What would the Devil have driven?

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Amy Blankenship said:

Leo Lichtman said:

People who hold strong religious views generally have them because they
were brought up that way. The architecture of the brain is formed
while
they are young, and they cannot usually free themselves from these
beliefs. Trying to dissuade them is pointless.

I was brought up VERY Southern Baptist.

I was brought up half-heartedly Southern Baptist. I'm glad to say I
am now fully cured of that ailment.

Maybe Southern Baptists should take up shunning or honor killings as a
way to improve retention.

Must suck to be so bitter.

"George Conklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"

Actually God drove a Plymouth, because it says in the bible, "And in his
Fury he drove them out."

Motorbike - "And the roar of His Triumph was heard over the land"

pob

Amy Blankenship said:

Chalo wrote in message,

Quoted message said:

Amy Blankenship said:

I was brought up VERY Southern Baptist.

I was brought up half-heartedly Southern Baptist. I'm glad to say I
am now fully cured of that ailment.

Maybe Southern Baptists should take up shunning or honor killings as a
way to improve retention.

Must suck to be so bitter.

What would suck would be having to maintain any sort of regular
contact with the church or someone who was still in it. Since the
church over time managed to alienate my entire immediate family, I
don't have to do that. In fact, the Christian religion affects my
life only indirectly, like drug addiction or war. I have to bear the
cost of the generalized social affliction as much as anyone-- I live
in Texas, after all-- but I don't personally have to suffer from it or
watch someone close to me suffer from it.

Chalo

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act,
even if it's often ineffective.

As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons,
Scientologists, right? I bet you (and the "cultural you"😉 wouldn't
DARE mock or deride a Muslim.

You'd lose that bet. Crackpot religions are crackpot religions. The
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), if you read about his life and works, comes
off every bit as much of a huckster and a con artist as Joseph Smith,
just slightly less perverted and a lot more bloodthirsty. And Islam
has had centuries longer than Mormonism for highly-placed but
psychologically damaged individuals to reach deep into their rectums
and draw forth pearls of "wisdom" that become enshrined as dogma and/
or laws.

Believing that it's a bad idea to pick a pointlessly destructive fight
with the entire Islamic world is not the same as cutting them slack
for their ludicrous religion.

In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
[censored] out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims. I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?

Your answer to Amy betrays your bitterness. I'm no church-goer by any
means, but I have no problem with those who are (as long as they leave me
alone, which they do without exception). This imagined "damage" done by the
so-called Christian Right is mainly a media-driven myth. They're not my cup
of tea, but they're more charitable and perform more selfless service than
pretty much any other group you can name.

My point was that it's OK to /publicly/ bash or mock Christianity or
Catholicism or others, but doing anything even close to that re. Islam will
literally get you killed. (Hell, people can't publish opinionated books in
England nowadays, lest the Muslims sue -- successfully -- for libel.)

And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...

BS

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...

Which one???

"Scott M. Kozel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

donquijote1954 said:

Scott M. Kozel said:

donquijote1954 <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
> let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...

Either a red horse, or a pale horse ...

I thought Jesus would come on a white horse and the Devil in a Hummer.

No, Satan would come on a train.

Did you know that Honda has a problem with the bible too? It turns out the
New Testament says,
"And the disciples were all of one Accord."

Chalo Colina said:

...
In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
[censored] out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims. I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?

It is truly disturbing how many of the laws in the US have their origin
in fundamentalist/evangelical belief, and not the rational basis of
trading certain privileges for the betterment of society as a whole.
Separation of church and state my ass!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo wrote:
> Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act,
> even if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons,
Scientologists, right? I bet you (and the "cultural you"😉 wouldn't
DARE mock or deride a Muslim.

You'd lose that bet. Crackpot religions are crackpot religions. The
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), if you read about his life and works, comes
off every bit as much of a huckster and a con artist as Joseph Smith,
just slightly less perverted and a lot more bloodthirsty. And Islam
has had centuries longer than Mormonism for highly-placed but
psychologically damaged individuals to reach deep into their rectums
and draw forth pearls of "wisdom" that become enshrined as dogma and/
or laws.

Believing that it's a bad idea to pick a pointlessly destructive fight
with the entire Islamic world is not the same as cutting them slack
for their ludicrous religion.

In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
[censored] out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims. I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?

Your answer to Amy betrays your bitterness. I'm no church-goer by any
means, but I have no problem with those who are (as long as they leave me
alone, which they do without exception). This imagined "damage" done by the
so-called Christian Right is mainly a media-driven myth. They're not my cup
of tea, but they're more charitable and perform more selfless service than
pretty much any other group you can name....

The reason the US is so full of "sexual predators" is due to the
excessive repression of normal childhood behavior, which leads to
fetishisms; some of which involve others and are not harmless.

Historically, US laws regulating behavior that goes beyond interfering
in the rights of others (paternalistic laws) have been promoted and
passed by self-proclaimed "Christians". This behavior is not a thing of
the past.

So no, the "Christian" right does NOT leave others alone.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

Pat Someone said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you could say this about any country. Americans don't riot when
their teams lose, though, like the British.

No, USians riot when the teams win championships. That is even less
excusable.

No, it's not anywhere near the same. In the first place, the rioters in
England are a group that includes the same people year after year. Any riot
that takes place when a team wins a championship is a spontaneous
outbreaking of celebration that turns wild when some idiots turn over a car,
etc. When Dallas won its Superbowls, there was NO rioting. I don't recall
any rioting in Indianapolis last year, either. Any "riots" in the
Championship cities in the US is quickly contained because it's not a
planned event.

No, it is less excusable in the US because it is mainly done by spoiled
middle class college brats and their ilk.

In England, the rioters are from the historically downtrodden lower
classes, who have never really been given much hope of a decent life, so
why bother with being civilized.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

Amy Blankenship said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...

Quoted message said:

Which one???

Any one depicting Mohammed, good light or bad.

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.

As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right? I bet you (and the "cultural you"😉 wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.

Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of naked
Muslims.

And much of the rest didn't make a fuss about it either.

Quoted message said:

It's all about intimidation and agendas.

BS (piled up and getting deeper)

No, it's not about agendas, it's about SUVs and hypocrisy. And about
the lack of bike facilities, which doesn't seem to be in the Christian
agenda. God's agenda is abortion and gay marriage. Oh, and winning the
war in Iraq.

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.

As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right? I bet you (and the "cultural you"😉 wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.

Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of naked
Muslims.

Just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for saying that they were
Christians? I've never seen any news reports that suggested what they said
their faith was.

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act,
> even if it's often ineffective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons,
Scientologists, right?  I bet you (and the "cultural you"😉 wouldn't
DARE mock or deride a Muslim.

Quoted message said:

You'd lose that bet.  Crackpot religions are crackpot religions.  The
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), if you read about his life and works, comes
off every bit as much of a huckster and a con artist as Joseph Smith,
just slightly less perverted and a lot more bloodthirsty.  And Islam
has had centuries longer than Mormonism for highly-placed but
psychologically damaged individuals to reach deep into their rectums
and draw forth pearls of "wisdom" that become enshrined as dogma and/
or laws.

Quoted message said:

Believing that it's a bad idea to pick a pointlessly destructive fight
with the entire Islamic world is not the same as cutting them slack
for their ludicrous religion.

Quoted message said:

In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
[censored] out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims.  I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?

Your answer to Amy betrays your bitterness.  I'm no church-goer by any
means, but I have no problem with those who are (as long as they leave me
alone, which they do without exception).  This imagined "damage" done bythe
so-called Christian Right is mainly a media-driven myth.  They're not mycup
of tea, but they're more charitable and perform more selfless service than
pretty much any other group you can name.

My point was that it's OK to /publicly/ bash or mock Christianity or
Catholicism or others, but doing anything even close to that re. Islam will
literally get you killed.  (Hell, people can't publish opinionated booksin
England nowadays, lest the Muslims sue -- successfully -- for libel.)

And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...

BS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not waiting for a lady president, not even for a black president,
just for someone who has the balls to say, "I'm a Humanist, and don't
care much about religion." Meanwhile we are gonna have Christian
agendas dominate the landscape...

http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html

Amy Blankenship said:

"donquijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo wrote:
> Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
> if it's often ineffective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right?  I bet you (and the "cultural you"😉 wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.

Quoted message said:

Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of naked
Muslims.

Just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for saying that they were
Christians?  I've never seen any news reports that suggested what they said
their faith was.

They certainly were no humanists. Not even atheist. Their willingness
to "follow orders" has Christianity written all over it. And their
sadism spells "The Passion of the Christ."

"many of them surely devout Christians"

'It may seem ironic that a war fought in the name of principles and
imbued with religious ardor should degenerate to such sordid lows.
While in America people flock to see Christ tortured, in Iraq we
torture our own prisoners -- for information, for deterrence, but
also -- as the pictures document -- for the sheer fun of it. And
yet, perhaps "irony" is not quite the right concept. Perhaps the
relationship between a U.S.-made blockbuster about Christ's pain
and the pain inflicted by our soldiers abroad is closer and more
inevitable that the notion of "irony" would suggest, because many
of the torturers are no doubt heartland Americans, many of them
surely devout Christians -- the core audience of "The Passion of
Christ." They are the people Bush directly addressed when he
characterized the war as a crusade, a fight against evil in the
name of the God. The aptitude of Christians for delivering pain
draws on a rich, millennial tradition -- a tradition built on
certainty and a Manichean worldview. The ability to torture
somebody both requires and confirms this certainty; the torturer's
exhilarating privilege is to feel right by God while doing what is
normally forbidden.'

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406&L=justwatch-l&O=D&P=26082

Here's a good lesson for Christians. Yes, right from the Bible...

Taming the Lions
By Rev. Jennifer Brooks

The story of Daniel in the lion's den is the perfect Sunday School
thriller. There is the good guy, the hero, Daniel; the bad guy, the
Evil King of Babylonia, Darius, who orders Daniel thrown among the
lions simply for practicing his faith; and the lions, scary and
dangerous, who mysteriously do no harm to Daniel.

Children come away from this story, no doubt, impressed with the idea
that if they, too, faithfully honor their religious teachings, they
will be protected from danger.

That lesson is actually not the real story, the truth of the story.

The real story of Daniel is far more nuanced than the Sunday School
moral lesson, and as a result it tells us much more about good and
evil, and how we figure out which is which. The truth of Daniel's
story involves the Lucifer Effect.

....

We cannot, perhaps, always know what is right. But we can look more
carefully, listen more intently, observe more completely what it is
about our society that shapes us, because those assumptions can make
us complicit in actions that we do not approve. This is what it means
to exercise free will. To be a hero.

The lions that endanger us are not in a den somewhere, isolated and
confined. They are among us daily, often invisible. It is up to each
of us to measure what our lives are about, what we stand for, to
reflect on our cultural assumptions and where they can lead.

It is up to each of us, every day, to find and tame the lions.

http://www.lucifereffect.org/theologyblog.htm?articleID=26

Quoted message said:

On Jan 10, 11:28 am, donquijote1954 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...

Quoted message said:

On Jan 9, 12:22 pm, "David V." <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

donquijote1954 wrote:
> I thought he drove an SUV. 😉
"The Devil" does not exist. But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.

Quoted message said:

DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.

Quoted message said:

The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.

Quoted message said:

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

Quoted message said:

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

Why would you say that Jesus would have ridden a bike. For his
culture he did a lot of traveling, but he used the method most common
to the average man - walking. Since the Bible clearly indicates how
the world will end (and any action we take on global warming wont
change that), I rather think Jesus would not have been a tree
hugger. BUT ... if you think SUVs are evil then dont drive one.
More pollution making potential for the rest of us.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sure he would have embraced the bicycle if it was invented. It
would have been stupid not to do it.

But selfish predators like you are not really smarter because you are
taking advantage of my savings. You are accelarating your own doom --
or those unlucky enough to be in your progeny. Overhunting is stupid.
The selfish gene is self-destructive. Thanks God! 😉

Well, in the face of Armageddon, WWIII and Global Warming, there's
hope...

(This is a funny article: Written by a religious person he dismisses
Atheists as Darwinistic, while the real problem is SOCIAL DARWINISM,
something very much in use by the Religious Right led by Bush, who he/
she rightly condemns as evil. My own view of the world draws on
Epicurus. Otherwise a criticism from within is healthy for the
Christian mind.)

Humanity on probation

Author: One is not living to conquer and subjugate all known parts of
God. Living means learning to relate.

In ethical - humanitarian, friendly, attentive - atmosphere of just
cooperation and attentive regardfulness is where words like justice,
love, wisdom, freedom, democracy and socialism have laid their
foundation.

Out of ethical, nonaggressive, unfrightening atmosphere the initiators
of Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and many other religions were
acting and speaking.

In ethical inexclusive atmosphere, Socrates' philosophy found the
'measure' of virtue and fearlessness.

Ethics is an everlasting source 'feeding' the heart; today ethics has
become the 'mother' of ever stronger and stronger ecological
awareness.

Q: Human being has been changing thought the history. Evolution is
something one cannot deny.

Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.

However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness.

The mind of society is changing slowly. Moreover, convulsively. Every
revolution has been bringing our minds closer to regardfulness.
Dialogue. Closer to a free, untamed, non-scarred, non-authoritarian,
modest, considerate society.

All the revolts against tyrant, eating ones 'own' body, were the
revolts of the healthy body - common people - against a cell of a
cancer. Against the greedy-one. Against the cruel winner. All
revolutions are battles for a healthy, harmonic body. Because
evolution demands health. Equality among cells. Modesty. Synergy.

Throughout the entire history, a revolt of healthy body against
illness has been happening. A revolt against an egotist -
exclusivistic tyrant. Against authority. Against ordering.

....

Q: Predators are ruling?

A hunter is using the logic of the predators: 'All I catch is my
possession. Trace, hunt, kill!'.

Death of a prey means life to the hunter, that is why a hunter is
drinking blood of a prey with pleasure and death for him means feast
day. For a hunter Nature seems to be an opponent with whom one is
fighting all the time. Living for a hunter means everlasting battle
with hunger or death.

The hunter's logic, the logic of Darwinism, knows only one-way: 'To
win always!', because loosing means death to a hunter. Dilemma of the
predator is: 'If I do not kill, I am going to be food!', that is why
(! for Bush !) there is no dilemma. And no compromise. He has to go
in war and win. Or die.

Hunter's logic was the logic of all robbers, pirates, conquerors,
imperialists.

http://www.geocities.com/no_copyright/Sl_without_weapon.htm

donquijote1954 ??? said:

...
Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.

However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....

Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into
being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

On Jan 11, 6:32 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

donquijote1954 ??? said:

...
 Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.

Quoted message said:

However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....

Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into
being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy.

"AT A TIME OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH IS A REVOLUTIONARY
ACT" - G. Orwell

But I still have hope in the proles. 😉

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Ron Wallenfang" wrote: (clip) demoniacs can carry on all the normal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

activities of daily life, and> that surely includes riding a bike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're serious, aren't you?

Quoted message said:

Yes and no. I'm convinced there's a devil; daily temptations confirm
that. I'm logically convinced that demonic possession happens, from
the teaching of the Church, scripture and an amount of anecdotal
reading.

You have GOT to be kidding. You're an adult, right? And yet "the teaching of
the Church" makes you believe this "demonic possession" somehow? I repeat,
You're an adult, right? I have a friend who tells me men have one less rib
than women because her church told her so. I should believe that? She was
convinced; why shouldn't I be?

Pat in TX

Tell me what you believe, or at least what your working assumptions
may be, and on what authority, and then maybe we can do some
comparisons. FWIW, the Catholic Church does not teach that men have
fewer ribs than women.

On Jan 10, 7:25 pm, Tom Sherman wrote defending "the rational basis
[for law-making] of

Quoted message said:

trading certain privileges for the betterment of society as a whole," as opposed to religious ideas.

It's great to see one of our less overtly religious brethren putting
out a positive principle for our consideration. It reminds me of
Chesterton, who remarked that he worked long and hard to found a just,
comprehensive and coherent view of human actions, and about the time
he was putting the finishing touches on it, he discovered that it was
Orthodoxy. He did strain to found a heresy that was uniquely his own,
and suddenly found himself backed by all the traditions of western
civilization.

Read Rerum Novarem (1891), Quadragissimo Anno (1931), Mater et
Magistra (1962), and the rest of Catholic social teaching from that
day to this, and tell you don't find there the principle you just
enunciated!