not make you one. If your...
life does not reflect your declaration, your declaration is just words. The Bible says in the last days there will be a lot of declarations...and that we should know them by their actions. Pretty simple really.
the definition of Christian
would be one that "follows" Christ -- by his example, his commands, etc. these creeps are NOT Christians by any way of measure.
Hitler was a Christian
Anyone, of any faith can be a threat, but it is much easier to pick on the black man and say he is a muslim to hope to get votes to your side. Makes me ill!
|
