Come On In and Have a Seat Over There

[quote]WW3General wrote:
Sloth- You don’t want to know what gods love feels like? Or have you already found out?

It is Stockholm Syndrome you don’t have to be embarassed it happens.

I think it is funny that you can not even deal with me saying that about you on an internet thread, but you seem not to care at all that some little boy had to go through that in real life.

For the record-
Fuck- all religion (catholics too)
and all you catholic child molesting supporters.[/quote]

Oh yeah! I fucked your mom last night!.. LOL!

[quote]WW3General wrote:
Kamui- Yes, I am working on it. My people have done a lot of work on fixing the molestation problem facing America today. Kamui, I just looked into this thread, and the other one, there are no non-catholics who say anything bad about me. I am not a mindless hater, I just get tired of mindless religious idiots, who need a religion to tell them how to think.

If you are accusing me of hating catholics mindlessly I would say no, if you are accusing me of hating catholics I would definitely say yes. I mean you guys barely follow your own rules, and I think we could argue that all day. Plus all the hardships your people brought to the land, and the horrible instances the church has been involved in, or covered up.

I can say that in my book, Bhuddism is good and hinduism, and even pastafarians. [/quote]

Really, because the buhddists are dealing with their own child molestation issues.

Being the child molestation crusader you are, I thought you would have known that.

I am interested in your work though. What are you doing to protect children from sexual abuse? Do you run a home or set up some line of protection? Run a charity and raise money? Tell me you aren’t only concerned with 20 - 50 year old cases involving Catholic clergy? I mean they only represent .024% of the clergy. The protestant molestation must have you in a tizzy because it was ranging near 8% of the clergy at one time.

I thought this guy was a priest because you said that we all do it, but I found no mention.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8624372

I am impressed with what you are doing. The horrific things being done to children is indeed sickening. If you give me a link to you charity, I will happily donate, because I too feel strongly about protecting the children, but the problem is so wide spread I also feel so powerless.

[quote]WW3General wrote:<<< there are no non-catholics who say anything bad about me. I am not a mindless hater, >>>[/quote]I am the one who called you a mindless hater and it is not possible for anybody to be less Catholic than I am. I have a mile long list of differences with these men, but I will not silently allow them to be smeared with charges that they are not guilty of. Try this: “Hey guys, I jumped on ya too quick and I was wrong”. That works ya know.


.

I think you mean “Imagine, no jihadist Islam”. Nah, that’s not what you mean. Nevermind.

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

Imagine no religion? No thanks, but even more, I don’t have to imagine it. It ends at the guillotine and the gulag. Pick up a history book - you’ll find it delightful.

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.

[/quote]

Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

Imagine no religion? No thanks, but even more, I don’t have to imagine it. It ends at the guillotine and the gulag. Pick up a history book - you’ll find it delightful.[/quote]

Back at ya. I think you’ll find the scales significantly balanced toward atrocity carried out by the religious. It hasn’t ended yet though. Crusades. Holocaust. 9/11. On going wars in the Middle East and Africa.

Jonestown was the most terrible example of the radically anti religious, but without religion the temple wouldn’t have been set up in opposition to it.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.

[/quote]

Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]
I have no intention of defending Islam. I’d be game for saying its the worst of a bad lot. Just because Herpes is less virulent than syphilis doesn’t mean I’d advocate it.

[quote]groo wrote:

Back at ya. I think you’ll find the scales significantly balanced toward atrocity carried out by the religious. [/quote]

Why would I? Look at the body count piled up by secular ideologies (especially the ones that promised to extinguish religion), and redo your math, chief.

[quote]groo wrote:

Jonestown was the most terrible example of the radically anti religious, but without religion the temple wouldn’t have been set up in opposition to it.[/quote]

Uh what? Worse than the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, or the body count of communism in the 20th century?

History book. Seriously. Even Wikipedia. Do something.

http://shatteringdenial.com/books/docker_origins_of_violence.pdf

Even if you disagree with his conclusions on the origin and nature of genocide an interesting read. Not short though.

Is there a comparable work arguing that genocide comes from more secular motives? I’ll give it a read.

I would nitpick the Reign of Terror as a lot of how it was defined lies within the western way of thought.

History is largely somewhat fictional so saying someone doesn’t know their history is often something akin to saying ones view doesn’t hold constant with my own cherished illusions.

[quote]groo wrote:

Even if you disagree with his conclusions on the origin and nature of genocide an interesting read. Not short though.[/quote]

Yeah, not interested. Why? Genocide is a certain kind of narrow violence - narrow in its sense of mission. We’re not defining “violence” so narrowly, so it’s irrelevant.

Doesn’t matter - we aren’t talking strictly about genocide.

[quote]I would nitpick the Reign of Terror as a lot of how it was defined lies within the western way of thought.

History is largely somewhat fictional so saying someone doesn’t know their history is often something akin to saying ones view doesn’t hold constant with my own cherished illusions.[/quote]

Translation: I have no idea what I am talking about, but since I fear that an empirical review would undermine my cherished ideological ax to grind that “religion is the driver of violence, secularism rules!”, I will try and buffalo my way out of it with some abstract horseshit criticism of history.

I assure you, there is nothing fictional about the gulag or the killing fields.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Even if you disagree with his conclusions on the origin and nature of genocide an interesting read. Not short though.[/quote]

Yeah, not interested. Why? Genocide is a certain kind of narrow violence - narrow in its sense of mission. We’re not defining “violence” so narrowly, so it’s irrelevant.

Doesn’t matter - we aren’t talking strictly about genocide.

[quote]I would nitpick the Reign of Terror as a lot of how it was defined lies within the western way of thought.

History is largely somewhat fictional so saying someone doesn’t know their history is often something akin to saying ones view doesn’t hold constant with my own cherished illusions.[/quote]

Translation: I have no idea what I am talking about, but since I fear that an empirical review would undermine my cherished ideological ax to grind that “religion is the driver of violence, secularism rules!”, I will try and buffalo my way out of it with some abstract horseshit criticism of history.

I assure you, there is nothing fictional about the gulag or the killing fields.[/quote]
You miss the point. Here would be a concrete bit of text from the work I referenced. Disputing how the Western world views history that is largely in opposition to the facts. Genocide isn’t that narrow of a term. Certainly fitting to discuss violence between groups. I will say you do nothing but give a few personal jibes and give no sources other than naming a couple specific events in history. If you aren’t going to back your thesis up with anything at all fine its your opinion and everyone has one of those.

In the latter 1990s, Ann Curthoys and I were fortunate to attend
a speech given by the central Australian Aboriginal leader,
Galarrwuy Yunupingu, to the National Press Club in Canberra
(on 13 February 1997). Yunupingu said he was continually
astonished by the way the European colonists of Aboriginal
lands always referred to themselves as the settlers while designating
his people by contrast as nomads. Such a characterization,
he observed, was historically preposterous. The European
colonists and migrants, he pointed out, were the inveterate
wanderers on the face of the earth, they were the ones who had
THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE
[ 34 ]
travelled to distant places, across oceans and far from their own
homes, and now constantly roamed within the Australian continent.
European politicians in the Northern Territory, where his
people lived, constantly boasted that they were the settlers and
belonged to the Territory. Yet, he noted with irony, those same
white politicians some years later could be observed living elsewhere
in Australia. Meanwhile the Aboriginal peoples, who stay
on their own lands as far as they are permitted by the colonizers
to do so, to look after their country and because they belong to
it, are always referred to as nomads!
We discussed Yunupinguâ??s speech many times afterwards, for
it changed much of our thinking about colonization, migration and
world history, in particular his highlighting of such pervasive colonizer
and migrant reverse narratives. Ann explored Yunupinguâ??s
insight in relation to the persistent ways settler colonists in
Australia always see themselves as victims and so incapable of
being the victimizers of others.46 In Is History Fiction? (2005) we
related Yunupinguâ??s thinking to Herodotusâ??s Histories in our
discussion of the hubris of colonizers from agricultural societies in
regarding themselves as the settlers wherever they restlessly roam,
concluding that it is the supposedly settled and urbanized peoples
who are the nomads of world history.47

[quote]groo wrote:

You miss the point. Here would be a concrete bit of text from the work I referenced.[/quote]

Read it, completely irrelevant.

Well, instead of telling me about something other than the topic, dispute my facts. I don’t give a damn about your irrelevant anti-colonialism tract - you said more blood has been spilled because of religion than secularism. I gave you specific examples telling a different story - which you were apparently completely unaware of - and you haven’t provided any refutation of those examples that contradict or otherwise provide a different context to your theory.

You just blather on about about how Westerners won’t pay attention to facts as cited by some cultural anthrologist. Well, let’s hear it - tell me which facts I have wrong about the body count brought to us by murderous secular ideologies. Looking forward to a coherent answer.

I think you mindless religious fools are the worst. When you can’t just make up some fictitious faith derived reason that you are correct, you just become oblivious to reality. I love how you wish to vilify Islam which I myself hate, then cast a blind eye to the attrocities committed by your respective religions. I also find it fascinating that you choose to be oblivious to the fact your religions have all caused an immense amount of pain and suffering and death in this world. But, that can’t be right? Because that does not fit with your world view, so it must be worng…hmmm. Yet I am the stupid one? I may agree,I am stupid for even trying to talk rationally with religious people since they cherish irrationality as a virtue.

I love how thunderbolt has to disqualify genocide since it does not fit his world view. He states," Genocide is a certain kind of narrow violence - narrow in its sense of mission. We’re not defining “violence” so narrowly, so it’s irrelevant." Yes, so narrow and small in fact that it killed millions of Jews and continues to be committed in Africa. This is a perfect example of dodging and disqualifying everything that your religions have done, you are truly living in your own world.