Richard Dawkins backs plans for a bible in every school - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36111859]Did you miss the part about how he went on a delusional rant about receiving a mission from god prior to his rise to power.[/QUOTE] That makes him probably not a Catholic then.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36111859]Did you miss the part about how he went on a delusional rant about receiving a mission from god prior to his rise to power.[/QUOTE] Crazy is crazy, makes no difference whether it comes from religion or any other ideology

[QUOTE=person11;36111860]yawmwen posted some good parts from Leviticus about welfare. Ecclesiastes teaches modesty and balance while Jesus taught radical forgiveness and peace. Old Testsment laws granted special rights to orphans, widows, and foreigners because they were most often victimized in Hebrew society. Plus all the prophets in Old Testament said amazingly smart and progressive things.[/QUOTE] And the fact that you can read the Bible, discard the parts you hate and call the parts you like "wise" means you learned absolutely nothing from them. Whatever morality you claim to have gleaned from the Bible, you clearly already possessed given you were able to doctor its message to fit your own interpretation.

And you're forgetting the part where he persecuted multiple churches. He used religion to manipulate.

[QUOTE=person11;36111888]Crazy is crazy, makes no difference whether it comes from religion or any other ideology[/QUOTE] Except crazy people in atheist societies are put in a box. Crazy people in theocratic societies are given thrones and armies.

In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes."[73] According to Marshall Dill, one of the greatest challenges the Nazi state faced in its effort to "eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least subjugate it to their general world outlook" was that the Nazis could not justifiably connect German faith communities to the corruption of the old regime, Weimar having no close connection to the churches.[74] Because of the long history of Christianity in Germany, Hitler could not attack Christianity as openly as he did Judaism, communism or other political opponents.[74] The list of Nazi affronts to and attacks on the Catholic Church is long.[75] The attacks tended not to be overt, but were still dangerous; believers were made to feel that they were not good Germans and their leaders were painted as treasonous and contemptible.[75] The state removed crucifixes from the walls of Catholic classrooms and replaced it with a photo of the Führer.[76] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Persecution_of_Christian_Churches[/url]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36111892]And you're forgetting the part where he persecuted multiple churches. He used religion to manipulate.[/QUOTE] You do realize this was during the time in which the Catholic church still considered deviants from Catholicism to be heretics, right? Man, the IRA, that wasn't about Catholicism at ALL!

"Immediate and unconditional abolition of all religions after the final victory ('Endsieg') not only for the territory of Greater Germany but also for all released, occupied and annexed countries ..., proclaiming at the same time Hitler as the new messiah. Out of political considerations the Muslim, Buddhist and Shintoist religion will be spared for the present. The 'Führer' has to be presented as an intermediate between a redeemer and a liberator, yet surely as one sent by God, who has to get godly honour. The existing churches, chapels, temples and cult places of the different religions have to be changed into 'Adolf-Hitler-consecration places'. The theological faculties of the universities have to be transformed into the new faith. Special emphasis has to be laid on the education of missionaries and wandering preachers, who have to proclaim the teaching in Greater Germany and in the rest of the world and have to form religious bodies, which can be used as centres for further extension. (With this the problems with the abolition of monogamy will disappear, because polygamy can be included into the new teaching as one of the statements of faith.)" [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] Hitler believed himself to be the Messiah. He wasn't a Christian, he was a Hitlerite.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36111936]"Immediate and unconditional abolition of all religions after the final victory ('Endsieg') not only for the territory of Greater Germany but also for all released, occupied and annexed countries ..., proclaiming at the same time Hitler as the new messiah. Out of political considerations the Muslim, Buddhist and Shintoist religion will be spared for the present. The 'Führer' has to be presented as an intermediate between a redeemer and a liberator, yet surely as one sent by God, who has to get godly honour. The existing churches, chapels, temples and cult places of the different religions have to be changed into 'Adolf-Hitler-consecration places'. The theological faculties of the universities have to be transformed into the new faith. Special emphasis has to be laid on the education of missionaries and wandering preachers, who have to proclaim the teaching in Greater Germany and in the rest of the world and have to form religious bodies, which can be used as centres for further extension. (With this the problems with the abolition of monogamy will disappear, because polygamy can be included into the new teaching as one of the statements of faith.)" [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] Hitler believed himself to be the Messiah. He wasn't a Christian, he was a Hitlerite.[/QUOTE] So does that make the Pope a not-Catholic because he believes himself to be the emissary of God? You act as though being fucking batshit crazy is unusual for Christians. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] Also don't ignore this: [QUOTE=Lankist;36111916]You do realize this was during the time in which the Catholic church still considered deviants from Catholicism to be heretics, right? Man, the IRA, that wasn't about Catholicism at ALL![/QUOTE]

Lankist what exactly are you hoping to achieve in trying convince people through a load of opinionated confrontational comments that "the Bible is evil and all of it is bullshit and it has no worth at all" You're coming across a bit of a dick in all fairness

[QUOTE=Lankist;36111946]So does that make the Pope a not-Catholic because he believes himself to be the emissary of God? You act as though being fucking batshit crazy is unusual for Christians.[/QUOTE] Emissary of god is not the same as the messiah or prophet. Even the pope would be forced to bow to Christ himself, which Hitler believed he was.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36111968]Lankist what exactly are you hoping to achieve in trying convince people through a load of opinionated passive aggressive comments that "the Bible is evil and all of it is bullshit and it has no worth at all" You're coming across a bit of a dick in all fairness[/QUOTE] Passive aggressive? Do you know what passive aggressiveness is? I'm not being passive aggressive, I'm being regular aggressive.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36111916]Man, the IRA, that wasn't about Catholicism at ALL![/QUOTE] What the fuck? The Troubles in Ireland were 100% politics and 0% religion

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36111969]Emissary of god is not the same as the messiah or prophet. Even the pope would be forced to bow to Christ himself, which Hitler believed he was.[/QUOTE] Says fucking who? You? See, out here in the real world, "Messiah" and "Emissary of God" aren't real things. They're both equally fictional positions held by fucking crazy people. What the fuck is the big difference between the Pope thinking he's the closest thing to God on the planet Earth and Hitler thinking he's the closest thing to God on the planet Earth? Just because they have two different names doesn't make them any different. The only differences are the dogma. The reality is, both are crazy bastards, and you can't go saying one is legit and the other is a phony. They're all fucking phonies. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;36112023]What the fuck? The Troubles in Ireland were 100% politics and 0% religion[/QUOTE] Yes thats why the firebombed protestant churches.

One True Scotsman is the stupidest counter argument ever. Hitlers life says nothing about religion or the Bible as a whole.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36112012]Passive aggressive? Do you know what passive aggressiveness is? I'm not being passive aggressive, I'm being regular aggressive.[/QUOTE] You just seem to be taking a contrarian stance to everything related to religion without even taking anything into consideration first

[QUOTE=person11;36111860]yawmwen posted some good parts from Leviticus about welfare. Ecclesiastes teaches modesty and balance while Jesus taught radical forgiveness and peace. Old Testsment laws granted special rights to orphans, widows, and foreigners because they were most often victimized in Hebrew society.[/QUOTE] Mm. I'll give you those. [QUOTE]Plus all the prophets in Old Testament said amazingly smart and progressive things.[/QUOTE] But this I'm going to need you to elaborate on. Killing and burning a lamb under a rainbow after fitting two of every species of the Earth onto a boat and living out a massive worldwide flood doesn't seem like a very smart or progressive thing for a prophet to write. That's just Genesis mythology, though, so eh.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36111968]Lankist what exactly are you hoping to achieve in trying convince people through a load of opinionated passive aggressive comments that "the Bible is evil and all of it is bullshit and it has no worth at all" You're coming across a bit of a dick in all fairness[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but this isn't passive agressive and I'm tired of people misusing that fucking word. You are forgetting the "passive" part. Lankist being passive agressive would mean that he isn't directly confronting people about their beliefs. If Lankist put a note on a sink full of dishes saying "WASH ME PLEASE!" that would be passive agressive. Lankist is being confrontational.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36112025]Yes thats why the firebombed protestant churches.[/QUOTE] Why bring the Troubles into the argument when you know absolutely nothing about it?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36112040]You just seem to be taking a contrarian stance to everything related to religion without even taking anything into consideration first[/QUOTE] Buddy I took religion into consideration for the first ten years of my life, and I've since fully read the holy texts of Christianity, Judaism, and studied the texts of a plethora of other religions trying to figure out which one I believe. I came to the conclusion that they are all lies. I am confrontational toward religion because religion is a crock of shit.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36112025]Says fucking who? You? See, out here in the real world, "Messiah" and "Emissary of God" aren't real things. They're both equally fictional positions held by fucking crazy people. What the fuck is the big difference between the Pope thinking he's the closest thing to God on the planet Earth and Hitler thinking he's the closest thing to God on the planet Earth? Just because they have two different names doesn't make them any different. The only differences are the dogma. The reality is, both are crazy bastards, and you can't go saying one is legit and the other is a phony. They're all fucking phonies.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying one is legit, and the other is phony for fuck's sake. I'm saying that there is a key difference in terminology when describing Hitler's religious views. Hitler wasn't a friend to the Catholic Church in Germany, he wasn't a friend to the Christian churches in Germany. He persecuted them. You can't just lump him in with all of Christianity when he acts contrary to the organizations of that religion.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36112046]I'm sorry, but this isn't passive agressive and I'm tired of people misusing that fucking word. You are forgetting the "passive" part. Lankist being passive agressive would mean that he isn't directly confronting people about their beliefs. If Lankist put a note on a sink full of dishes saying "WASH ME PLEASE!" that would be passive agressive. Lankist is being confrontational.[/QUOTE] Sorry, that's the word I was looking for

[QUOTE=person11;36112035]One True Scotsman is the stupidest counter argument ever. Hitlers life says nothing about religion or the Bible as a whole.[/QUOTE] It's "No True Scotsman," and considering you don't even know that the fallacy is called I recommend you look it up before dismissing it off-hand.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36112064]Buddy I took religion into consideration for the first ten years of my life, and I've since fully read the holy texts of Christianity, Judaism, and studied the texts of a plethora of other religions trying to figure out which one I believe. I came to the conclusion that they are all lies.[/QUOTE] So that means you can just shit all over and disregard anything related to religion?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36112070]I'm not saying one is legit, and the other is phony for fuck's sake. I'm saying that there is a key difference in terminology when describing Hitler's religious views. Hitler wasn't a friend to the Catholic Church in Germany, he wasn't a friend to the Christian churches in Germany. He persecuted them. You can't just lump him in with all of Christianity when he acts contrary to the organizations of that religion.[/QUOTE] Fuck the terminology. Hitler thought he was the closest thing to God on the planet. The Pope thinks he's the closest thing to God on the planet. Putting the dogmatic bullshit aside, tell me what the great difference between the two is. Out here in the real world, I mean, not in the fairy-land bullshit dogma you're leaning on to distinguish between the two. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;36112094]So that means you can just shit all over and disregard anything related to religion?[/QUOTE] [B]Yes.[/B] Why the fuck can't I? It's not sacrosanct. It is [I]not[/I] the one thing on this world bereft of criticism. I don't have to respect it. I don't respect it. Faith is stupid and I will shout it from the mountaintops, and you can't do a damn thing about it. That is, unless you want to validate my Hitler allusion. Being confrontational is a hell of a lot better than being a mewling, patronizing git who pretends there's some validity to the shit I don't believe in.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36112110]Fuck the terminology. Hitler thought he was the closest thing to God on the planet. The Pope thinks he's the closest thing to God on the planet. Putting the dogmatic bullshit aside, tell me what the great difference between the two is. Out here in the real world, I mean, not in the fairy-land bullshit dogma you're leaning on to distinguish between the two.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if there is a functional distinction. Words mean something, and using the correct terms is very important for posterity. Why would you call Hitler a Catholic if he actively tried to reduce the Catholic Church's power in Germany?

[QUOTE=joes33431;36112043]Mm. I'll give you those. But this I'm going to need you to elaborate on. Killing and burning a lamb under a rainbow after fitting two of every species of the Earth onto a boat and living out a massive worldwide flood doesn't seem like a very smart or progressive thing for a prophet to write. That's just Genesis mythology, though, so eh.[/QUOTE] Amos and Jeremiah were both great! I liked the farmer one too but I forgot his name. Isiah was also nice.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36112136]It doesn't matter if there is a functional distinction. Words mean something, and using the correct terms is very important for posterity. Why would you call Hitler a Catholic if he actively tried to reduce the Catholic Church's power in Germany?[/QUOTE] Destroy the Catholic Church's power.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36112136]It doesn't matter if there is a functional distinction.[/QUOTE] [I]Yes it does[/I], because you said the Catholic Church and Hitler are functionally distinct. You said Hitler wasn't a Christian because he was acting un-Christian. I said the Pope acts exactly the same way. Is the pope un-Christian? [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;36112146]Amos and Jeremiah were both great! I liked the farmer one too but I forgot his name. Isiah was also nice.[/QUOTE] Hey you never replied to this: [QUOTE=Lankist;36111891]And the fact that you can read the Bible, discard the parts you hate and call the parts you like "wise" means you learned absolutely nothing from them. Whatever morality you claim to have gleaned from the Bible, you clearly already possessed given you were able to doctor its message to fit your own interpretation.[/QUOTE] Care to? Because if you aren't going to, kindly don't make quips on the sidelines when you're unwilling to engage your opposition.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36112110] [B]Yes.[/B] Why the fuck can't I? [/QUOTE] Even if you don't believe in it you can still view it and respect it as an allegorical text and source of historical information. And imo, that's what the its writers originally intended it to be