These are some thoughts I was having about Zen's latest post on the anger of some as regards the death of the young Christian trampers a couple of weekends ago.
Some very thoughtful replies on that thread also - John Tertullian's quoting Shakespeare's "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" as regards the rage of the Angry Atheist, as I call him (in general).
It strikes me as strange how an Atheist doesn't believe in God but feels the need to bring Him into the equation so he has someone to be angry with, i.e "I don't believe in God, but if I did I'd be very angry with Him". If an Atheist doesn't believe in God then it's nobody's fault and he has no one to be mad at - to him we come from nothing, are here for a short while, and are going to nothing. Perhaps he is angry at Christians because he feels they aren't angry enough at God, but they're the ones who seem to be handling the tragedy best.
And what does Jesus say about it?
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." - John 14:1-3
Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
ReplyDeleteJohn 13:1-3
Religion is regarded by the foolish as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Seneca.
For Nature never permits good to be injured by good; between good men and the gods there exists a friendship brought about by virtue.
ReplyDeleteDo you wonder if that God, who most dearly loves the good, who wishes them to become supremely good and virtuous, allots to them a fortune that will make them struggle? For my part, I do not wonder if sometimes the gods are moved by the desire to behold great men wrestle with some calamity. We men at times are stirred with pleasure if a youth of steady courage meets with his spear an onrushing wild beast, if unterrified he sustains the charge of a lion.
Seneca.
When I talk to god, its prayer.
ReplyDeleteWhen god talks to me its insanity.
fugley
It isn't about being an ängry atheist" as much as it is about pointing out the idiocy of believers in times like this.
The boy who said "god saved me" is yet to make the logical leap that god didn't save the others.
Was he spared because god loved him more, or less than the others?
Here is yet another example of the only place religion leads - stupidity:
"A man accused of killing two people outside a party last year did so because God told him to do something to get away from people chasing him, the Crown said today."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10505350
That's right, god so wanted this moron to luive that he cared not who else lived or dies, justr as long as Lipene Sila was safe, god would be happy.
Fugley,
ReplyDeleteDid it ever strike you that there is no difference between your writings and the worst of the fundies who believe in a Young Earth and Bible inerrancy?
No difference at all.
JC
"A man accused of killing two people outside a party last year did so because God told him to do something to get away from people chasing him, the Crown said today."
ReplyDeleteIt was more likely the Devil or some Demon. Not God. Unfortunately some people can't discern the difference!
do you all actually believe the world is only 2000 years old ?
ReplyDeletecome on people ...
Anon, no. I think you've lost track of the thread.
ReplyDeleteFugley: the only place it goes? Err, no. I think you see things in black and white, or maybe just black and black on this topic.
Danyl: Wouldn't it be ironic if Seneca had indeed converted to Christianity at the end of his life? Although given he was reportedly an advisor to Nero, who persecuted Christians, we may instead consider this quote a true reflection of his bias, and to be taken with a grain of salt.
It doesn't even come across as particularly insightful to me any way.
Rulers exploit religion? There's an obvious statement that does nothing to disprove Christianity's claims.
And to say some-one is wise by defining wisdom to say they are wise? That's arguable. For example, I could say:
A wise man does not quote Seneca
And since you quoted Seneca, ergo, not wise.
Fletch, that was an interesting quote, especially because the last part of it was in today's DomPost.
ReplyDeleteI saw it this morning in the paper and it didn't quite stand alone. Then I read the blog and lo! behold! all became clear with your full quote.
Synchronicity or what??
instead of using this opportunity to explain where God was you attack the atheists. don't really see the difference between what he did and what you did
ReplyDeleteIt was more likely the Devil or some Demon. Not God. Unfortunately some people can't discern the difference!
ReplyDeleteAnd how do you tell the difference?
You are really a weird creep danyl. New Zealand is saturated in evil and only a halfwit could ask a question like that.
ReplyDeleteHelen Clark = evil
Labour Party = demons
Danyl said...
ReplyDeleteIt was more likely the Devil or some Demon. Not God. Unfortunately some people can't discern the difference!
And how do you tell the difference?
Yes danyl, I was going to ask the same question.
It seems to me that if satan didn't exist, the xtians would have had to invent him. :-)
Satan is a convenient way to explain away all the bad things god does, yet to me it shows how tiny and puny the xtian god is.
god the father, the son and the holy ghost, all together are impotent in face of just one fallen angel? Pull the other one.
If god fails to act against satan, then god wants to satan to work his evil on Man, and that's no god I think worthy of praise, let alone worship.
fugley is evidence of satan.
ReplyDeletefugley, you're barking up the wrong tree. God has already acted against and defeated Satan by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Now Satan is playing spoilsport and trying to take as many humans with him into Hell just to be an *sshole. All you have to do is believe in God and follow Him.
ReplyDeleteWhy has God not totally thrown Satan into the pit of fire? Well, he will at the end of time, but God has given humans the gift of free choice; they can follow either good or follow evil. If there were no Satan there would be no evil and hence no free choice.
I.M Fletcher said...
ReplyDeletefugley, you're barking up the wrong tree. God has already acted against and defeated Satan by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Now Satan is playing spoilsport and trying to take as many humans with him into Hell just to be an *sshole. All you have to do is believe in God and follow Him.
Why has God not totally thrown Satan into the pit of fire? Well, he will at the end of time, but God has given humans the gift of free choice; they can follow either good or follow evil. If there were no Satan there would be no evil and hence no free choice.
Can I make the assumption that you were raised in a family of Christians, therefore it's really that black and white for you since you don't have to worry about the fact that your parents/grandparents who are already dead are in hell so you'll never see them again.
Anybody can be saved from hell through the prayers of the living faithful rebel heart, but you would already know this, as you claim that you are a Christian?
ReplyDeleteYeah right.
Is that so D4J, in that case I'll discard the useless words of Jesus Christ in Luke 11:
ReplyDelete22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' 25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
I mean if all it takes is for me to say a prayer for my relatives who have died and were never Christians to be in Heaven instead of Hell now (they're in Hell, according to the pastors I've spoken to, who find it easy to say to the media in light of the recent tragedy: "at least the kids are in a better place now" because they happened to be from a Christian school... I mean, if for example one of those kids was a non-Christian, say Tom Hsu, would the pastor have said: "thankfully the kids who died in the tragedy are in a better place now, except for Tom who wasn't a Christian"... Or any of the others if they happened to be unfortunate enough to not have had Christian parents) then I wouldn't see why it would be so hard for an atheist to become a Christian. Actually, in fact, if what you say is true they don't have to anyway - all it takes is someone who is a Christian to pray for them and then "they can be saved from hell through the prayers of the living faithful".
Danyl asked, how can you tell the difference between the Devil talking to you and God (or someone on God's behalf).
ReplyDeleteWhat you do, is you ask the voice or apparition to say "Long live Jesus, long live Mary". The voice/apparition's reaction to these two holy names will tell you all you need to know.
This is not my own experience, but that of Padre Pio, who was frequently attacked by the Devil and his minions.
"What you do, is you ask the voice or apparition to say "Long live Jesus, long live Mary". The voice/apparition's reaction to these two holy names will tell you all you need to know."
ReplyDelete.....And the little birdie says "Cookoo!~ Cookoo!
Anon, for the question to be asked, you'd have to be looking at an apparition or hearing voices in the first place. Given that very few people hear voices or see apparitions, it is not without the bounds of possibility that there are things beyond your personal experience.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Lucyna said this wasn't her personal experience, but an honest answer to a question based on the testimony of a person that has experienced the supernatural.
What seems crazier is Fugley admitting he talks to God, (comments above)and Fugley is an avowed atheist!
Unfortunately rebel heart you know nothing of the power of the Holy Spirit who can crush Satan with ease.
ReplyDeleterebel heart, can the darkness put out the light? No way stan, but I can put light into darkness.
ReplyDeleteLive in the now and you will better you disturbed individual.
will feel better
ReplyDeleteFugley, Danyl, Rebel Heart: The tone of your comments are unnecessarily combative. It doesn't engender a genuine discussion, and others are likely to REACT to your insults, which only derails any useful conversation. As visitors to this blog, please consider this.
ReplyDeleteIn the event your questions are genuine, check back in a few days as I am working on a new post that discusses the possibility of God's existence, it may be of interest and I think it relevant to this thread.
Regs, Zen.
Rebel, I don't believe that anyone can say who is in heaven or who is in hell (not even a Pastor).
ReplyDeleteAlso, I believe you are right that no one can pass over from Hell to Heaven; however, we Catholics believe in a Purgatory or place of cleansing.
It's a tradition of the Church to pray for the dead because our prayers can help those in Purgatory. In the caves or catacombs where the early Christians lived are inscriptions to pray for so-and-so who died on a certain date. This only makes sense if there is a purgatory because those in Heaven are already in Paradise and don't need our prayers, and those in Hell will not benefit from our prayers at all.
Luther didn't like this idea and removed the book of Maccabees from the Protestant Bible, although it still appears in catholic Bibles.
When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brethren who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias, "they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."
Not, the Judas mentioned in the text above is not the same Judas that betrayed Christ.
Interesting. So how do you know if someone is in Hell or purgatory?
ReplyDeleteAlso Zentiger, ironic comment considering your post:
ReplyDeleteMy heart goes out to Peter Cresswell who reacted poorly to the recent tragic deaths of six Christian college students and their teacher. Such is his desire to believe there is no God, he seeks proof of his non-existence at any opportunity.
So Peter expressing compassion and sorrow at the tragedy in his post makes his reaction 'poor'? Can you not see how pathetic your post is? Such is your need to preach that you ignore the fact that Peter obviously does give a crap about the kids who died but you decide to focus on the philosophical debate.
Also how is the fact that he used that example to say Christians who use all sorts of tragic examples in Church sermons for the sake of their messages, eg. gay people dying of AIDS etc.
rebel heart (stan) Like PC pushes the no God theory you push for homosexuality to be normalized by Christianity. No go mate try another method for justification stan.
ReplyDeleteWhat you do, is you ask the voice or apparition to say "Long live Jesus, long live Mary". The voice/apparition's reaction to these two holy names will tell you all you need to know.
ReplyDeleteWould a shout out to Joshua and Miriam work just as well?
You are a totally troubled unit danyl . Are you peter on tbr as your obsession is both irrational and unhealthy?
ReplyDeleteWhat a sad person you are.
So Peter expressing compassion and sorrow at the tragedy in his post makes his reaction 'poor'?
ReplyDeleteMany commenters other than me have noted Peter's approach was rather tasteless. I'm surprised you don't see it in the extract I quoted.
Furthermore, his anti-Christian posts display a notable lack of understanding of the theological arguments.
Such is my need to preach? Welcome to blogging. Peter preached his opinions, I preached my opinion in response and you've preached yours. You can pick my post as the only one of us three that deserves condemnation - but I think your point vapid.
Many commenters other than me have noted Peter's approach was rather tasteless. I'm surprised you don't see it in the extract I quoted.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, his anti-Christian posts display a notable lack of understanding of the theological arguments.
You completely ignored this part: "This is tragic, absolutely tragic -- utterly heartbreaking for everyone involved". I don't see anything tasteless about what he wrote - in fact, it's absolutely understandable that a non-Christian would ask about why God would let this happen. If you have a problem with that, you're as stupid as a Pharisee who is astounded at the average poor person's lack of religiosity and looks down on them. The fact that you decided to use his lack of knowledge as an opportunity to advertise Christianity is what is pathetic. You could have simply posted a comment in his post saying: "I disagree with what you think about God but yes it is a sad tragedy". That's all you needed to say. If for example Peter's parents just died in an accident and he asked where was God, do you think he'd prefer a Christian say: "I'm sorry for your loss... Even though you don't believe in God I'll pray for you". You do not say: "You have a lack of theological knowledge", and then proceed to give him a sermon on why his beliefs are ignorant.
I didn't ignore that part, I weighed it up with this part:
ReplyDeleteSo where was he, this omnipotent being, and what the hell was he doing when seven of his adherents put themselves in his hands? Didn't he want to look after 'his' children?
I think you know the answer.
So Peter was saying "How tragic, terrible, BUT if you are going to express your faith during your heartbreak, let me just add that if you were serious about asking where God was, you should realise he wasn't there and that he doesn't exist, so just get over it".
Charming. But hey, he said "sorry for your loss" before sticking in the knife. I did feel sorry for him though that he was so focused on making his little point he can't see the inherent rudeness in the action. And nor can you. You seem to think it worse I dispute him, in his moment of "business as usual". Weird.
So, to take your "if Peter's parents died in a car crash" story and I say "how terrible, but not surprising that this happened as they drove like a Randian, and we know how Objectivists drive. Perhaps we need to take this opportunity to examine the driving habits of Objectivists and point out where it leads - death on the roads.
Now Peter might rightfully say, "look, thanks for your condolences, and good of you to point out the driving issues all Objectivists face, but don't mind me where I do a huge post saying this had nothing to do with the way Objectivists drive."
And Rebel Heart comes along to defend my post on that topic and tell Peter to pull his head in?? I doubt it.
absolutely understandable that a non-Christian would ask about why God would let this happen.
ReplyDeleteExcept he didn't really ask, did he? As I pointed out in my post: he answered. And he said "believing in God is rubbish". Can you not see the huge difference between asking and answering with such certainty?
What do others think of this point?
I think you need to grow up and get over it.
ReplyDeleteYou take me and afew others to task for being "combative". You are now complaining about Peter being "rude".
Wel, I've got news for you. Religion is not immune from criticism, nor is the practice of religion.
If you want to profess faith, be prepared to have your profession challenged.
And I do not accept your labelling of me as an athesit, I will not allow you to set the tone of debate by using emotively loaded religious terminology.
I have no need for god, just like I have no need for santa, easter bunny, the tooth fairy or monsters under the bed. But you don't have words to describe that lack of need, do you.
Oh hang on, yes we do. People who don't ahve childish beliefs are adults.
And I do not accept your labelling of me as an athesit [...] I have no need for god
ReplyDeleteOk, fugley, so you're saying you DO believe in a God, you just think you don't need Him?
No, I am saying that the need to believe or disbelieve is irrelevant, and that atheist is a label put on people like my by people like zentiger.
ReplyDeleteDoes not believe in god - atheist
Does not believe in Santa Claus - Adult
Does not believe in easter bunny - adult
Does not believe in fairies - adult
So, surely does not believe in god - adult, is a given.
As to being an atheist, well, we're all atheists - I just happen to believe in one less god than zentiger. :-).
Perhaps a better word for me, if one is truly needed, would be anti-theist.
fugley, being an adult and not believing in God is not an argument you can make where one is dependent on the other. They are not mutually exclusive. I think you'll find that many adults believe in God. Many of the greatest minds in history have believed in God - our scientists, poets, artists, inventors, etc etc - some of the great geniuses.
ReplyDeletedad, I can't hate something that doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteBut I can and do, hate those who perpetuate misery in the name of god.
I can, and do, hate those who claim that believing in god makes them in some way special.
And I can, and do, hate those who are hypocrites. And the number one hypocrite here is you.
Fugley, I never said that religion was immune from criticism. I don't expect it to be. I'm not complaining, I'm simply pointing out that you are overly combative in your comments, or that PC came across as rude in his post - and is a separate issue to offering disagreement.
ReplyDeleteYou show outrage by being called an atheist, and yet deliberately declare that a religious belief is exactly the same as belief in Santa. Well, I don't accept you setting the tone of the debate by using emotively loaded comparisons that are way off mark in any event.
As Fletch said, not a good definition of adult. I'd suggest an adult learns how to conduct themselves with more civility.
Which some atheists and anti-theists around here seem to be lacking.
I can understand fugley and others becoming combative.
ReplyDeleteThere is a war going on, and it is a war that could well set the direction for the next few hundred years.
On the one side are those who believe that rational man can, as he has in the past, continue to lift human knowledge and improve the human condition.
On the other side, there are those that will stop at nothing to prevent man becoming all he can be because they fear it will upset their god(s)
And, as with all wars, there is a huge pool of innocents who will be trampled in the middle.
Fugley has chosen his side, the rational man, and, for the sake of humanity, I hope his side prevails.
fugley you are so irrational and tell your anonymous cowardly mate that this thread is not about WAR, unless of course the shadow of yours is talking about the SPIRITUAL WAR?
ReplyDeleteI can't wait for your photo to go up on the internet.
fugley that comment 10 minutes ago,"You want my photo -here it is HaPPY JERKING" is repulsive and disturbing. The pictures of naked pornographic homosexuals reiterates my point that you are defending the demonic one.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDeleteYou speak as if progress is a natural law. Nature doesn't care if we progress and "be all we can be" star trek style. That's TV. We have no other examples of sentient civilization to confirm the optimism of "progress as natural law".
Personally, I'll be happy when they get the Large Hadron Collider up and running in the next few months without producing hungry miniblack holes (Deemed to be "unlikely" but not impossible).
I find it grotesque that angry atheists like fugley, peter, and now Anonymous above, claim to be on the side of "the rational man" when they are patently incapable of reasoned logical discourse. The tiresome pattern is:
ReplyDeletea) God does not exist
b) I hate Him
c) therefore, good is evil, black is white etc etc.
Moreover, they conveniently fail to acknowledge or even remember the basic principles of Christianity (love, charity, forgiveness, grace) in their unseemly haste to condemn their favourite scapegoat. Same old story.
PS: d4j lately has become increasingly painful and disconnected from reality. He's even less coherent than our atheist friends, always playing the man, not the ball. Sigh.
More accurately, the pattern is:
ReplyDeletea) something bad happened
b) I hate God
c) therefore He doesn't exist
Why always so desperate to deny God's existence? The vehemence and desperation of atheist arguments looks a lot like a last-ditch rearguard action, against the overwhelming tide of history, incontrovertible testimonies, and fascinating discoveries at the frontiers of science.
Zen you may be interested in this from Perigo...http://www.solopassion.com/node/4599
ReplyDeleteTo his credit Perigo has been a lot more circumspect lately.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has tired of the self-righteous piety around the traps. Peter's post was ill-timed as I said b4, but saying it actually makes him a better, more honest person than the hypocrites.
Two notes on the people mentioned by ruth above, LP and PC, they "who keep it real":
ReplyDelete1. A person wrapped up in themselves makes a very small package.
2. Beware the person of one book.
Fair point Ruth. Thanks for the link too.
ReplyDeleteOn a side issue, I think the term hypocrite is becoming a very PC term, designed to label the opponent with some heinous crime (often somewhat baseless) which supposedly no longer entitles them to make their argument.
Now, the likes of a Graham Capill exemplify a true hypocrite and deserve all of the scorn they get.
But contrast the hypocrite that says they are rational atheists that don't require religion to act reasonably, and yet approach most arguments foaming at the mouth - compared to dealing with a violent thug that agrees they are a violent thug, and that they wrong for doing this. I think I'd take the hypocrite in that situation.
Hmm, what's that saying? Careful what you wish for.
ropata, ex-atheist has a very good rebuttal for that atheist argument HERE. Have reprinted some below..
ReplyDelete---snip---
A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist.
Since 'loving' is a characteristic that is applied to both humans and God, we make note of the comparison and make an analogy:
A loving parent would not permit his child to suffer.
Or would he? A parent who would not permit his child to suffer would never deprive his offspring of any want, nor would he discipline the child. What then, do we mean by 'suffer'? If we limit the definition of suffering to physical pain, then we have to acknowledge that loving parents permit their children to suffer pain, at least to some degree, when they allow them to have immunization shots, or undergo chemotherapy or teach them how to ride a bike, knowing that the chances of them falling and getting hurt are probable. Therefore, a loving parent does permit his child to suffer physically, if he considers the suffering to be insignificant and for a greater good.
But would a loving parent permit his child to suffer significant pain for a greater good? As humans, we have a corporeal concern; no matter how strong our faith in God, this material and physical world is the only world of which we are aware. Therefore, we consider any significantly painful infliction as harmful to our bodies and our existence.
The difference between man and God is that God is fully aware of man's spiritual reality in addition to his physical reality. God knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls. God knows that our physical destruction is not an end to our existence. Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity? Of what significance is a lifetime of suffering compared to eternity? We can conclude that from God's perspective, our physical suffering is relatively insignificant. This is not to say that He is unsympathetic or oblivious to our pain; loving parents feel empathy when their child receives a shot, knowing full well that the pain is inconsequential.
[...]
It isn't that God wills us to experience misfortune, but that these misfortunes are merely the consequence of living in a physical world within our physical bodies. Every day, loving people make the decision to bring children into this world, knowing that it is a world filled with risk and injury. God is no less loving for having created the world in which we all live. But one may ask, "Why doesn't God do what He can to prevent these injuries, as any good parent would?
The argument quickly reduces itself into absurdity. At what point should God cease to prevent suffering? Should He suspend gravity for every trip of the foot? Should He suspend the properties of heat for every finger that touches a lit stove? In short, we would be asking God to suspend the physical laws that allow our very existence.
[...]
We make an analogy between God, the loving Father, and human parents. The attribute that we are comparing is the ability of each to love his ‘children’/’creation’.
1) We consider parents to be loving when they permit their child to suffer insignificantly for a greater good.
2) Our greater good is salvation.
3) Our earthly suffering is insignificant when examined in the scope of eternity.
4) Therefore, we can experience suffering and still believe in the existence of a loving God.
ps, very good article on Atheism at ConservapediaHERE. (ps, As of April 22, 2008 Conservapedia's atheism article is ranked #5 by Google Cuba!)
ReplyDeleteI'm only just reading the article, but some parts already stick out at me -
---snip---
In respect to atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them." Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes which advocated atheism.
Koukl summarized by stating:
“It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God"
Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn stated the following in relation to atheism:
“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
"PS: d4j lately has become increasingly painful and disconnected from reality. He's even less coherent than our atheist friends, always playing the man, not the ball. Sigh."
ReplyDeleteEase up mate as everyday I get malicious emails and phone calls from creeps attacking my credibility.My family is traumatized and the police laugh at me when I try to make a complaint.
Stop your cowardly attacks on me ropata. If you are a Christian then pull your bloody head in coward !!!
Shit, now daddy is even attacking his own side!
ReplyDeleteNo one cares how many phone calls you or your family get, no one cares if the police take you seriously or not, in fact, no one cares about you.
Maybe if you DID play the ball and not the man you'd find a lot less aggro coming your way.
And, that was not a homo porn picture. If you think it was then you are sicker than I thought.
fugly -so it's alright for you to send me pornographic photos of homosexuals and ropata thinks that's playing the ball. Look, I played rugby for 25 years so don't preach to me about what is right and what is wrong , playing the game. People that attack my credibility can expect to be criticized no matter what side they are on . I know what side I am on , truth, justice, honesty, integrity and love.
ReplyDeletePlease do not send me anymore malicious emails fugley.
"diddums"
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFugley, totally off topic. Please use another forum to vent.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a fair post, given the accusations Peter Burns slings around that never seem to be deleted or remarked upon.
ReplyDeleteStill, that's one thing about the religious, they all stick together and cover up the sinners, a bit like ratzy and peddy priests
It was off topic, it was a new topic, it was designed to provoke Dad4Justice further.
ReplyDeleteAnd then you try to use it as a general attack on me.
Play the ball, not the man Fugley.
For the record, I've warned Dad before when I think he is out of place, and he has had comments removed before too. Your accusations are baseless.
Don't worry about his conduct, worry about yours.
Your comment about "Ratzy" also confirms my point you deliberately provoke, twist the truth and have next to no manners.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRebel Heart, point noted. However your use of language has crossed the line and comment is removed.
ReplyDeleteDad4Justice: I agree with your point of view, but I'm removing your comments as they are off topic and it would be unfair to leave them and not provide an opportunity to defend the accusations.
All future comments need to be focused on the post, and delivered with civility.
Thanks guys.