damnthing

Should we write it off to anger and resentment over the loss of his commander-in-chief

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/nyregion/church-of-satan-poughkeepsie-burned-down.html So one has to wonder: jilted lover, angry neighbor, competing satanist, righteous x tian, angry jew, hippy hindu, mad muslim, shifty scientologist, manic mormon? Who would want to burn down a church, why? Oh the humanity

You do cherry pick, I'll give you that. And "...mindless projections...", I believe it was you who had me shouting crucify him. I never said anything about a x tian demanding the crucifixion of the stone mason? You were the one who said I would have shouted 'crucify him'. All I did was do the same thing as you, put you in that time and place and if you re-read what I wrote, I pegged you as being there as a very, very devout jew, a pharisee, demanding the shaman be executed. You wouldn't have been there as a x tian but as a jew, at that time there were no 'christians', only jews who thought the shaman a messiah. America is 'barely' christian and if it continues could become even more secular. Regardless, religion doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with ruling or living or voting or anything, in this country. And that is why I dislike x tians, you absolutely freak out at the thought of america under sharia law but comically push to make america and all americans live under x tian rule/law.

My animosity is towards those people who honestly feel their belief is the only one and then try to make everyone else believe the same as them. Not even close to anti-semite, anti-hindu, or anti-satan or...well, you get the point, because none of them keep trying to make america a christian nation, it's only/always people like you and so, in that regard yes, I have contempt for you. As for the bumper sticker you have clearly shown you not only don't have a sense of humor, you don't understand humor. You spend an awful lot of time here at ULC arguing with people which suggests that you need the support, the vitriol, the antagonism to support your beliefts. It's like you can't just go off and believe as you wish, instead you have to bring it in here and try and flog people. Because why else would such an upright x tian even bother with a place like the ULC, I hope dear Dog that you aren't an ordained minister here because that would be such perfect irony. To your point, you can't know what happens after death (spoiler alert, non c'e niente dopo la morta) because no one has died and live to tell about it. What you 'believe' is a fantasy not unlike santa claus or the tooth fairy. And that's all fine, your life, your beliefs but the worse possible thing you do is to poison the minds of children, to brainwash them (as you probably/most likely were). As much as you may think otherwise, had I been there I probably would have stood silently, trying to understand why the government felt it necessary to execute someone for a crime they didn't commit. Who knows, I might have even fallen in with that stone mason and bonded over our dislike of the government as well as the religious ruling class. After all the shaman was non-violent, preached peace and love, love they neighbor, etc, all those things people like you could learn from. And as for shouting 'crucify him', that would have been you. How do I know? Because you are so devout in your belief you would have been a very, very strict jew, a rabbi for sure but almost assuredly a pharisee and one of the jewish leaders who wanted the shaman dead. Because while you go on about heaven and hell and parrot the words of your shaman, you don't live those words. You are smug in your beliefs, condescending in your attitude and lack even the barest of compassion for anyone that doesn't believe as you do. I bet whatever you tithe goes only to your church, or towards only those that believe as you do. You are far removed from that murdered shaman but stand shoulder to shoulder with those that convicted him. There is no way a person like you would have not been shouting 'crucify him', it's what you are all about. And that...is truly sad.

Please don't give credit where credit is NOT due. Whatever you were questioning, whatever doubts you had, whatever path brought you to where you are, don't thank people like dan because there is NO good will in there, dan does not want people to find their own truth. What he wants is to corrupt and convince people that his 'god' is real. Truth is even he doesn't believe it but hey...it's what he's about not, he has subscribed to the notion that his 'god' exists, sold his soul and will defend to his death that it's all real. Quite sad really

If anything he's a poster child for the need for education and the insidiousness of religo-pathy

No need to ever defend him, he's undeserving. Thus my comments to/about him. He is the problem. I have no sympathy regardless of how he was infected (most likely his parental units). \ No matter, he makes a conscious effort to tamp down questioning because NOT questioning is easier, his world works so much easier if he takes his hands off of his steering wheel vis-a-vis the bumper sticker: god is my copilot Anytime I see that on a car I desperately want to give them a PIT maneuver

There are actual written documentation that would prove that washington had an army with him when he crossed the delaware, and there are records to show housing, feeding, clothing the army, records to show where washington slept, fought, etc. But there are no records to show cheeses fed anyone, much less 5000 people, in ONE day? Seriously, you believe that nonsense? It is absurd and delusional. The crossing of the delaware is historical, and historically documented by everyone from a drummer boy to the general himself. That they are all now dead proves one thing, that they are all dead. Their 'testimony', if you will, was laid down anywhere from hours or days after the crossing to months or years but by eyewitnesses. Historians collect these 'stories', all crossed checked and verified and incorporated into -in this instance- our national history. But you actually claim some shaman feed 5000 people in one day and the romans never noticed? 5000 people, gathered in ONE spot, and fed from a never-ending basket of fish and bread? The romans would have dearly loved to have gotten hold of that little proto-olive garden. cheeses wasn't mentioned, only the fact about the x tians and they being cannibals. And to that point how do you know that the early x tians weren't cannibals and that the story was modified over centuries because...you know, cannibalism is generally frowned upon. And finally, stop quoting your sources as some numbered fairy tale in your big book of badassery, that is NOT a reputable source of anything other than human malfeasance and malignancy. But it proves my point, while there are a myriad of sources to document washington's crossing the delaware you can only point to your babble as confirmation to what you say, which is just you, quoting from the same source your quote as the source of your quote....oh the hell with it, you know it's nonsense just as much as we all do, it's just that you're so committed to your fantasy you can't set it down, walk away and realize just how silly it all is.

Regarding the G Washington obfuscation, correct me if I'm wrong but pretty sure it wasn't just washington crossing the river on his own, or with a few confused apostles trusted soldiers, he had an army with him so...yea, lot of eye witnesses. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) dano is conflating actual eye witnesse with (hearsay (which is a stretch at that)). Anything written down regarding cheeses was done so decades after the supposed groundhog appearance. The romans were pretty notorious note takers yet the first (and I think the only) mention of cheeses was 80 or so years after he was supposedly nailed to a tree so obviously, not an eyewitness report. Even with the new testacle the first written accounts of the shaman cheeses doesn't happen until about 30 years after cheeses floated up and away. Interestingly, there was also made mention by another roman writer around the same time of x tians being cannibals (it was known that early x tians practice their religion by eating the flesh and drinking the blood), so we have that as an 'eyewitness' account. So I guess we either believe that a guy named cheeses existed AND x tians were cannibals, or we dispute both of them. What to do, what to do. Consider this; A cable tv show called America: Fact or Fiction, explores the myths surrounding american history and how myths grew up over just a matter of decades (sometimes less). Things we were taught in school, that we believe to be true, were false. This is a testament (pun intended) to both the imagination of people and their willingness to embellish (if not outright fabricate from whole cloth) entirely new accounts. So if it can happen with us, in our country, within our own lifetimes, it can certainly happen in an age where practically no one could write, there was no education (for the masses). Life was whatever happened in between birth (if you made it thru the birth canal) to death (probably lucky to live to 40 (if even that). When your life was one **e experience after another it took no imagination (well, frankly it took a LOT of imagination, just no proofs) to pretend there was a better life waiting after you died. There was no one to refute it and if it made people feel a little less awful then have at it. But for Satan's sake at least admit that it's all made up, false memory, mythology, wishful thinking, magical thinking, etc, have fun with it if it makes you feel better about yourself (dano) but give the whole 'the bible is true because the bible says it's true' tautological cranial gymnastical nonsense a rest. Ramen, may the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless You With His Noodley Arms Edit: I realized it may sound as if I'm chiding you Jonathan, which I am not. I am chiding dano but it seemed more effective overall if I quoted you for my response.

That's exactly what I was saying, nothing more than knee-jerk reactions. Dog knows I wasn't implying he was a deep thinker, quite the opposite in fact

But that is all that people like dan can do, spout doctrine because to spout anything else would indicate some level of free will which dan et al have abdicated in favor of being scripted. Nothing says religion like empty-headed doctrinal, canned responses that require nothing more than rote memorization. dan doesn't have to (and likely doesn't even) understand his comments, he just needs a handful of ready-to-go pithy comments that are little more than x tian version of Mad Libs

Exactly the degree of arrogance I would expect from someone who worships a dead man on a stick. And you know it all because of a collection of faerie tales from outcasts, drunks, pedophiles and sociopaths? Maybe pick up a real book sometime, one that actually required research, effort, field work, knowledge, deduction, conclusions...not your religiopathic collection of nonsense that you just 'absolutely know' is the word of ƃop. Please, give the rest of us a break and for once, use the brain you believe was given to you by your ƃop. Remember that ad; a mind is a terrible thing to waste

I'm not sure how nice I've ever been but when it comes to religio-paths I'm not nice at all

The first step is acknowledging that you have a problem, so bonus points for you, negative points for dan.

I can probably correctly assume that your dealings with him are done out of amusement (and boredom). Otherwise I can't see any reason to humor him on his break with reality. I mean seriously, a guy gets nailed to some timber, supposedly dies, put into a climate controlled cave and two days later he's up and at 'em; all of which is highly detailed decades, centuries later by clearly unbiased reporting. Apathy and dismissal may seem appropriate but really, mockery and humor are more constructive, there is no benefit in taking dan or people like him seriously (unless we're talking about those involved and/or supportive of the insurrection last week in DC, then we need to because it did involve some dominionists (of which I am sure dan is one (dominionist, not insurrectionist, (I don't think))))

You are always quoting an imaginary figure named cheeses, what real world evidence do you have of this so called cheeses and whatever jiggery do he supposedly perpetrated on the ignorant masses (present company included)

My take on deism is that it's a belief in a supreme being who created...whatever, and then went on to do other things with no further interest or intervention. I don't see that as anti-religion so much as religion-lite, all the supreme being without any of the associated guilt baggage. Poof, I made you, there you go, have at it and good luck. The odd thing is that, when it comes to theists they claim to have knowledge of their supreme being via faerie tales and mythologies whereas deists can't have any of that since their belief is their supreme being pooped them out and walked away. So how could deists even ever have a clue about a supreme being? And why even bother creating, much less believing in an utterly indifferent creator who hasn't a clue what you've been up to? How can you believe in something that, in your belief states that the object of your belief has had nothing to do with you after initially creating your world? It would like being a child of an anonymous sperm donor and always worrying about what your 'creator' might think about this thought or that action. Sure you don't know who your father is, only that biologically you had to have had one. And in that case you at least know you have/had a 'father', somewhere, evidenced by your own existence. The same can't be said of a supreme being. That's just wishful thinking.

My mind went to the Wizard of Oz, put em up, put em up...come on, put em up...

If you believed all that you wouldn't expend the energy you do to visit the fora here. You find satisfaction in...not so much arguing or disagreeing with Leo the Lion (odd that he picked a lion as his avatar, considering their gustatorial delight in having x tians for dinner) but in sorting out and putting down your thoughts. I have no interest nor any false hope that I could convince anyone to change the way they think but it's more just an organizational exercise, putting down thoughts on paper as it were

Deism seems like that last stop before getting off the religion/belief/supernatural being train. Hardly any reason at all to consider one's self a deist, no reward (or punishment), has no affect on one's life and, unlike those ultra-sure religio-peeps who just know their superduper task master exists, deists have no reason to even mention their 'belief' which really is only slightly less than saying, 'I don't believe in anything'. I guess deism is for people weaning themselves off of the supernatural-being teat.

Be a Mohel, the job sucks but the tips a good

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/08/21919/

Which is why I have no sympathy for the Christians who insist that their beliefs, unencumbered by fact, be globally accepted as truth and when they are argued with, disagreed with and mocked...which is why I have no use for them. Other than as foils on which to (rightfully) blame all the worlds ill upon

Well see if you're going to apply logic to a religious argument then really, what's the point? Religion by definition is illogical. goD took care of the poop and pee, methane was used to power the ark, and as soon as life recovered from the global flood, scavengers would evolve once again and eat all those dead....oh yea, I see what you mean. When facts confound fiction, faith

Well to begin with, there are well established proofs of the flood, dinosaurs, 6000 years...who am I kidding, it's nothing but fever dreams of the addled mind