Christianity in Lord of the Rings: Would Easter fly on Middle Earth?

It is difficult to imagine why someone would spend so much time on something like this--what a waste!! BYU is actually paying this guy MONEY to do this kind of "research"??

Besides, what does this have to do with science?

Erm...I had always understood that Middle Earth as a whole was intended as an archaic version of our own world (whether Tolkien intended it as pre- or post-Flood, I don't know--or whether he even thought it worthwhile to include the concept in his stories. There's the downfall of Numenor, but that's the closest thing I remember. Been a long time since I read the Silmarillion), with Eru Iluvatar literally being Yahweh. In that sense, LotR is a "Christian" book--it's set in a Christian history, albeit with different names for certain things and a lot more detail than the Bible ever goes in to--but trying to claim that the story itself has some particular Christian focus seems like it's stretching it a mite far.

...And agreed, what exactly does this have to do with science? Religion or literature, yes, but science...?

Does that make Golem the prostitue-marrying Christ? ... sorry, couldn't resist.

Before the name, golem is a noun and an epithet. Before Christianity was and is religiosity. Fictional histories and future histories are bound to reflect the author's context, as the pseudo-author of DUNE may weigh-in. 5-4-3- ...

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. Retire. Strike! Atlas is shrugging.

Gaaaahhhh! You ignorant heathens: it's Gollum not "golem". Now thou shalt, for thy penance, re-read the Silmarillion thrice over. Get to it!

This only makes LotR even more boring...

Besides, what does this have to do with science?

Well, it is listed under "Other Sciences / Other".

But I do agree, it does seem like a waste of time. Unemployment everywhere, economies in shambles, the world is running shy of resources, revolutions and wars, people starving or dying of disease and we just got's ta know if the LotR has a Christian component to it. Yep, some do seem to have their priorities a bit skewed.

Well, the Lord of the Rings series is simply fantasy... but then so are all religions.

Look at anything closely enough and you'll begin to see what you want to see.

LotR was heavily influenced by Norse mythology and probably other pagan belief systems, as well as Christianity. Tolkien mixed all of the mythologies together and made an awesome adventure out of it.

This only makes LotR even more boring...

The secret of reading LOTR is to SKIP THE ELVES or at least the singing. Hard to skip them completely without missing some of the plot. Next you should speed read or just plain skip Tim Benzidrine just as Peter Jackson did.

Of course I only read it once myself. It was my friends and my brother that wore out my copy.

I do still have one volume around somewhere from the ACE version. The notorious don't pay the author version. I bought it used.

Ethelred

Well, the Lord of the Rings series is simply fantasy... but then so are all religions.

Ummm, just want to get one thing straight, LotR is fiction, religion is fiction, and therefore, ANY and ALL hopes of any form of life fter death is also fictional. Right?

Hmm, that leads to another question, If there is no life after death, why behave like good little human beings and not try to do as we please with no kind thoughts to any other humans we encounter? Religion says we should honor our neighbors and friends and enemies, and if we do, we go to some sort of paradise after we die... worth living for don't you think?

But no, it's all fiction right?

Our lives are completely meaningless, and there is no point in living for something that isn't even there. Well, thanks for clearing that up, I'm going on a murderous rampage now! I'll send you the article after it hits the news!

Now that I've had my say, anyone have any questions?
Silver out.

I didn't say there is no 'after life'. I just don't know and it cannot be proven. Personally, I'm agnostic.
As far as organized religions go, I'll stand with fantasy.. some uglier than others.
Human behavior is conditioned by the family and by the tribe. Always has been.
Life can be entertaining, fulfilling and interesting. Depends on the frame of mind.

True, but according to your comment earlier, you stated that there is no religion, and all religion is, is a solace for those who do not wish their lives to be meaningless. Religion give courage to those who are afraid, inspiration to those whose minds are barren, and wisdom to those who are foolish.

Without religion, many of the greastest events in the history of Mankind would never have happened. Kings, Queens, Presidents, and many other types of rulers would never have embarked on some the the greatest events that mankind has ever known. Not the best things, nor the most righteous, but definately the greatest. See Atila the Hun and the near conquest of the known world, or The unification of China under one distinct, single ruler. See also the Great Pyramid made for a King "descended from a god".

Religion(s) can and has been used for both good and evil. I won't argue the merits of any or all of them. I understand the need to believe. I come from a family of, mostly, believers. And I understand the positive values of religion in today's society, as well as the negatives. Religious involvement was not satisfying for me. My perception is that not participating will do me no harm.

If there is no life after death, why behave like good little human beings and not try to do as we please with no kind thoughts to any other humans we encounter?

Two main reasons:

1) HEALTHY humans have a well-functioning emotional apparatus that rewards camaraderie and friendship with a doze of dopamine, and love with a doze of oxytocin. Quite simply, being socially positive FEELS better than being antisocial -- which makes you, as an individual, HAPPIER overall.

2) The Golden Rule (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.) In other words, what goes around comes around, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, you reap what you sow, etc. and so on. Which is why any nation -- regardless of whether it's founded on religion or on secular principles -- always institutes a codex of law, to keep order and peace amid its citizenry.

Our lives are completely meaningless

Intrinsically, they are. It's up to each of us to invent and ascribe a purpose to our lives.

Religion give courage to those who are afraid, inspiration to those whose minds are barren, and wisdom to those who are foolish.

So atheists (particularly outspoken ones) lack courage? Perhaps courage can come from conviction. Perhaps it can come from a rational choice to sacrifice oneself for one's family, friends, comrades-at-arms, nation, ideal, etc.

Are you really saying there's no inspiration without religion? Atheists are incapable of appreciating high art, engaging in fantasies, inventing new things? (Why are scientists in general far less religious than the general population, then?)

And as for wisdom... hah! Wisdom does not come from believing in fairies and unicorns. Wisdom is not derived from fantasies about gods, spirits, souls, afterlife, magic, and miracles. Wisdom and superstition are not compatible. Wisdom comes from experience, and through practice of learning and rational thought.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Did I say faires and unicorns? Did I say Spirits and Souls? No, What I said, and what you have quoted are two entirely differant things. What you have done is pick apart a comment and choose differant parts of it to shoot down, making some others assume that is what the entire comment was about.

You and I both know my earlier comment meant more than simply saying only those with a religion are capable of doing anything at all. That would be arrogance and stupidity on a scale beyond anyone's comprehension. If you read a little history on Karl Marx, you will see that he once was a Christian, Then an atheist due to his reading of Darwin's Theory of evolution. And a little research into that reveals that Darwin was a Christian before he became an atheist and agnostic.

If you look at Mao, he too was a follower of Buddhism before he became agnostic, in fact, quite a few FAMOUS agnotics and atheists were once followers of religion before they became as they were. (cont.)

NOW, the atheists and agnostics of today are the way they are due to the research that was done into the possible existance of a DIVINE CREATOR, of which I am not entirely sure of myself, but think on this, If the Universe, or Multiverse, was created by the Big Bang, and that from a super condensed ball of matter about the size of our sun, where did that ball come from?

The biggest, and possibly the only failing inside of that theory, is what I have just typed. And you are right on target about the merits of experiance being the source of wisdom, but think on this, differant scientific discoveries that were made in recent times, 18th century and forward, are also listed in the Bible of all things, something that we all agree on was made in the Early 2nd centuary and before.

And let me quote my own self here:

Religion give courage to those who are afraid, inspiration to those whose minds are barren, and wisdom to those who are foolish.

I see the Ring as the symbol of govt power. People of good will claimed to want to use that power for 'good'. But as many like Gandalf pointed out, that would inevitably lead to evil, like socialism.
Hobbits represent those Heinlein referred to as those who do not desire the power to control others.
Although Tolkien was Catholic, I don't see a religious connection.

Read it a bit more slowly if you will.
Religion is no substitute for your own courage, but it is a brace, not a source.
"Give a man a Fish, and he will eat for a Day.
Teach a man to Fish, and he will eat for a Lifetime"
Religion serves that purpose. By delivering stories on a divine god and the many things that people have done in said god's name. Now I'm not saying every single thing done in a god's name was good, that too would be arrogance. Those stories reinforce that which we ourselves already have.

Religions also grant inspiration for artists or scientists, or even soldiers with stories of victory and triumph and success. This is not to say that those without religion have no inspiration, what I mean, is that those who follow a religion have a greater possibilty to do something when they have nothing in mind previously than those without a religion.

For example, an artist who follows God, and one who doesn't are both in the same white washed room. (cont.)

Both have no ideas on what to sketch or paint or draw. Now they begin to thinmk and ponder on what they could create. The artist who is following God has more options availible to him than the artist who doesn't follow God does. Just saying that there are more options availible, so don't try to twist my words here PE.

Now, as for wisdom. At the heart of a great portion of religious stories is a moral or lesson to be learned. Look at the farmer in the firelds. As he sows his seeds, some fall onto thin soil and die from lack of nutrients, some fall among thorns and brambles and are choked to death, some fall among rocks and are eaten by birds, and finally, some are sown onto good soil, and they flourish. The meaning behind this parable can be many things, such as faith, or business, or even warfare, but it is something that you can learn from! THAT is wisdom, the ability to hear something or do something or read something, and then learn from it. Can you deny this?

Any questions?

I see the Ring as the symbol of govt power.

Hehe, that's funny but not actually all that surprising, given what you are.

Now, if you were versed in the lore of Middle Earth, you'd know that Gandalf himself wields a very powerful Elf-made magical ring (ring of fire, Narya). Sauron's ring is particularly evil not because it's more powerful than any others, but because Sauron's evil spirit is embedded in it, and it has the power to control the other rings once brought into contact with them.

evil, like socialism

Eh, sorry, microbrain. The sort of evil spoken of in Lord of the Rings, involves a dark warlord conquering and enslaving the entire world. It does not involve universal preschool and primary education, public universities, universal health care, workers' rights, fair wages, fair trade, public works projects, public utilities, public transportation, public lands and parks, retirement security, environmental protection, or public safety and emergency services.

conquering and enslaving the entire world.

That's what socialism does.

conquering and enslaving the entire world.

That's what socialism does.

No, that's what you do, with physorg's comment threads.

No, you are thinking communism, socialism and marxism are not inherently evil, in fact, the original ideas were quite comendable. In fact, IF Russia had worked out the way that they were supposed to, THEY would be the dominate force on this earth today. Look up and ACTUALLY READ AND COMPREHEND what they are and what they were meant to do. Then we'll take you seriously, OK?

Silver out.

No, you are thinking communism, socialism and marxism are not inherently evil,

Of course they are as state power must be used to extract the wealth from those who earn and distributes to those who do not.

The USSR was doomed to fail as the socialist system is flawed. It does not take into account the needs, wants and rights of the individual.

Now, for something more on-topic:

Although Tolkien was Catholic, I don't see a religious connection

Many people (especially those who haven't read the Silmarillion) don't see it. So once again, it's a question of being versed in the "lore" =)

In fact, both Sauron and Gandalf (and the other Wizards) are a type of minor angel (with Sauron having been corrupted.) There are also archangel equivalents (Morgoth -- Sauron's predecessor and Tolkien's equivalent of Satan -- was one of those) who dwell in the idyllic lands of Valinor that are unreachable by mortals (Tolkien's equivalent of Paradise.) There is also the one and only god (Eru) who created the world of Middle Earth, and who holds exclusive knowledge of something called the "Secret Fire". Demons of the Void struggle to tear down Eru's creation, and steal the secret of the Fire. But while all of this comprises a framework for LOTR's story, little of it is visible (and only in shades and hints, at that) in LOTR directly.

Ah, but think of this, are the needs of the individual greater than those of the country? Is one man's happiness worth the lives of others? The world is meant to be an equal place right? But are some people more "EQUAL" than others?

You didn't even look up what socialism was meant to do, the same with marxism. Once again, you talk about communism. And while I agree with the Unto each man their own theory, I must disagree wih you over the needs and wants part of all of this. Those who take from the rich to give to the poor are called herosm, those who call such people evil, are called evil. Ever heard of Robin Hood and his Merry Men? Disney made one that should be understandable for you. The one with Robin Hood portrayed as a Fox, the children's version for added clarity. Enjoy...
But in all seriousness, you should look at the differance between socialism, marxism, and communism.

Any questions?
Silver out.

The world of Middle Earth is basically a classic Christian construct with the forces of Good battling the forces of Evil, with Man caught in the middle.

Both Good and Evil have their own hierarchies of being. While Good has God (Eru), Arch-angels (Valar), minor angels (Mayar), primordial/neutral nature-spirits (Tom Bombadil) and the elves (some of whom have been to Valinor, are blessed with its inner light -- the "Light of the Valar" -- and are capable of some level of magic).

Evil has its Satan (Morgoth) and other uber-demons from before the creation of the world (Ungoliant), fallen minor angels (Sauron chief among them) and various monsters descending or created by more powerful demons (Balrogs and Dragons, created by Morgoth; Shelob -- descends form Ungoliant; orcs -- elves corrupted by Sauron), and lesser evil creatures like goblins.

And Lord of the Rings has its own version of the Fall of Man: the exile from Numenor. Here, a tribe of Men distinguished itself in the original battle of Good vs. Evil, where Morgoth was defeated, and are rewarded with power, wisdom, and long life by the forces of Light. But they are still forbidden from setting foot in Valinor. Eventually, they become too ambitious and resentful of their mortality and limitations imposed upon them, and attempt to reach the shores of Valinor -- under the guidance and encouragement of Sauron the Deceiver, no less. In answer, they are cast out of Numenor, and precious few of them survive to shipwreck on Middle Earth (where they proceed to build great Kingdoms, including the city of Minas Tirith, and from whom all the great Kings of Men descend, including Elendil and Aragorn.) Meanwhile, the formerly-flat world is curved into a sphere, with Valinor excepted from that, so it becomes topologically inaccessible by mortals.

Christian motifs, anyone?

Perhaps, where'd you get all this? I read the trilogy, but never saw any of this. That and I ran out of books to read at the library...

Man I hate elves

"one might assume that religion has no place in The Lord of the Rings."

-Nor anywhere else IMO.

"The book upholds certain moral values," said Paul Kerry, a history professor at BYU. "You have to piece the clues together on many levels."

-What this is, is yet another attempt by religionists to foist the lie, that their particular god is the only true source of morality. Moral actions are commonly portrayed throughout secular literature and the media.

Secular society beginning with tribal law has always decided what is right and what is wrong. Religion only tries to commandeer this process in order to legitimize itself and condone all the immoral things it expects adherents to do to unbelievers.

Without religion, many of the greastest events in the history of Mankind would never have happened.

Youre right- greasiest. Religion has been very successful in taking credit for things it is not responsible for, and denying things that it is.

Perhaps, where'd you get all this? I read the trilogy, but never saw any of this.

As I said, the Simlarillion -- Tolkien's "prequel" to the Hobbit/LOTR saga. There's also an "Unfinished Tales" book, collecting some of the related stories, compiled by Tolkien's son (after J.R.R.'s death) based on his father's unpublished manuscripts. Not the best-written prose, as I recall, but does provide abundant background to the world of Middle Earth:

http://www.amazon...45325818

http://www.amazon...45357116

But I like demons tho-

Intrinsically, they are. It's up to each of us to invent and ascribe a purpose to our lives.

Biologically our purpose has already been given to us which you neglect to mention, and that is to ensure survival and prosperity for our decendents. The only real 'immortality' available to us is through our offspring or that of the tribe.

This is the true source of morals. It explains how and why those tribes which had the best internal cohesion and altruism coupled with concerted animosity toward other tribes, were able to thrive. It is as moral in that context to ruthlessly oppose enemies as it is to sacrifice for fellow tribesmen. Our secular story-telling also contains this moral.

Religions were invaluable in extending the tribal identity over ever larger groups while directing their animosity toward enemies they themselves could designate. As the world is now largely united, religions are now good for nothing.

Thanks PE, and Otto, time to drop in some nice little facts and quips on you. I am going to enjoy THIS...

Right then, The crusades, the Mongolian Horde, The rise of the Byzantine Empire, the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, the Creation of America, Teddy Roosevelt, and most recently, Isreal, which happens to be one of the mopst militarily advanced countries on this planet, including the US and Germany.

Now then, each of these were done in the name of a people who followed a religion, and thus, done for a religious purpose. And Immoral things have not been done in the name of religions since Satanism and the Inquisition. Agreed that some religions are immoral and terribly, terribly evil in nature, but not all of them are, that is ALSO ARROGANCE!!

And FURTHERMORE, if you looked up budhism and its views on following multiple religions, then you would see that they dont care what god you follow, or wether you do at all. They care about inner peace and harmony, not violence.
(cont.)

NOW, let's look at Confucinism, THAT has no god, but rather it focuses on wisdom, not some foistered lie created in order to control the masses and create an army of religious zealots that could then be used to wage war or to convert others to their cause in order to rule the world, as you are suggesting.

Now then, what about those quips I promised? And here we go:

These are the seven deadly sins, as per Durante degli Alighieri:
Pride
Envy
Hate
Gluttony
Greed
Vengeance
Lust

these things can be attributed to a solely tribal lifestlye as so:
In a tribe, members seek to keep the tribe filled with new blood, thus lust is shown.
In a tribe, the members seek to enrich the tribe by taking from others (Envy) and by hoarding resources (Greed).
In a tribe, members seek to avenge anyone within their tribe who were wronged, thus Vengeance is shown.
In a tribe, Hate is shown to those who do not follow the tribes examples.
Pride prevents a tribe from rising above failing ways.

each of these were done in the name of a people who followed a religion

They were various expressions of the will to survive and thrive. Religion, as I said, was a Tool which aided in their Orderly execution. It was a Means to an end.

but not all of them are, that is ALSO ARROGANCE!!

All of them are based upon exclusion and priviledge. They are designed to divide people and create animosity in orderly Ways. As such they all stink and have no place in the world of today.

Oh and theyre based on lies including the BIGGEST lie of them all, IMMORTALITY, which is the one thing that people will do anything to obtain.

if you looked up budhism and its views on following multiple religions

Baloney. If YOU look closely at the effects each has had in the real world, irrespective of whatever they CLAIM, you must conclude that they are only more of the same sorry spectacle.

Buddhists are dying by gas and cluster bomb as we speak on the Thai-Cambodia border, over a TEMPLE.

And Gluttony or Laziness is shown when members of the tribe rely completely on those around them within their tribe to survive themselves.

That is the tribe mentality, and it is doomed to happen again and again and again.

A religion simply answers a few questions about the origins of the world, and the ever present quest to seek knoledge of life after death.

Now then, here we go again:
These sins are deadly for one reason, and one reason only, If you live by these things to closely, they WILL consume you. And just in case you didn't get it, consume means death. They will kill you without blinking a metaphiorical eye.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

These are the seven deadly sins, as per Durante degli Alighieri:
Pride
Envy
Hate
Gluttony
Greed
Vengeance
Lust

These things all disrupt tribal cohesion, mutual trust, and the willingness to sacrifice for fellow tribesmen. Obviously. Tribal law condemns them even as it sanctions all of them against its enemies. Religions were only used to extend this state over larger groups of people.

If you live by these things to closely, they WILL consume you.

Read your book. The bible condones and INSISTS on every one in actions against gods enemies. In order to protect the tribe of israel, his favorites.

Sorry PE I didnt mean to commandeer the thread. Continue talking about little hairy dwarves and sprites, and tinkerbell or whatever.

Sad Sad misguided Otto, they are being bombed because some ass like you doesn't believe anyone should follow a religion.

Hitler thought like you did actually, he attacked religion in general, and persecuted and KILLED millions of people who had nothing to do with any of his woes or troubles.

I'm not a zealot as you may start to think, but guess what, I will defend my faith. But I digress.

If people thought as you did, and were in great numbers, this world would be that much closer to self-annihilation. Amen.

This world is already close to annihilation. Watch the news, watch what religionists everywhere are doing to defend their faith by killing other faith-defenders in great piles. If you all would only keep it amongst yourselves we wouldnt have a problem.

Hitler was a catholic who drew upon the legitimacy of god and the faith of all good germans, to accomplish what he did. Gott mit Uns.

some ass like you doesn't believe anyone should follow a religion.

No, asses like me wouldnt care who got the freaking temple. Asses like you are willing to kill families for such things.

WOW, that's a stretch, I couldn't get into an actual fight if my life depended on it, and suddenly I'm a bloodthirsty child killer???

Nice, simply nice.

How about this, mankind is killing itself, and we are sitting here debating over whether we are killing ourselves is because of religion, the lack thereof, or via too much progress too fast.

Otto, Look inside yourself real closely now, and ask yourself this,

Why the hell do you exist? Or me, or anyone for that matter.

What relevance that has to this discussion will come to you when you come up with an honest answer, but not anytime before.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

WOW, that's a stretch, I couldn't get into an actual fight if my life depended on it, and suddenly I'm a bloodthirsty child killer???

Its in your book. You think yourself different than those currently pushed into conflict, but your faith allows for the contingency should it ever be necessary. Good and faithful xians were in the same place in the past, and there is no reason to think they wont be there again at some time in the future. Its in your BOOK.

Xians are killing moslems for their faith in africa. They are martyring themselves throughout the moslem world. Presenting oneself and ones family for martyrdom is every bit as violent as martyring someone else.

Your adherence to your irrational belief system enables the most violent at present to kill and destroy. And it ensures that it will again occur at some time in the future. Because its IN your BOOK.

All religions are the same. All must end. "For the world to live religion must die." Bill Maher

Well, in that case, what is in your book?

While there are some complete morons out there, killing themselves and others for their beliefs, and while that doesn't mean that they are right in doing so, nor are they right in promoting that behavior. BUT, they do NOT represent the rest of the people who follow that religion.

Because someone across the globe shot and killed 20 people, then killed themselves with the name of their god on their lips, does that mean I'm going to do the same exact thing?

Well, according to you, it does.
Smooth...

Any Questions?
Silver out

Why the hell do you exist? Or me, or anyone for that matter.

I explained this above, and it certainly doesnt include serving any god or gods or other misty wish-granters.

What relevance that has to this discussion will come to you when you come up with an honest answer

Answer me this: what makes you think your god is better than any other god? What makes you think you are any better at deciding this than say a moslem or a jew or a sikh? And if all the other faiths in the world are false, what makes you think that out of all of them yours is the ONLY ONE that is true?

Why would any religion teach such arrogance? Why would any god tolerate it?

If we decided to outlaw all religion and subsequently found out that god exists, I am sure he would be magnanimous enough to understand that we were only doing so in order to preserve the species. But he doesnt exist, and we still need to survive, and religions threaten our survival.

So lets end them all before it is too late.

outlaw all religion

The Chinese are trying to outlaw religion.
The Soviets tried it.
Govt power is more dangerous than religion.

If we decided to outlaw all religion

You can't end a vice by outlawing it. Haven't you learned anything from the War on Drugs?

If we decided to outlaw all religion

You can't end a vice by outlawing it. Haven't you learned anything from the War on Drugs?

Coercing virtue does not work either.

Besides, even if you opt to outlaw religion as an institution, you still can't eliminate religious thought. Even in those Soviet regimes Swenson mentions above, religious thought persisted through decades of active suppression. In the Soviet case, as soon as Communism was relaxed, there was a near-volcanic eruption of renewed religious expression.

And you can't attempt to target religious thought or speech, without infringing upon fundamental freedoms of thought and expression.

If you want to "end" religions, simply recognize them as irrelevant and redundant relics of the past. When they're no longer needed, and when the populace is sufficiently educated and knowledgeable that it doesn't need surrogate "answers" for the world's mysteries, then religion simply fades away into background noise. Witness the trends in the developed nations.

If we decided to outlaw all religion

You can't end a vice by outlawing it. Haven't you learned anything from the War on Drugs?

I was being figurative. To make a point.

Besides, even if you opt to outlaw religion as an institution, you still can't eliminate religious thought.

I think this will take care of itself when we begin producing and maintaining healthy, longer-lived people with undamaged brains. We already figured out what produces republicans- humongous amygdalas. Right marjon?

I'm sure the religionist defect will present itself in due time. It will be an obvious defect, and it will be correctable. A lesion in an unfortunate place, an overactive gland, an underdeveloped module, something of that nature. T gondii perhaps.

And you can't attempt to target religious thought or speech, without infringing upon fun

Now this is bull. We outlaw bigotry. We can do the same for religions which have this woven into their fabric. Which is all of them.

We outlaw bigotry.

Who's this "we"? My country (USA) does not outlaw bigotry. It outlaws employment and service discrimination, but if you want to hold or express bigoted views, you have the right to do so. If the KKK wants to march with slogans and bullhorns down Main Street, all they have to do is notify the city ahead of time and obtain a permit, so the proper security provisions and traffic diversions can be arranged. If you want to be a Neo-Nazi, shave your head, tattoo a swastika on your forehead, and march around in jack boots, you can have at it: nobody's going to stop you.

Now, I know that some other countries outlaw bigotry (for instance, the Nazi party is banned in Germany.) I can certainly understand their reasoning, but I don't condone it. By making a political movement illegal, you only make it more alluring for the natural anti-establishment iconoclasts of each successive generation.

If you want to be a Neo-Nazi, shave your head, tattoo a swastika on your forehead, and march around in jack boots, you can have at it: nobody's going to stop you.

You cannot call someone a slur without risking getting arrested or sued for it. You cannot discriminate. You cannot webcam your gay roommates private trysts without being charged with a hate crime. You cannot advocate harming anyone because of what they are. You can express bigotry in abstract terms but you cannot direct it at specific individuals. Am I right?

Women right now are walking around in jackboots. This is called fashion. If guys do it they're called Nazi skinhead punks, or gay. Is this right?

By making a political movement illegal, you only make it more alluring

I don't think this warrants your blanket statement. You can make gangs illegal, crime families illegal. Making something illegal does not necessarily encourage it. Does it?

It is difficult to imagine why someone would spend so much time on something like this--what a waste!! BYU is actually paying this guy MONEY to do this kind of "research"??

Besides, what does this have to do with science?

Well. your second sentence actually give a very good answer to you first question...
And BYU is a religious school.

and when the populace is sufficiently educated and knowledgeable that it doesn't need surrogate "answers" for the world's mysteries

So how do 'educate' people who have already been educated to the fact that whatever you have to say comes straight from the devils mouth? You can't. You have to destroy the culture which creates this impasse. No other way. And since their zealotry is also based on outreproducing you and overrunning you, then its destruction becomes imperative.

then religion simply fades away into background noise. Witness the trends in the developed nations.

Naw indications are that it is some broken thing which needs fixing. It is compulsion in many that just doesn't exist in many more. Our brains are so fragile and prone to defect. Stories here in physorg about amygdalas and liberalism and hallucinations and so on make me think Pfizer could come up with something.

You cannot call someone a slur without risking getting arrested or sued for it.

Only in very limited circumstances will you get sued and/or fined for it: when you're the employer, and the targeted person is your employee. Then it'd be workplace harassment. Otherwise, you can't get in trouble for slinging slurs, AFAIK. And certainly under no circumstances will you get arrested for it.

You cannot webcam your gay roommates private trysts without being charged with a hate crime.

Now, that sort of thing rises to a point of harassment and bullying. It's one thing to fling a casual slur or two; it's another when you go through all that trouble just to make one particular individual feel miserable. At some point, it crosses the line. I'm not sure that particular example constitutes a valid "hate crime", but it's certainly way beyond a mere insult.

You cannot advocate harming anyone because of what they are.

Or for any other reason. No incitement of violence, period.

Making something illegal does not necessarily encourage it. Does it?

No, you're right. However, religion and drugs have something in common that gangs and crime families don't: they are wildly popular (religion an opiate? Who'da thought...) When something is that popular, trying to suppress it only pushes it underground, and all the suppression efforts amount to little more than a gigantic waste of money and resources -- while at the same time fueling a whole new crime industry.

You have to destroy the culture which creates this impasse. No other way.

Or you lead by example.

their zealotry is also based on outreproducing you and overrunning you

They can reproduce all they want; mindsets and knowledge are not heritable. Religion drops off proportionately to level of education; that's a known fact. Provide more/better education for everybody, and the problem solves itself over time.

Provide more/better education for everybody,

You mean indoctrination, not education do you not?
Indoctrination is what the current 'education' system attempts to accomplish. When people attempt to truly educate, the 'progressive' unions and politicians try to stop it.

You mean indoctrination, not education do you not?

No, I mean education. Something you've never experienced (having only gone through indoctrination), and therefore can't relate to. Sorry.

the 'progressive' unions and politicians try to stop it.

Trying to stop reform is not progressive; it's reactionary and conservative -- by definition. Progressives always push for reform and search for ways to improve the status quo; it's what defines them as such.

Hmm, that leads to another question, If there is no life after death, why behave like good little human beings and not try to do as we please

For one thing we don't tolerate that crap. Us agnostics that is.

The theory you have there sounds good BUT it is pure crap. When a theory does not match the evidence that it is crap. Christians make up 80 percent of the prison population. Atheists and Agnostics make up somewhere between 7 and 15 percent of the general population yet they are at most ONE percent of the prison population. These numbers are completely contrary to your thinking.

Clearly threats of Hell are NOT enough to make many Christians behave themselves. And us non-believers do the right thing without threats.

Ethelred

NOW, the atheists and agnostics of today are the way they are due to the research that was done into the possible existance of a DIVINE CREATOR

Nonsense. Total rubbish.

I am an Agnostic because I noticed one day that the Historians and Anthropologists were looking at other religions rationally yet did not look at there own religion that way. If the idea of Midgard(Earth) being created by a giant cow licking a block of ice is ludicrous why isn't the idea that the world was created 6000 years ago and Jehovah then killed off nearly all life with a Flood equally ludicrous since there is exactly as much evidence for both. NONE.

Slowly if became more and more clear that Christianity was just the word of men.

And Darwin did not do the research he did to learn about an alleged Divine Creator. He did it to do something with his life after he decided not to go into theology. He didn't come up with Natural Selection until after his time on Beagle.

Ethelred

Now they begin to thinmk and ponder on what they could create. The artist who is following God has more options availible to him than the artist who doesn't follow God does.

Rubbish. You sure do like nonsense.

The religious artist is limited by beliefs. Since the agnostic artistic does not have those constraints HE has more options. He can even write a novel about building a cathedral. Several of them.

Ken Follet is an Atheist.

Any artist worth anything is capable of creating things they don't believe in. Even a Christian should be able to do that. At least those that are not Fundamentalists.

Look at the farmer in the firelds.

How about we look at how Jesus botched a demon banishment. No wisdom was used in that alleged incedent.

THAT is wisdom, the ability to hear something or do something or read something, and then learn from it. Can you deny this?

Can you deny that it does not have to come from religion?

Ethelred

No, I cannot, Wisdom can come from anyone, or anywhere, you are absolutely right. And yes, you are also right in saying that a great deal of artists and writers and other people who rely on inspiration, never actually followed a religion, nor did they ever gain inspiration from it in the first place. And yes, you are right about how a majority of people in prison are in fact christians, and a very few percent of thenm atheists or agnostics.

But, I am not trying to convert anyone. What I am trying to do, and forgive me for digressing so much as to cause this stir, is simply explain that religion is not detrimental, but in some cases, beneficial. I understand I completely went off the edge on this, but just because something doesn't make any sense, doesn't mean that it has no chance of being true.

Look back in time to when scientific research on genetics was scoffed at and nigh forbidden by the scientific community. Now we have legitimate proof that it IS a science.

(cont.)

Now, the human mind, can you touch it? You honestly can't, can you? No, but it is there. You can touch the white and grey matter up there as much as you want, but can you actually touchthe cognitive process our minds go through as we type our thoughts and opinions on this forum?

What about just before cells were discovered, and a cork tree of all things became a major leap in science. Before that time, the biggest thing in Scientific history was Gallileo and Darwin. And even then, they were believed to be crazy at first. Can you deny that they were once thought as madmen in the scientific world, their "discoveries" ludicrous theories to be scoffed at?

Yet here we, sending probes into space, and spilicing strands of DNA and RNA to create biological cures for disease, or Making space probes to explore the heavens. THAT is where we are today. Can you deny this?

Next, the topic of religion. You can't kill the idea, period. But you have a choice to not follow it.

(cont.)

I've said this to so many people, so many times,
"Shit Happens"
And it is true. But when it does, what you think, do, and say, will affect you or someone else for the rest of your or their life. Even this will forever be remembered and seen. Can you deny this?

Do I ask you to become a monk? No. Do I ask you to become a religionist? No. And do I ask you to "Change your Heathen ways, and follow the laws and edicts of (insert name(s))"? No.

What you do with your soul or body or mind is up to you. But what I do ask, is this:

Do you deny that there could be a deity out there? but one that we just are not able to comprehend fully, one that IS there, but not able to be pinpointed with today's science and technology?

That is what I ask.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

Now, the human mind, can you touch it? You honestly can't, can you? No, but it is there.

The 'mind' is a thoroughly discounted concept. There is nothing which cannot potentially be explained scientifically. This unfortunately leaves no room for anything metaphysical including a soul, an afterlife, or god.

can you actually touchthe cognitive process our minds go through as we type our thoughts and opinions on this forum?

Of course you can 'touch' it as it is something which exists. It can be tested, modeled, and some day read in realtime. You've swallowed yet one more religio/philo deception meant to perpetuate their raison d'etre- the existence of things unreal and unknowable. Everything which exists can be known.

Next, the topic of religion. You can't kill the idea, period. But you have a choice to not follow it.

It's dying all over the world. Suicide. RIP. Ashes to ashes. There will be heaven on earth when god finally leaves it. Hallejulia!

Or you lead by example.

Satan leads by example. The west created Lindsey lohan. It is evil.

They can reproduce all they want; mindsets and knowledge are not heritable. Religion drops off proportionately to level of education; that's a known fact.

You are naive. Your education is not as enlightening and liberating as you would like to believe. You don't consider religious education as education. Religionists consider your liberal arts satanic mind control. They could be right to some extent.

What you do with your soul or body or mind is up to you. But what I do ask, is this:

Do you deny that there could be a deity out there? but one that we just are not able to comprehend fully, one that IS there, but not able to be pinpointed with today's science and technology?

Ah I get it. You're a freaking preacher, or a wannabe. Your rhetoric is impotent without your raiments and a microphone.

Satan leads by example. The west created Lindsey lohan. It is evil.

I am not being totally facetious here. In order to wage/stage an effective war, the appropriate emotions must be evoked on both sides. The enemy must be feared and loathed or else you'll have soldiers leaving the trenches on Xmas to exchange gifts and play soccer together.

Darius cut off the hands and feet of Alexanders wounded and sent them back to him. Jane fonda went to Hanoi and gave the VC the idea they could actually win, so they could be destroyed during Tet.
==>

Right then.

Once again, your attempt to spread anti-religious sentiments arouind the world are noted, and ignored, if religion was a so bad of a decline, then why is there still fighting going on in Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan, etc.

Yes, I know that is a whole new can of worms, but big deal. Did the VC get destroyed during the Tet Offensive? Not quite, read up on that a little please, also read the book "Fallen Angels", a real classic on the topic really.

And I'm no preacher, nor a wannabe preacher either, in fact, if I end up in hell, I won't be surprised, but I digress. All I'm here to do is, ahem:

explain that religion is not detrimental, but in some cases, beneficial.

Any other attempt on this point is moot. God bless and have a nice day.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

Numerous examples throughout history of enemies enraging their opponents for no apparent reason other than to compel them to fight. Buzzbombs and malmedy and einsatzgruppen and pearl harbor. The battleship maine and the lusitania. The Cuban missile crisis. 9/11. Etc.

Hollywood has a long history of producing sophisticated political propaganda using the most talented people available. Birth of a Nation and Why We Fight are 2 overt examples. But not so obvious is the image of western decadence that they often sell in times such as this (but certainly not always) which cause pious potential enemies dread and give them a reason to fear and loathe the west.

In the 20s it was flappers and gangster movies which disgusted Nazis. Today it is lohan and spears and Hilton and sheen which sicken Islamist males and make them vow never to let this happen to their families. this mindset is essential in causing them to rise up as a group and be destroyed. An old Formula. Religion is always key.

Come to think of it, you are right about the whole enrage to destroy thing, and you are right, Religion is the key.

At least you've accepted that. Sorry for sounding alot like ryg, just got carried away. If you find anything relevant to our discussion, would you mind emailing it to me?

Any Questions?
Silver out.

And I'm no preacher, nor a wannabe preacher either, in fact, if I end up in hell, I won't be surprised, but I digress. All I'm here to do is, ahem:

You do seem to think it's an effective way of swaying minds on a science website though?

Do I ask you to become a monk? No. Do I ask you to become a religionist? No. And do I ask you to "Change your Heathen ways, and follow the laws and edicts of (insert name(s))"? No.

Curious.

Tet broke the back of the VC and ended our successful Mission in that region, of destroying ancient religionist cultures by reducing populations. The communists then came in and finished the job as Planned. Victory.

The VC died out yes, but in the end, we lost that one, we went there to "Free the South Vietnamese and Promote Democracy to all those in need. We will destroy Communism in all of its forms!"

Yea, what a success, you are absolutely right, we killed the VC, but not the NVA. And the US is not after the destruction of religion, it is NOW, but not back then.

And maybe I'm not so keen on the swaying minds bit, but I stubborn, that counts for something right?

And If you're going to quote something, at least finish the quote, to do otherwise is just sloppy.

Any questions?
Silver out.

Today Vietnam is a prosperous member of the community of nations, with a stable population and a healthy economy. And an effective family planning program including abortion.

Come to think of it, you are right about the whole enrage to destroy thing, and you are right, Religion is the key.

At least you've accepted that.

So you've accepted the Fact that your nonsense belief system is nothing more than a sociopolitical Tool used for dividing the people up and setting them against one another in orderly, constructive, and Managable ways, as all of them are? This is Education.

we went there to "Free the South Vietnamese and Promote Democracy to all those in need. We will destroy Communism in all of its forms!"

You are bullshit-prone. We did exactly what we wanted to do in the region and when we were done we got the hell out. We worked TOGETHER with communism to accomplish a Task. The war was a spectacular success.

The 'west' EXISTS to destroy dangerous, obsolete cultures.

Tsk Tsk Tsk, Once again you go on a ranting spree about how relgion is the root of all evil, and how the west's only purpose is to kill off anything below 3rd world status. What a shame.

And did we work together with communists? I think not, Rather, they simply changed it like we wanted, but in the wrong direction.

Imagine this situation as a compass rose. Vietnam is the south, communism the east, democracy the west, and progress the north. We wanted vietnam to go to the north, THEN to the west. Communists wanted vietnam to go East, then north.

I just hope that was simple enough for you. Now, I think the attempted trash talking can end. We're civilized people right? Okay then. Now for the final nail, why was Vietnam so dangerous again?

And I dont think religion is, ahem:

nonsense belief system is nothing more than a sociopolitical Tool used for dividing the people up and setting them against one another in orderly, effective, and Managable ways, as all of them are

When I said religion is the key, I was saying that without it, where would we be now? try shooting that one down.

Vietnam was a failure, one that we are doomed to repeat. And you are probably one of the people who would throw rocks at the vets as they got off the plane. I feel as if I'm arguing with a damn wall. Ghost or no ghost, you aren't really that cold.

Like i said earlier:

But, I am not trying to convert anyone. What I am trying to do, and forgive me for digressing so much as to cause this stir, is simply explain that religion is not detrimental, but in some cases, beneficial. I understand I completely went off the edge on this, but just because something doesn't make any sense, doesn't mean that it has no chance of being true.

So omplain all you want, it won't make a differance in the end... and You aren't as all-knowing, wise, and clever as you would like to think either.

Silver out.

Vietnam was a failure, one that we are doomed to repeat.

But not in Vietnam. Perhaps in north Korea but not in the south. If you prefer simple then compare Vietnam to Thailand. One is stable and productive, the other in the grips of a ruinous obsolete religionist culture. A culture Designed to supplant those before it with greater order and stability, but now only good for inviting destruction upon itself.

In the overall Scheme of things, religions greatest effects upon the world have been in martyring and causing to be martyred, of themselves and fellow delusionists.

And you are probably one of the people who would throw rocks at the vets as they got off the plane.

Absolutely not. What I describe gives their fighting and suffering a real and vital Purpose. What you describe makes their sacrifice worthless.

Funny thing about all this, We are sitting and talking about wether a war has meaning or not, when the topic should be religion. And even then, it should be about LotR. Funny, huh?

Religion does not invite destruction, it accepts it, but never invites it. Though, that in and of itself is a lie considering that a hell of alot of religions that were made pre-Muhammed and pre-Christ and pre-God were violent, vicious, and filled with blood sacrifice.

But Modern Religion, As far as the BIG 5 go (Hiduism, Budhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), there are no blood sacrfices made, nor needed. Religion has caused unnecessary strife and war, see Lebanon and Israel, but it is also a cause of good. Becuase of God, the Red Cross was founded. The Salvation Army, also made (in part) because of God. The UAE, thanks alot Muhammed, you and Allah did great.

Read a little on our side of the fence, see what we see, learn what we know. Know your enemy, as it is commonly called

(cont.)

IF you actually do read up on a religion or two, come on back, tell us what you have learned, and guess what, you'll still be more the wiser because of it. Knowledge is power no?

Apologies to all for starting what has turned into a rant(s). I do agree with Otto, though: This article should not have been on a science orientated website.
Someone having fun with us?

Religion does not invite destruction

Come on. Your own godman hero rode into the holy city on its holiest of days, and proclaimed to the priests that was not only their king but their GOD. As such he DEMANDED his own martyrdom and set an example for the millions who followed him.

Though, that in and of itself is a lie considering that a hell of alot of religions that were made pre-Muhammed and pre-Christ and pre-God were violent, vicious, and filled with blood sacrifice.

Xians present themselves for sacrifice- no longer any need for kohanim and altars. Jesus introduced an excellent Method for the people to sacrifice themselves in his name. This is EXTREMELY violent. You all wear symbols of horrific violence around your necks. Your eucharist is ritual cannibalism.

"25 ..."I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die." john11

-But they do, in droves, for this Lie.

But you look at it in a literal sense, my goodness! He was speaking of Heaven! We all know that we are going to die, and we accept that, as do you. And before you say it, we do not accept it blandly, we will fight against death, for that is human instinct, self preservation. And yes, we will mopurn our dead, yes will will wish that they weren't dead, and YES, we will wish that we would never die, but in the end, we will accept death for what it is, the end of one life, and the beggining of another.

If you have an issue with that, so be it. And next, when Jesus died, he ROSE AGAIN. and by doing so, he sent a symbolic message to everyone. He died, so that we wouldn't have to kill in order to remain clean, so to speak. yes, that was a waste of food, and yes, that is also a very violent thing to say. Yes I know that "God" commanded people to wage war on his behalf, and that he himself killed more than a few people in "Righteous Anger", I'm not THAT ignorant.
(cont.)

Next on the agenda, explaining how we all aren't complete idiots running around crucifying ourselves. Question, how many self crucifictions have you seen on the news in the past, oh, 50 years? 100 years? 150 years? Not many I'll bet. Now, tell me, why are you generalizing so much, one man slits his throat, suddenly the rest of us are going to do the same exact thing for the same exact reason simply because we share the same religion? That's called a stereotype moi droog.

Now, come up with a valid reason to call us all violent, sucidal, religious, zealots who are naught but hypocrites attempting to rule the world, please.

Silver out.

If you have an issue with that, so be it. And next, when Jesus died, he ROSE AGAIN.

No he didnt. The proof? Heaven is the one thing that people will do absolutely anything to obtain, and which those who promise it will never have to prove, if they can promise it with sufficient authority. Heck, people want it so bad that it doesnt take much authority at all. Some big talk and a dusty old book and an imposing building with a big bell and nice music, and youre hooked.

But because of all this you become willing to die in battle and send your offspring off to do the same, or you become willing to starve supporting such an effort. This is evidence enough that the Lie is a lie.

The People who devised it cared nothing about what happened to you after you died; they cared a great deal however about what you did while you were alive. Religions are used by the People who concocted them to provide secure futures for their decendents, not yours. They are your Shepherds, your Lords.

This only makes LotR even more boring...

The secret of reading LOTR is to SKIP THE ELVES or at least the singing. Hard to skip them completely without missing some of the plot. Next you should speed read or just plain skip Tim Benzidrine just as Peter Jackson did.

Of course I only read it once myself. It was my friends and my brother that wore out my copy.

I do still have one volume around somewhere from the ACE version. The notorious don't pay the author version. I bought it used.

Ethelred

Never said I didn't read LotR. In fact I have, read the Hobbit twice. I realize this would be a pot-kettle-black situation as I've noted on previous comments my adorations of Nikolai Gogol, who some would argue is boring...I'm looking in your direction Ethelred.

What have I said about stereotyping?

AND warfare due to religions?

Really, come up with a better arguement PLEASE!

one man slits his throat, suddenly the rest of us are going to do the same exact thing

Your brother and sister religionists are doing this now throughout the middle east. Coptic xians are delivering themselves for martyrdom in egypt. Moslems are killing and dying for their faith.

ALL RELIGIONS = ONE THING. Your books are about NOTHING BUT war and revolution and the kind of blind devotion which must be generated in participants in order to make these conflicts work.

YOU all think those books were written to describe how you can be saved. I say they were written to provide a Way of saving the world from the ravages of unfettered humanity.

-By promising people whatever it would take to get them to self-destruct on cue.

-By dividing them and setting them against one another to great Effect.

-So the Rulers who arrange these things, and the great Civilization They have built, will survive despite the tendency of humanity to destroy Them and it.

Well then, First, only a few groups of Muslems are fanatics like that, second, we aren't going to self destruct on cue. And THIRD, why would we purposefully set our selves up for annihilation?

Well then, First, only a few groups of Muslems are fanatics like that, second, we aren't going to self destruct on cue.

Dont you think it a little strange that moderate moslems in a dozen countries in various stages of austerity and oppression, suddenly felt the need to rise up at the same time, to start killing and being killed in the name of religion?

And THIRD, why would we purposefully set our selves up for annihilation?

Because youre TOLD to, like they are being TOLD to. This is the Power of religions based on the Lie. All religionists are potential fanatics. Its IN your BOOK. The eternal lives of you and your loved ones are at stake. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardize that. You want to see your dead relatives again, dont you? Well, Dont You??

The first answer to my above post is a conspiracy theory, Next, the second answer to my post is naught but grasping at loose strws in an attempt to discredit me.

You are no longer a good debate opponent. You've run out of rhetoric.

Game, Set, Match.
Silver out.

One more thing, In Revelations, the last book of the Bible, it states that Doomsday is in about 20 or so years.

Two Millenia after Satan is locked up in Hell. Which happened when Jesus was approximately at 30 years old. Cheers.

You know what that means? It means that thise fanatics are doing to promote their views and ideals, and they are but one of millions of differant religious sects around the world. LMAO.

Silver out.

Wow...I didn't realize this comments thread fully exploded. May the blessings of the Fighting Jesus be upon you all...

Religion to me is like a child doing something dumb, you need to learn to laugh at it, even if it's your own.

Agreed, some things in the bib;e are downright retarded, I will grant anyone that, the same goes for the Torah, and the Koran. But Otto is just completely and inescapibly ignorant on any of it... and I'm not sorry for saying so.

Silver out.

You know what that means?

Yah it means you're more gullible than I thought. Popular scholarly perspective suggests that eschatological biblical references were to the end of the Jewish state which indeed occured within a few generations.

And since most of your bible was in reality written after that time, by greeks, it was not really prophesy was it? Kind of a reciprocal of the 'future history' genre of fiction. "Those who own the present can rewrite the past all they want." -or somesuch.

Hmm, something new for you to spew. Oh well, time to beat it down AGAIN.

Popular Scholarly perspective

Right then, this just shows that you are naught but a lemming following the crowd to its death. If you were honestly a scholar, you would look further to the past and do your own research based upon the unabridged, uncensored, and unbiased reports of the past.

Come on back when you've done so, I'll be waiting for you to do so.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

Oi

Right then, this just shows that you are naught but a lemming following the crowd to its death. If you were honestly a scholar,

I'm not but I tend to trust their opinions over bible thumper delusionists and shady tent preachers.

you would look further to the past and do your own research based upon the unabridged, uncensored, and unbiased reports of the past.

Which can all be found in only one place...the holy bible, the infallible word of god.

Heres a comprehensive site I just found which discredits the notion:
http://www.infide...tro.html

-Others here are more knowlegeable about biblical lies lies lies than me. I like to cite the Yam suph/sea of reeds/red sea deception, and the phoney ending tacked onto mark which has the women proclaiming to everybody 'he is risen!' rather than slinking off in silence as it originally said.

Then there is the whole problem of different translations. Ever compare the KJV with the NIV? Its fun.

Yes I have actually compared the two, it took forever to stop laughing... And did I say that it was only to be found in the Bible? It itself is biased beyond any and all comprehension. The whole damn thing is one giant collection of opinions on one religion in particular. Need I say more?

And if you took the time to actually notice that many preachers have their own unique styles of actually preaching, then you'd know your earlier comment is just grabbing at straws. Come back when you know a bit more about your opposition than this.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

(P.S. Look at our presidents of the past, the "best" ones were heavily into religion. Cheers.)

(P.S. Look at our presidents of the past, the "best" ones were heavily into religion. Cheers.)

Oh horseshit. The Founding Fathers went out of their way to make sure the nation was secular. President #2 Thomas Jefferson was not even Christian and a number of others seem to have religious only because they were afraid of loosing votes.

You have been playing footsie with Otto too long. He is grossly incompetent in religious discussions. Probably because he too believes in things that are contrary to evidence. Like vast conspiracies over centuries.

Shooting fish in a barrel must have made you overconfident.

Ethelred

Eh, probably, no sport really, I did it because I was bored and didn't want to study. and sure Jefferson wasn't a christian, and maybe the others did it for the votes, but once again, neither of us can prove it true OR false. It's all speculation now.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

playing footsie with Otto too long. He is grossly incompetent...vast conspiracies...yakyak

See? I told you I dont read your posts. Much. I totally missed this one.

What I lack in exactitude I make up for in chutzpah and flagrance. You cant out-logic people who do not think logically sir, youve got to out-muscle them. Otto pummels the opposition. Eth only throws words at them. Yakyakyak. Pingpingping off their carapace.

I also have access to certain facts derived from UNIQUE biblical interpretation, which you do not, and which MAKE SENSE. I give the bible vital Meaning and Purpose, while you only denigrate it. This too is a great advantage.

'In order to compel an enemy to come forth and be defeated one has to elicit the proper emotions within them.' I have said this before. And so the US kills bin laden right before the announced taliban spring offensive. This tactic works with any religionist. Otto has a talent for this. Im afraid you do not so much. Leider so.

Now if you do have any constructive criticism or correction to my limited knowledge, please post it. This would be very helpful. Although as I do tend to rely on, and reference, informed sites such as this:
http://www.infide...tro.html

-your insight may not remain unanswered. I also tend to quote the bible more than most detractors here, which may mean I am more familiar with it than you?

wow, relying on sheer muscle and overwhelming, to quote yo, propaganda to get you point across is absolute bull. if you actually manage to prove a point, i will be here, until then, CIAO.

Any Questions?
Silver out.

wow, relying on sheer muscle and overwhelming, to quote yo, propaganda to get you point across is absolute bull.

Yes, but since Christians have been doing that for nearly two millenia Otto is just returning the favor.

Helmuth, speaking for Boskone, Out.

Ethelred

wow, relying on sheer muscle and overwhelming, to quote yo, propaganda to get you point across is absolute bull.

Yes, but since Christians have been doing that for nearly two millenia Otto is just returning the favor.

Helmuth, speaking for Boskone, Out.

Ethelred

Stimmt das. Helder, speaking for spinrad, aus den Fenster.

I think I might have once read one Spinrad story and the fake German isn't making it easier to figure out your intent.

Ethelred