Religious Education

[Liberty Lover]

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
..........Numbers 31:17 (Moses)

After murdering a young girl's entire family before her eyes, you may kidnap her and add her to your concubines. Murder, kidnapping, and rape. The loving God.

"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
..........Psalms 137:9

Jesus loves the little children. All the little children of the world. Red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world.

"...Men'ahem sacked Tappuah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him, therefore he sacked it, and ripped up all the women in it who were with child."
..........2 Kings 15:16

God was into this abortion thing pretty heavy, apparently.

"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"
..........Ezekiel 9:5

But don't say "fuck" or "God damn" or else you're going to hell, you lousy, no good sinner.


"...they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them? Therefore I will give their wives to others..."
..........Jeremiah 8:9

God's a pimp?

"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."
..........1 Corinthians 7:1

But of the boys of the alter thou mayest touch.

[nz revolution]

no good christains...

[Boris Moskovitz]

I am neither for or against the religion of christianism. But oh well... I am no Christian, so I won't defend it. And I am no Anti-Christ, so I won't offend it

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I am the same as Boris.

But one point, thats 7 X 3/4 lines extracts from a book that is how long? To call that selective, is quite an understatement.

But like I said, I am neither pro or anti Christian.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 11:16 pm on April 23, 2003
I am the same as Boris.

But one point, thats 7 X 3/4 lines extracts from a book that is how long? To call that selective, is quite an understatement.

But like I said, I am neither pro or anti Christian.

Well nobody is going to quote the 60 pages devoted to then Enoch begot Agot, and Agot begat Illwell, and Illwell begat Solom who begat..ect..ect.

And who si going to go around quoting Psalms all day?

Minus the middle part of the new testament, the bible is for most part pretty vicious. And I don't care how many lines cover genocide but when a god even says it is okay in just one line about please now go do genocide I command it, that is pretty powerful and one has to look into what kind of god says, "Now please go and kill everybody, old, young, dogs and cats, babies, fish, potted plants, bugs."

[Dirty Commie]

Religion is the opiate of the people.
-Karl Marx

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 11:42 pm on April 23, 2003
Religion is the opiate of the people.
-Karl Marx

Good point. So...where's your point?

[Beccie]

Why stop at the Old Testament? There are some interesting passages in the New Testament.

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.. Matt 5:43-44

Imagine how wonderful this world would be if everyone listened to this teaching

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth Matt 6:24

All capitalists that claim to be Christian probably have no understanding of the early beliefs of the evangelists. To be a true disciple of God you must free yourself from greed.

He has bought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly Luke 1:52

Was Jesus involved in some kind of class struggle? This line suggests that Jesus was devoted to social change. This is evident in the Gospel of Luke.

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled….But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for your will be hungry Luke 6:20-25

Once again Jesus denounces the rich. Material possessions have no importance in this life. This passage indicates that it is those who have nothing who experience God

Child remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony Luke 16:25

All Capitalists will burn in hell! (I would like to make it clear that I do not believe this)

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Acts 2:44-45….no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned has held in common Acts 4:32

Was the early Christian community socialist?

Unfortunately the Christian religion has strayed far from the beliefs of the early Christian/Jewish evangelists. It is merely a tool used by the ruling class to further create division and control the working class. It is no longer align with its earlier ideologies. That is why I am hesitant to call myself a Christian even though I share many (not all) of beliefs of the first Christians. Despite the ruling class’s use of Christianity there is a movement, Liberation Theology that is intimately related with the Gospels of the NT. I support this movement and because if it I am able to call myself a Christian.

[Dirty Commie]

My point is that religion is tooled not to give faith, but to keep the proletariat in quiet repression, giving the people something to try for without risisng against the ruling class. It keeps religous peopel from going on kill crazy rampages.

[Liberty Lover]

Hitler was an exceptional Christian. He was more like Christ than any other Christian I've ever heard of. But then what would you expect from someone who didn't drink, cuss, or smoke? Well just like Jesus, Hitler was a genocidal vial of bile.

When a Christian talks about Hitler being evil, and then bends his knee to Jesus, he stretches the known boundaries of hypocrisy. Try to picture them. Yellow Star of David on their chests. Young, old, strong, weak, men, women, children, and infants wasting away under inhuman torture at the hands of the Nazis. After the pain and suffering, the abuse, the rapes, the starvation and eventually their executions, Jesus rewarded them how? By sending every fucking one of them to an eternal suffering that makes Hitler's tortures seem minuscule. Anne Frank? Yeah, that Jew whore is in Hell where Jesus says her sorry ass belongs.

Worship that? You can go fuck yourself. I'd rather burn in Hell than spend eternity kissing the ass of a god as fucked up as this Jesus fucknut. I'd sooner worship Charlie fucking Manson. At least Charlie ain't near as fucking crazy as this Jesus shitstain obviously is. I will NEVER be a good Christian. I am way too good a person to defile myself like that

[Beccie]

The whole religion is corrupt just because Hitler claimed to be Christian

Just because Hitler says he was Christian does not make him one. Nazism cannot be supported by the bible. Christianity is an extension of Judaism for fucks sake.

You don’t have to worship Jesus if you do not want to. He probably does not even exist. But if he did then neither you nor Hitler (or anyone else for that matter) knows anything about the man. He can not be held responsible for peoples fucked up views of what Christianity is.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I care not for some of your intolerant views, but I find it funny that you are all completely slaughtering Christ and people/things of worship.

Well, some of the people that you lot hold in near worship status will, no doubt, include Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che. Not perfect examples of beings themselves really are they. However, some of their feats and achievements allow them to be worshipped.

Christ, just like the Prophet Muhammed, had imperfections. All religions preach forgiveness, and you can flood me with your extracts of examples which apparently show otherwise, but it's a fact that all religions preach forgiveness. They also teach that no man is perfect.

You lot are just misinterpreting what the books are saying. And you've probably taken those extracts of some anti-religious site or something. If not that, then you've got them from some secondary source because I'm pretty sure none of you will have actually read the Bible in it's entirity. Untill you do, you cannot therefore comment on it.

[Zombie]

What is funny, is that most people like to attack Christianity above all. They don't dare to attack Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confuscianism, Shintoism, Sihkism, Hindouism etc... oh no, its much more fun to go for the Christ isn't it!

if you're against christianity, then by all means, keep that to yourself, and don't start blasting it like you know more about it than everybodyelse.

i don't believe in god. Lardlad95 said that atheists think they know more than everybodyelse. I don't. I got my reasons to not believe in my old religion, and I keep them to myself.
Thanks,

.Z.


(Edited by Zombie at 3:44 pm on April 26, 2003)

[Beccie]

And you've probably taken those extracts of some anti-religious site or something

My interpretations are not anti-religious. I have read the bible; I have also read scholarly interpretations of the text that support most of what I have said.

The point I wanted to make was that most ideas of what Christianity is are false. They cannot be supported by the bible. Therefore Christianity cannot be held accountable for people with fucked up ideologies i.e. Hitler. LL seems to be ignorantly suggesting otherwise.

If anything I was defending the religion (or what I feel the religion is really about)


(Edited by Commie01 at 2:48 am on April 24, 2003)

[Sensitive]

Well, I think it is pretty obvious that Jesus and Yahweh (that crazy war god in the Old Testament) are two very different characters. What makes the Christian religion hypocritical is that it has not yet rejected the Old Testament.

[Beccie]

What makes the Christian religion hypocritical is that it has not yet rejected the Old Testament.

lol, you have got to be kidding. Most of what Jesus teaches is a rejection of the OT. That is why he caused such controversy. It is also the reason why most Jews rejected him as the Jewish Messiah and eventually had him crucified. Why do you think Christianity is now a separate religion from Judaism? I think it has something to do with Jesus' radical view of what it meant to be a Jew.

[Ymir]

If you want to find some superstitious writings in the Bible then read the section by Leviticus.

[Sensitive]

lol, you have got to be kidding. Most of what Jesus teaches is a rejection of the OT. That is why he caused such controversy. It is also the reason why most Jews rejected him as the Jewish Messiah and eventually had him crucified. Why do you think Christianity is now a separate religion from Judaism? I think it has something to do with Jesus' radical view of what it meant to be a Jew.
If he really rejected all of that, then why did the church even include the Old Testament writings in the original Vulgate? Where is the disclaimer? They decided not to include a lot other old Jewish religious writings, but they felt that the writings that make up the Old Testament were as important as the New Testament so they included them. Hence, the hypocrisy of the church.

[Tkinter1]

The old testament prophecies were fulfilled in the new testament. The old testament is included to show the prophecies predicted, and the fulfillment of them. So it really has a very definite and deliberate purpose.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 9:30 pm on April 23, 2003
The old testament prophecies were fulfilled in the new testament. The old testament is included to show the prophecies predicted, and the fulfillment of them. So it really has a very definite and deliberate purpose.Committing genocide in Jericho has nothing to do with any Jebus prophecy (and the majority of the OT also has next to nothing to do with it). The church could have included a summary. But no, they agreed with the slaughter of "heathens", "pagans" and "infidels" - that Christian tradition of murder continued up until only several hundred years ago (e.g. the Crusades, witch hunts, the Inquisition, more witch hunts, etc).

[Liberty Lover]

"What is funny, is that most people like to attack Christianity above all. They don't dare to attack Islam"

Don’t worry. I think Mohammed is the biggest fucker of the lot. What **** would go around attacking cities and killing thousands of people because he wanted them to think the way he did? If that bastard hadn’t decomposed by now I would go dig him up, piss on him and bury him upside-down.

[synthesis]

The Bible has nothing on the Talmud.

They're both vile tomes of nonsense, though.

[Liberty Lover]

I care not for some of your intolerant views

Do you care for Mohammad's intolerant actions. Such as how he enforced his fucked religion on everyone in his fucked up empire? Or maybe his order to destroy all idols of religion not his own?

[RedComrade]

For once I applaud LL, all theisms suck, period. We should get a bi-partisan group of capitalists and leftists to go around to the holy land defacing religious icons and tombs. Atheist solidarity.

[Dan Majerle]

So who do you believe in LL? Obviously such an enlightened and rational man as yourself shouldn't need to believe in superior or higher beings as you are already infallible and nobody is better then you. The world becomes a sadder place when human beings start thinking that they are the highest power and are their own gods. What a hollow life one must lead to believe in themselves. To think that they can manipulate the stars in the galaxy. To think they can count all the grains of sand in the world. To think that their life will never be threatened or insecure. God lives and God is great! Damn all you anti-God people to God's hell to be burnt by God's fire and eternally tortured for your sins!
Okay the last part was a joke but seriously the above i think is true and relevant.

[Dhul Fiqar]

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people."

[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

[Beccie]

then why did the church even include the Old Testament writings in the original Vulgate?

As an extension of Judaism it is necessary to have the old Jewish scriptures as part of the Christian bible. It provides the history of Jesus’ religion and sets the context to which the New Testament is to be understood. Jesus did not change the Jewish religion he revised it. Many Jews did not agree with his radical views causing a division between themselves and those Jews who did believe in Jesus. This eventually led to the birth of Christianity. There are many rules in the Old Testament (that can be found in Leviticus Deuteronomy etc.) that Jesus felt that people were following to strictly often ignoring love and forgiveness that he felt should be central to the Jewish religion. Jesus broke those rules to demonstrate that they were not as important as being kind to the poor, broken-hearted, disabled etc.

Tkinter1 is also correct. The Old Testament is relevant when it comes to understanding the prophecy fulfillment in the New Testament.

I could give you examples if you like.


(Edited by Commie01 at 3:28 pm on April 24, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it has to be included word-for-word in the same book.

The Quran is also an extension of Judaism, essentially a revision of the Christian revision of Judaism. It quotes the Old Testament, and mentions many things from it to support certain arguments, but you don't really need to include the whole book to understand those references.

--- G.

[Beccie]

You have a point but once you start erasing words you alter the passage’s original meaning making it harder to interpret the New Testament. Context is critically important when it comes to interpreting any text. .

[Dhul Fiqar]

Yeah, but the problem is that if you read the Old Testament in context the message is not exactly a good one ;)

--- G.

[Sensitive]

Good points, Dhul.

[Harmless Games]

For your information Muhammed would not force his religion onto others, infact he only fought wealthy buisnessmen who only fought to protect [email protected] shrines which generated alot of wealth due to pilgrimages. After conquoring a city he would destroy any [email protected] temples and that was all. this was strange because in ancient arabic times once you defeated a city that resisted you, the victor would almost always mercilessly slay everyone inside, but muhammed did not do this, he would make people be either become islamic or christian (which he called brothers of the book i believe) or the people could stay [email protected] or non believers as long as they payed a tax to the poor which islamics do anyways, as a pillar of the faith. This was seen as one of the most sanitary and least violent takeovers ever. Also Socialists/Communists shoudl enjoy this because they can stay non believers as long as a tax is payed tot he poor, which is a very socialist beliefe. All your warped senses of Islam are part of the U$ pro da you all dislike so much.

(Edited by Harmless Games at 9:52 pm on April 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"All capitalists will burn in Hell! (I would like to make it clear that I don't believe this.)"

Why not? If "Jesus" was really "against" the wealthy and powerful, why shouldn't "He" arrange matters so that they suffer eternal torment after they die?

"Just because Hitler said he was Christian does not make him one."

What does? As far as I've ever been able to tell, the only requirement for becoming a follower of any religion is self-annointment. In the case of functioning religious organizations, you may have to go through some kind of childish ritual...but to be a follower, you merely need to believe yourself a follower and tell other people. That's it.

Of course, other followers can denounce you. Many German Christians in the 1930s thought Hitler was "sent by God"; others thought he arrived from a different point of origin; all prayed for him.

"Well, some of the people that you lot hold in near worship status will, no doubt, include Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che. Not perfect examples of being themselves, really, are they? However some of their feats and achievements allow them to be worshipped."

Obvious nonsense. The worship of human beings is a sign of immaturity or retardation. No communist "worships" any other communist.

"All religions preach forgiveness..."

Their practice suggests other priorities. :o

"...I'm pretty sure none of you have read the bible in its entirity. Until you do, you cannot therefore comment on it."

Better still, memorize it. "Only then" will you be able to demolish the believers with cogent and devastating quotations. :cheesy:

"If you're against Christianity, then by all means keep that to yourself..."

Why? Would anyone want to say that "if you're against U.S. imperialism, keep it to yourself"?

To criticize religion is to criticize a world that needs religion!

"Therefore Christianity cannot be held accountable for people with fucked-up ideologies, i.e., Hitler."

True, if you are prepared to admit that Christianity, like all religions, is human-made...and not something that came from "God". If Christianity "came from God", then "He" is responsible for the deeds done in "His Name"...it's "His Duty" to smite the fake "Christian" with a thunderbolt of divine displeasure forthwith. If "He" doesn't do that, one can only presume it's because the "fake" is as acceptable to "Him" as the genuine...or that "He" doesn't exist.

"The old testament prophecies were fulfilled in the new testament."

Yes, with a good deal of bad translation and out-of-context quotations...all deliberate.

"The world becomes a sadder place when human beings start thinking that they are the highest power and are their own gods."

But the world becomes more joyful once you realize that there are no gods at all. For what is worship but the act of a terrified slave?

And what greater joy than the cry Free at last! Free at last! Great God has fallen; FREE AT LAST!

Casting down the mighty? Raising up the lowly? The gods have had their chance; now it's our turn.

:cool:

PS: And the next time somebody tries to persuade you that "Jesus" was some kind of "revolutionary" or "communist", remind them of this little sparkler...

Take therefore the talent* from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25: 28-30 (*a unit of currency)

Let's hear it for Jesus the Capitalist. ;)

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:49 am on April 25, 2003)

[Beccie]

I was waiting for your response, Redstar.

What makes someone a Christian? There is a difference between calling oneself a Christian and actually being a Christian. The life of a Christian, as described by the evangelists, is incredibly challenging. I seriously doubt that any modern day Christian has any idea what it entails.

Hitler could not possibly be a Christian. His ideologies completely contradict those of the evangelists.

I always feel that I am wasting my breath when I talk about religion on this site.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Commie01 on 7:23 pm on April 24, 2003
Hitler could not possibly be a Christian. His ideologies completely contradict those of the evangelists.Nope, one day after 9-11, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, a well-known evangelist, blamed the 9-11 tragedy on feminists, homosexuals and non-Christians. According to Falwell, because we (the groups he attacked) live in the US, we caused God's magical protective shield around the US to fall - allowing the terrorists to fly the planes into the WTC. That is what the evangelists said about 9-11. Sounds a lot like Hitler to me.

[Umoja]

Sensitive, you've suggested a Gnostic philosophy. Where God isn't really God, but some messed up creator (or even Mad Scientist!) who created the world, to trap humans or something equally odd.

Anyway..... Whatever religion can suck. Sex sucks. Food Sucks. Lots of stuff (including Lott) sucks.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Umoja on 8:27 pm on April 24, 2003
Sensitive, you've suggested a Gnostic philosophy. Where God isn't really God, but some messed up creator (or even Mad Scientist!) who created the world, to trap humans or something equally odd.A couple things to note...

I'm not a Gnostic.

I'm more of a spiritualistic atheist that believes in an afterlife because it sounds nice. I don't believe in any supreme-powers. And really, politics is my religion. Communist texts are my Bible. Vladimir Lenin is my savior. Hehe. =)

[Liberty Lover]

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and former President George Bush, on August 27 1987. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois.

RS: "What are you going to do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

RS: "Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."


RS: "Do you support the constitutionality of state/church separation?"

GB: "I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

[Liberty Lover]

Harmless Games,

"Muhammad's strategy in the developing conflict with Mecca was to attack Meccan trade caravans returning from Syria and thus economically weaken the city. In 624, the first major battle occurred, in which the Muslims, despite their inferiority in numbers and weapons, soundly defeated the Meccans. In the next major battle, the following year, the Meccans had the advantage but were unable to achieve a decisive victory. A Meccan army of 10,000 besieged Medina in 627 but failed to take the city. Muhammad meanwhile eliminated his enemies within Medina. After each of the first two battles he expelled a Jewish tribe, and after the third major battle he had the males of the remaining tribe massacred for collaborating with his opponents."



"Muhammad (prophet)," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Liberty Lover]

"So who do you believe in LL?"

Not this:

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/lovinggodanimation.gif

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 8:37 am on April 25, 2003
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and former President George Bush, on August 27 1987. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois.

RS: "What are you going to do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

RS: "Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."


RS: "Do you support the constitutionality of state/church separation?"

GB: "I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."




Is the purpose of this post to show how wrong Atheists are are, by demonstarting that through the eyes of BushI, we're not patriotic? Or is the purpose to show how wrong [not to mention unconstitutional] BushI is, for saying something immensly religion-oriented in order to try to attain the votes of people who supposedly live under a secular governmemt? In short, is this making fun of Bush or not?

Either way, great post, LL!

[Liberty Lover]

Victorcommie,

It was the purpose of that post to demonstrate the kind of people the so-called socialist who are professing a belief in God share their views with.

They agree with Bush over the man who created a scientific basis for their ideology:

"As socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."

--Karl Marx

[synthesis]

This is a bit of a digression, but one thing I never understood was why the mainstream anti-communists are always so convinced that Marx was the worst thing for religion in the twentieth century.

The thing I like to ask them, is how a man who said that religion was the "heart of a heartless world" and the "soul of soulless conditions" could be compared to opinions like these.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-Napoleon Bonaparte

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzche

and the kicker:

"Religion is a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses."
-Frederick the Great

I would think that Marx was far nicer to religion than these folks.

[Harmless Games]

LL thanks for the Muhhamed post, i had no idea, but i guess the Koran, like the bible is full of contradictory statements. I was in no way defending the actions of Muhammed but i believe that his better qualities are looked over by Americans who's view of all Muslims is from CNN news of ers pledging their allegience to Muhammed for the people they will kill.

[Liberty Lover]

but one thing I never understood was why the mainstream anti-communists are always so convinced that Marx was the worst thing for religion in the twentieth century.

Probably because Marxism gave rise to Leninism.

[Beccie]

Why do I get the feeling that I am talking to a brick wall? I don’t think any of you guys have a fucking clue as to what I am talking about!

Sensitive,

When I say evangelists I am referring to the writers of the four Gospels. They are the people who shaped early Christianity. The point that I am trying to make is that there is a huge difference between Christianity today and the views that the evangelists had for Christianity 2000 years ago. The religion has progressed throughout history; people have totally fucked up what could have been a beautiful religion.

How the fuck can Hitler be a Christian when his views were so out of line with the ideologies of the early Christian writers?

[Liberty Lover]

I'm just ignoring what your saying :)

[synthesis]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 4:16 am on April 25, 2003
I'm just ignoring what your saying :)As usual.

[Beccie]

I literally laughed out loud at your comment, LL.

Thanks for making my shitty day somewhat better :)

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Commie01 on 10:14 pm on April 24, 2003


When I say evangelists I am referring to the writers of the four Gospels. They are the people who shaped early Christianity. The point that I am trying to make is that there is a huge difference between Christianity today and the views that the evangelists had for Christianity 2000 years ago. The religion has progressed throughout history; people have totally fucked up what could have been a beautiful religion. I went to a Christian school for 13 years, and I have never heard anyone call the Gospel writers "evangelists"...


Quote: from Commie01 on 10:14 pm on April 24, 2003
How the fuck can Hitler be a Christian when his views were so out of line with the ideologies of the early Christian writers?

Hitler's views were/are in line with a large number of the contemporary Christian sects - ethnocentrism - "Christianity is the only true religion, we must convert everyone!" That is what the modern church wants (except for a few heretical sects that are actually tolerant and non-evangelical (e.g. the UU)). It doesn't matter what people said 2000 years ago. All that matters is now. The Christian religion is a vulture that picked the bones of dead cultures killed by European imperialism. That is the only reason why the majority of humans are followers of that particular religion. I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-church and I'm anti-evangelism. Leave other cultures alone.

[Beccie]

I too have studied religion for the past 13 years. It was not until last year, when I was fortunate enough to have a democratic socialist as my teacher, that I learnt how to critically anaylise the bible. I was introduced to scholarly materiel that always referred to the writers of the Gospels as evangelists.

Are you saying, Sensitive, that history is unimportant? Nothing is more important then history when it comes to understanding anything that is happening now

However I do I agree with you on one point. Christianity as a religion today is oppressive I never denied this. It has changed considerably since its birth, so much so that I don’t think it can be called Christianity any more. That has been my point since I started arguing except no one seems to understand that. I am still talking to a brick wall, aren’t I?


(Edited by Commie01 at 5:38 am on April 25, 2003)

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Commie01 on 11:34 pm on April 24, 2003

Are you saying, Sensitive, that history is unimportant?I never said, "history is unimportant", I said that what was written 2000 years ago is irrelevant. I judge the church by its actions, not by its words.


Quote: from Commie01 on 11:34 pm on April 24, 2003

However I do I agree with you on one point. Christianity as a religion today is oppressive I never denied this. It has changed considerably since its birth, so much so that I don’t think it can be called Christianity any more.

(Edited by Commie01 at 5:38 am on April 25, 2003)
The Christian religion is what it is. Perhaps you should consider calling yourself something else if you don't like the way the church has been ever since it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The church didn't "turn the other cheek" to Roman, Celtic and Norse pagans - they killed them. And that was just the beginning...

[Ghost Writer]

Religion is the opiate of the masses is one of the biggest lies that Marx produced, among many.

[RedComrade]

What are your opinions on the matter than Norm, enlighten us, expound the bountiful wisdom of theism. Good luck though, even a smart capitalist such as yourself can't dig yourself out of that cesspit. Religion is shit no matter how you look at it whether you examine the morality or the reality of their fairy tale claims...

[Ghost Writer]

Don't get me wrong, I am not a religious person, myself. However, I think the claim that all religious people are suckers who are trying to white wash the grim reality of mortality is a bullshit claim made by those who wish to replace religions historically oppressive nature with a oppression of their own.

As Ayn Rand would say there are two types of mystics. The mystics of the mind and the mystics of muscle. Both wish to subjugate hordes of people by false promises. The two are diametrically opposed as they struggle for power over certain resources, namely the will of the people.

The mystics of the muscle, the altruists, the communists, and the American liberal, wish to replace religion with a faith of their own. They wish to become the higher wisdom that reigns over the kingdom of man. This requires that you give up the moral code of religion, and replace it with the loose doctrine of welfarism, Marxism, and politics.

Just as the Christians destroyed the icons of the Pagans, or incorporated them into the worldview the followed, Marxism wishes to become the new method of manipulating the will of man, and they have emerged as iconoclasts.

Now that I have explained the reason I believe Marx attacked religion, we can further expand this discussion. If you like, I can answer your challenge for me to defend religion, but first reply to what I have said here. Let the dialogue begin.

[Beccie]

I am not a Christian. I am a supporter of the Liberation Theology movement.

[RedComrade]

Your assumptions are false Norm, because one denys a positive assertion such as theism or the existence of God in know way whatsoever suggests they to have a positive claim that they wish to substitute in place of God. The wide range of atheists who are across the board both left and right testifies to the fact that there is no hidden agenda behind atheism. It alone denounces something it does not seek to substitute it with anythig.

I can see where you are coming from, to a degree... There are those, the power hungry, who wish to substitue religious dogmas for political ones, but to paint the camps into black and whites like the notorious fool Ayn Rand did is ridiculous. The facts are there really is little to no correlation between atheism and the promotion of an alternative dogma.

Furthermore, you go on to make another ridiculous claim that morals cannot be seperated from religion. Moral codes can just as easily be taught through a political dogma as they can from a supernatural one. If i chose to , when I have children, to teach my kids morals through the fairy tale of Santa Clause it does not, in any way, mean that that was the exclusive way to communicate those morals, or that those morals revolve around the beleived existence of the made-up being of Santa Clause. I was born into a christian family, I was taught morals in a semi-religious environment in church and bible stories etc., I renounced my faith as I grew older. Now does this mean I renounced those morals, or that my moral values collapsed without religion? Of course not! Does this mean I would have never learned those moral values had I missed out on "the moral code taught by religions"?, hell no!

The facts are the dismantlement of the outdated concept of religion does not in any sense require its replacement with another dogma. Especially another equally ridiculous, faith-based dogma that revolves around the unseen, unimportant, non-interactive type bullshit that should be reserved to child's tales.

If you take away a fatasses extra dessert it doesn't mean he has to eat something else in its place. I know at least in my eyes atheism does not presuppose replacement of religion with anything, and I think most atheists will agree. I fail to see your point...

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Commie01 on 12:57 am on April 25, 2003
I am not a Christian.
Good.

*lowers his AK-47*

=)

[Ghost Writer]

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never remember saying that this was a movement sought by all athiests. My statements should be put into context with respect to this conversation, which had to do with Marx's criticism of religion. These statements were not made out of ignorance, as I have read Marx's work. To the best of my knowledge this was precisely they type of game he was playing. He was a relativist who believed that all men's belief's could be manipulated and deformed over time. His dogma was the religion of Marxism that he tried to create, and rest assurred his assumptions must be taken on faith as their is no rational basis for them.

Furthermore, you assume that I am making a claim that religion and morals are inseparable, which is false. I never said that. Being a non-religious preson, I should hope this is not the case, since I like to think of myself as a moral individual. I simply stated that Marx, among many, wished to usurp the congregation of the religious sects and direct them in a fashion determined by there own ideological goals. Seeing as how Catholicism was heavily tied to the monarchies of the past, and how political Islam has been a major source of ideology, even recently, it is not that far fetched that there exists an anti-theistic group whose agenda it is to create the reverse scenario, where ideology become religion.

[Beccie]

Quote: from Sensitive on 7:07 am on April 25, 2003

Quote: from Commie01 on 12:57 am on April 25, 2003
I am not a Christian.
Good.

*lowers his AK-47*

=)


haha :)

I hope you would not shoot someone for being a Christian...

[Ghost Writer]

Communists often do. Read your history.

[Beccie]

I know that my screen name suggests otherwise but I am not a communist. I am a pacifist.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Commie01 on 1:35 am on April 25, 2003

haha :)

I hope you would not shoot someone for being a Christian...
Just for being a Christian? No.

But if they were a right-winger AND a Christian ... possibly ... yes! =P

[Beccie]

I have no problem with you shooting right-winged Christians. I would be tempted to myself :) - j/k

Nice sig btw

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from Commie01 on 7:47 am on April 25, 2003
I know that my screen name suggests otherwise but I am not a communist. I am a pacifist.


To what extent would you hold firm to ideals of pacifism? Do you think you can convert aggressors to peaceful ways by setting an example of loving, nonviolent behavior? Like the attitude expressed in the New Testament Sermon on the Mount. I hope not beacause anyone with a brain realises people such as Hitler and Saddam simply use such foolishness to benefit their cause.

[Sensitive]

I've developed a new "anarchist" theory. Once we shoot all of the right-wingers, then there will be no need for a government! =)

[Ghost Writer]

I think this man was correct when he said:

"The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less momentous.

Stalin’s resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only these differences, however, the east and the west could most certainly still live in peace.

The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism . . . invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs—and well it may, gentlemen—this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system.

Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in a god, can exist side by side with their communistic state.

Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this “soulful ravings” and “sloppy sentimentality.” . . .

Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down.

Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said—not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war—but 2 years after the last war was ended: “To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one’s mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolution.” . . .

Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said the time is now? . . . that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic atheistic world?

Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long."

Obviously, he understood why Marx opposed religion.

[Beccie]

LL,

I am probably going to confuse you by saying this but I will say it anyway. I think that my being a pacifist stems from my own mental instability. I am sickened by violence, I believe that all human beings are equal and have an equal right to live. The only human life I would take would be my own. Foolish? Probably but it is the way I feel and one thing I have learnt over the past two years is that emotions are uncontrollable.

Despite this I am able to recognise that violence is necessary for revolution.

Sensitive,

Hahaha…..If only….

[Liberty Lover]

Foolish?

Spot on. :)

[redstar2000]

"Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality."

Neat trick, since he didn't have a "Communist Party to "expel" anyone from. The old "Communist League" that Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto for essentially fell apart after the Cologne trials around 1850 or so. The First International was certainly not a communist organization, inspite of Marx's prominence. And those are the only two groups that Marx was a member of...at least that I've ever run across.

Aside from gross ignorance of history (no surprise there), what of the central thesis?

To suggest that the struggle between communism and capitalism is a "moral one" is exactly what one would expect from a defender of capitalism.

It's rather like substituting "pursuit of happiness" for "pursuit of wealth" in the American Declaration of Independence...it looks and smells "so much nicer".

Rather like perfume on a stinking corpse.

:cool:

PS: Good quote from Stalin, though...he was absolutely right on that one.


(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:41 pm on April 26, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So, ghost writer, who is this guy that characterizes western civilization as Christian and thinks taht the capitalist basis on which to destroy communism is religion(hahaha)? Capitalists have much more to be worried about than the fate of christianity. When Communism is enstated, wealthy capitalists will own as much as one of his low-level employees. One man may loose everything that he attained through the ruthless exploitation of hundreds, even thousands. Through the eyes of selfish capitalists such as yourselves, is this not a worst fate than the unstable coexistance between commies and capies?

[Solzhenitsyn]

*sniff*

Do I smell the foul stench of Randianism or so-called Objectivism™ wafting though the air, LL?

[Liberty Lover]

It smells like flowers to me, buddy.

[Ghost Writer]

Who is the one displaying ignorance here, Redstar2000?
Are you claiming the Communist League was not a political party?

Besides that, you criticize the authors ignorance of history, but then go on to completely ignore the political organization that Marx chaired, which was known as the First International. Branches of Marx's new political party popped up all over the European continent, as they sought to destory the status quo. No, my friend, saying that Marx never had a political party to expel followers from is a display of ignorance.

Here is an exerpt from a letter that Marx wrote to Engels, in 1865, when the party was divided over the issue of warming to Otto Von Bismark, a famous socialist.

"If they do not accept it, we have a decent excuse for getting rid of them. At all events, the air must be cleared and the party purged of the stench left behind by Lassalle."

Shortly after, Becker, a man that dared oppose Marx and Engels, was expelled from the party along with many other factions of the Party. Becker's predicament marked the end of Lassalleanism. Hence, your assertion is false, Redstar2000. Marx is the man who invented the party purges later used by the Stalinists and Leninists alike. I grant you that it is not documented that he killed anyone in the process. However, I would not put it past him. Marx was one sleezy son of a *****.

What do you think Marx's problem with [url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html]Bismark was? I contend that it was pure irrationality.

[redstar2000]

Ghost, I will attempt to disentangle the mess that your historical ignorance has landed you in...but I can't promise to be successful.

Let's begin with something simple. Bismarck was not a "socialist" of any kind. He was a Prussian autocrat, pure and simple. Everyone, besides you, knows this.

Granted, everyone didn't know it in the 1860s. Lassalle was one of the people who didn't. An early German socialist, he thought that some of Bismarck's "welfare-state" proposals were worthy of support...whereas Marx and Engels quite properly thought otherwise.

What Marx referred to as "the stench left behind by Lassalle" was the idea of collaborating with Prussian aristocrats in "opposition" to capitalism.

The "party" referred to in Marx's sentence was one of the early predecessors of what later became the German Social Democratic Party...and I'm not aware of any people actually being kicked out (in fact, I doubt very much if there was even enough of a structure there to kick somebody out from). When Marx and Engels used the phrase "our party", they did not mean it the way it would be meant now; rather, it was more in the sense of "our party of supporters"...not a political machine.

The First International was not anything that we would recognize as a "party" or a "federation of parties". There were affiliates, but they ranged from small groups of anarchists to emerging trade unions and, in no case, were "controlled" by Marx or subject to his "discipline". He was an adviser, a consultant, and an educator...but he was never a "leader" in either the bourgeois or the Leninist sense of that word.

The "Communist League" hardly had any coherent existence at all; it was a small group of German supporters of Marx and some exiles living in London...to speak of this as a "party" is to speak nonsense.

It strikes me, Ghost, that you have a rather "demonic" image of Karl Marx...perhaps something you picked up from the more flamboyant reactionary tabloids that you consult. To suggest that you would not put it past him to have a political opponent murdered simply reveals your ignorance of the man's life and work...or your determination to ignore his character in pursuit of your agenda.

I don't dispute your right, or anyone's, to challenge Marx's ideas. That's what this forum is for. But if all you can summon up is character assassination, then I think it's fair to say that you've given up any pretense of serious discussion.

Would you regard it as fair if I were to say "based on Ghost's posts, I wouldn't put it past him to murder somebody who disagreed with him"?

Well, you are "a pretty sleazy son of a *****", aren't you? :cheesy:

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:35 am on May 1, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Religion and religios organisations are tools of capitalism. Interesting facts about some religios organisations: -

The Church of England is the largest land owner in the UK.

The Catholic Church gets over $1,000,000,000 a year in donations from people world wide.

Leading Bishops in the C of E get to be members of the House of Lords, giving them considerable political power.

The Vatican controls over 3 major banks world wide.

The Catholic Church is one of the few remaning organisations in the UK that Blatantly breaks the EU's regulations regarding equil oppertunity.

----------------

Most of that i got from the Guinness Book Of Records '97.

[Solzhenitsyn]

"Leading Bishops in the C of E get to be members of the House of Lords, giving them considerable political power."

The House of Lords has considerable political power? Give me a fucking break. They only have the ability to advise the House of Commons.

"The Catholic Church is one of the few remaning organisations in the UK that blatantly breaks the EU's regulations regarding equal opportunity."

If the people who attend the Catholic Church don't like that fact, they are free to go elsewhere. Why the totalitarian impulse to regulate everthing via the EU? What in the hell ever happened to freedom of association?

[Umoja]

"The Church of England is the largest land owner in the UK."
England is a "Christian" State. The Monarch, the traditional head of state, is also in charge of the Church. England also never had a revolution to become democratic, only reforms.

"The Catholic Church gets over $1,000,000,000 a year in donations from people world wide."
That's not hard to believe. Firstly, they ask for money, and people choose to give it for a majority of this money. It helps the church maintain it's (lavish) status.

"Leading Bishops in the C of E get to be members of the House of Lords, giving them considerable political power."
The C of England IS tied to the government in England no denying it.

"The Vatican controls over 3 major banks world wide."
They did help create the modern banking system, because they have been one of the few stable organizations in Europe.

"The Catholic Church is one of the few remaning organisations in the UK that Blatantly breaks the EU's regulations regarding equil oppertunity."
True.

You seem to only attack the church of England and the Catholic church though, both organizations operate more like governments, and every government has a hint of capitalism in it. It permeates all levels of human society.

[Ghost Writer]

-Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."-from the U.S. Social Security website

Straight from the horses mouth. I too would be one to call Roosevelt a socialist. That is why Roosevelt is the favorite president of the left. Marx didn't like Bismark for much the same reason he left the Left Hegelians, he was not radical enough for Marx's taste. Marx wanted the complete destruction of the state, where Bismark thought that most aspects were worth keeping. Marx was as dirty as they come, and should have been executed by the German State.

It's no secret that I hate Marx, but my assumptions about his character are well grounded.

[Ghost Writer]

"England is a "Christian" State."

Not true, they are secular, as is the United States. If you mean that the majority of the people subscribe to Christianity you would be right. However, communism's fear of religion lies solely based on the moral code they offer. When a ideology promotes free sex and homosexuality, it is no surprise that you will find that political wing attacking the religious associations that oppose such conduct. When an ideology seeks to destroy the family, there is no reason to expect the followers of such an ideology to support the institutions that advocate strong family values. Let's face it, communism is evil to the core, and wishes to destroy one gospel for their own arbitrary ideas about personal conduct.

[redstar2000]

"Marx was as dirty as they come and should have been executed by the German State."

You neglected to propose a method of execution, Ghost, so how about: nibbled to death by ducks?

"...an ideology that promotes free sex and homosexuality...that seeks to destroy the family...communism is evil to the core."

What next, Ghost? Will you fall down on the floor and start chewing on the carpet?

Is this your conception of rational argument?

I have made a fairly substantial number of posts detailing the communist critique of religion...and you seem to be most worried about fucking without a permit. :confused:

Maybe you should cut down a little on the televangelism. :cheesy:

:cool:

PS: Bismarck, unlike yourself, was not hypnotized by words...he was acting to preserve the power of the Prussian nobility, just as Roosevelt was acting to save the capitalist class from its own follies. To call either of them "socialist" is just to use the word to mean "anybody you don't like".

Try and do better.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:06 pm on May 2, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

For a communist, you sure display a gross understanding about the evolution of Marxist communism throughout Europe, in the time period we are discussing.

You seem to make a clear distinction between the First International and the German Social Democratic Party. In fact, the German Social Democratic Party was formed some time after Marx wrote about expelling members from the First International. The First International was started in 1864, but the German Social Democratic Party was formed in 1869. How then does your explanation of the text contained in the letter hold any water?

In actuality, the German Social Democratic Party was spawned primarily out of principles extolled by the First International. As was occurring throughout Europe, the conglomeration of workers, unions, socialists, and anarchists, known as the First International, played a heavy hand in the formation of a variety of socialist parties from the Scandanavian countries to Germany and Austria. Denying the influencial role the International played with regard to party formation is not only disingenous, but it undermines the role that Marx had in the socialist movement.

In truth, many Marxists were members of the German Social Democratic Party. During WWI, the Marxist opposed the chauvinism that was being applied by the party, with respect to the war, so they split to form the Spartacists. After merging with the social-democrats to form the Spartacus League, the party changed its name to the Communist Party of Germany.

As you can see the First International was one of the first organizations that spawned many other socialist and communist party platforms. I suppose that Marx preferred to have a behind the seens role in the trouble that he was causing the European continent. One thing is for certain, that era was marked by many fuzzy relationships between political organizations and political parties. Often times, it was hard to tell were where the interest group ended and the political party began. Surely, this was merely a product of the subversive nature of many organizations, like the First International. However, to disassociate the First International with party affiliate is false. History clearly demonstrates this point.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 6:36 am on May 2, 2003
"England is a "Christian" State."

Not true, they are secular, as is the United States. If you mean that the majority of the people subscribe to Christianity you would be right. However, communism's fear of religion lies solely based on the moral code they offer. When a ideology promotes free sex and homosexuality, it is no surprise that you will find that political wing attacking the religious associations that oppose such conduct. When an ideology seeks to destroy the family, there is no reason to expect the followers of such an ideology to support the institutions that advocate strong family values. Let's face it, communism is evil to the core, and wishes to destroy one gospel for their own arbitrary ideas about personal conduct.


Sorry for jumping in on the tail of your conversation. However I'm not so sure about this statement. The Anglican church's dominant power over English politics and it being endorsed as the "Church of England" was a major motivation for the fledgling govt. of the United States to adopt a policy of seperation of church and state.

Is this different in the United Kingdom today and the Church of England is no longer the official church? I haven't heard any evidence otherwise and fully belive that the Church of England is still the official church.

I don't think you are pupousfully decieving us, however I would like to see where you get this information from.

[redstar2000]

Ghost, I don't believe anything I've said could legitimately be construed to deny the "influence" of the First International in general or that of Marx in particular.

What I am saying is that the dark and conspiratorial interpretation that you seem to place on events of those years is almost certainly unjustified.

You appear to view Marx as some kind of "super demon" cleverly pulling strings behind the scenes to arouse rebellion in every land while "expelling" anyone who disagreed with him. His main "string" was actually multiple copies of The Communist Manifesto in all of the European languages; there are actually letters of his that concern nothing but the difficulties of smuggling these "illegal" pamphlets into various countries.

The image of "Marx" in his crappy, run-down, smoke-filled two-room flat, sitting at his enormous & enormously cluttered kitchen table, pushing aside his children's toys and the cracked dishware in order to pen "orders" to socialists in Germany, Switzerland, France, etc. is ludicrous. Even the Germans, though paying him and Engels great respect, nevertheless "went their own way" and wrote a program of "unity" that Marx thought was a pile of crap.

To put it as charitably as I can, I think you are guilty of one of the "historian's sins" -- projecting a modern attitude backwards into the minds of people that would not have been capable of entertaining that attitude.

Specifically, because guys like Lenin and, even more, Stalin could literally dictate policy to communist parties in other countries (most of the time, anyway), you assume that it was always that way.

It wasn't.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:31 pm on May 2, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Red Celtic,

Although you are correct that the Church of England remains the Anglican Church, a body that has about 24 of its clergy sitting in the House of Lords, the United Kingdom remains secular, for the most part.

The Glorious Revolution of the late 15th century marked the end of the religious conflict that plagued the nation since its inception. This revolution marked the last of its kind, as it finally settled the power stuggle between the Parliament and the Monarchy. As a result the revolution, most of England's religious conflict was coming to an end as they moved toward secularism.

Today, only 15% of the U.K. belongs to the Church of England. This is an example of the little value that is placed on religion by the people of that nation.

None of the parties in the U.K. are affiliated with the church. If fact, the main role that the 24 representatives of the Church of England has had in the House of Lords has been a defensive one, with respect to the continued erosion of the church's place within many of the institutions English society.

All the restrictions on the practicing of other religions have been removed, and discrimination based on religious affiliation is against the law. Thus, we can see that the right to practice, or not practice any religion has not been infringed by the state. On the subject of spiritualism, the state remains silent, as the people of Great Britian are granted religious freedom, a fundamental right that is protected by all modern democracies. True, the existence of a state church does seem to undermine the claim of secularism. However, if one actually looks at the actual freedom enjoyed by the citizens, Great Britian is generally considered to be a secular state.

Of course, there is an exception when it comes to North Ireland, where religious differences continue to cause trouble. Except in this region, the cleavages that exist in British society have little to do with religion. For the most part, the church has very little significance in the British system.

[Ghost Writer]

"You neglected to propose a method of execution, Ghost, so how about: nibbled to death by ducks?"

He deserved no better than a firing squad. To bad we didn't have a CIA that could cooperate with foreign intelligence in those days. Otherwise, we could have Che Guevarra'd him by sending counter-revolutionaries to kill him.

[CubanFox]

Did the CIA even exist back then?

[Ghost Writer]

No, they did not. That is why I said:

"To bad we didn't have a CIA that could cooperate with foreign intelligence in those days."

[CubanFox]

I misread your post. I apologize.