So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

>> ^MaxWilder:

@SDGundamX
The point, in my opinion, is to remove religion from its current place on a pedestal where it expects to remain untouched. That is the first step toward general acceptance of those who do not believe. You simply cannot have a society of equals when a large segment of the population is socially permitted to mock, insult, and belittle another segment without retaliation. And remember, this insulting of religion that Pat advises is purely intended as a rebuttal to religious verbal attacks.
Perhaps this isn't the single best way of effecting that change, but I believe it is a strong choice. It has been said by some more intelligent than me that if you can't use reason to change a person's illogical conclusions, then mockery might be the answer.


I guess what I'm saying is that in a society that respects free speech, everyone must have the right to mock, insult, and belittle each other. BUT, in a society that respects peace, it seems only logical that we condemn those who use such tactics in the strongest terms without descending to their level. I believe in the old adage "When you fight with a pig you both get dirty -- but the pig likes it." The religious nutters are looking for a fight--they're looking to play the victim, to show how oppressed they are, to reaffirm their worldview is correct. I'm convinced that such mockery and insults when directed back at them only prove to them (in their mind) that they are right.

I think for people who are on the fence about their religion, the mockery just makes them defensive and less likely to critically evaluate the rational arguments that are actually made. That's why I strongly disagree with Dawkins (who has been one of the most vocal supporters of using mockery) about its use. I think at the end of the day it just pushes people apart instead of bringing them together.

@SDGundamX I find some logical lackings in that example.

First off, the machine difference. If I shoot someone, the gun is technically doing it but the person controlling it held liable. If I run someone over with my car, that is even more abstract, as the car is being controlled by a wheel which I then control, yet, I am still liable. I don't see any other legal justification for the difference in this case, unless you are saying machines like alarms need to be held liable in the same light that citizens are. There is no compelling logical distinction to make an alarm that makes a false alarm any less liable for those whom programmed it than one who shoots a gun which has an E-trigger. (devils advocate here, I obviously don't have a problem with false alarms being protected speech)

I also beg to differ about intentionally. The only provable intention of speech is what is said. If I say fire, the only thing you can actually prove is that I said fire. You can't show that I meant to cause a panic, you can't show that I saw fire and said fire. You can't pretend to know, beyond a reasonable doubt about intentionally of speech, it is ALWAYS circumstantial. Intentionally of speech doesn't pass our own critical evidence criteria. I can't actually believe this legal framework even exists. ( Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I do not salute you!)

And the "is dangerous" can only be use in an a posteriori sense, not an A priori sense. For example, what if I yelled fire in a crowded theater but instead of panic, only laughter was had? What if I steped on a pair of pliers, yelled pliers in my reaction and people thought I meant fire, and someone else screamed fire? I am liable for causing a falsity of a fire claim? Or what if I yelled pliers guess someone would think I said fire and cause a panic for me? It is all very very wishy washy for matters of A priori laws. You only know if something as abstract as speech will be dangerous after it has been said. You can try and make good judgement based on past experience, but that is no grounds to create A priori laws for words and conditions.

Let us look at the example again. A man was taunting a dog, like a god damned fool no less. However, the action resulted in no harm. So, I ask, where is the danger? It is theoretical danger of a sort that didn't happen in this case, yet, he is still guilty of a crime of danger. A danger that didn't exist is the crime for which he stands guilty, a mockery of justice. There are MANY things that I do that don't have a useful purpose as far as the greater good of society. Are you saying that only rights that do good are to be allowed? Are we to have enumerated rights now instead of enumerated restrictions? The kind of document I always took the constitution for is everything is fair game...you don't have to justify any action, ever. The exception to that is just that, the exceptions. We restrict the absolute freedom of people to harm other people, but as for everything else, it is allowed even without proper justification for its existence and participation. It seems a tenancy for people whom create moral laws to abide by this logic, but only sometimes; when concerning an issue that evokes a certain kind of emotional response thing change. For other issues that their heart strings don't match up with, they won't accept the heart string justification of others, saying they are creating a theocracy or separation of church and state or some other non-sense (not that the separation is non-sense, but that other peoples moral claims are any less valuble because they come from religion is preposterous, and insulting).

I think it is pretty unfair to characterize the judge in the way you have. He basically has the a slightly different position on the first amendment than yourself, most likely revolving around the core arguments I just set out (I don't know that, though). I don't think me calling you the same thing you called him; IE "not knowing how the first amendment works" would be fair either, because it is fair to say that throughout legal history, the decisions handed down from the courts have been contradictory in many regards. I could name 3 other case law examples where this should be protected speech, but throwing around case law is just silly, I am resolved to say this is a very convoluted subject...and more so than should be. We should seek some clarity in a legal sense of what the first amendment is all about, philosophically, or else this debate will never end to any non-contradictory, case by case way.

Edited for grammarerar

Satan doesn't make you do anything..he merely tempts. It's not Satans fault that someone sinned. He couldn't legally be blamed for any sin that humans do. Our nature is fallen, that is why we're such easy targets. We naturally want to do things which aren't right. The flesh and spirit are at war with one another. The flesh has insatiable desires which never end, and lead people into self destruction. We're willing victims, which is the problem. This is why we must be born again. Until we put on the righteousness of Christ, we don't stand a chance.

The bible is more than a cautionary tale, it is our true history. What is seen by the eye is the surface of the spiritual war that is underlaying all things. Every person you meet is a soldier on one side or the other, and a war is being waged for his very soul. What comes out of his mouth are the weapons of this war, the sword of truth or the flaming arrows of the enemy. There are no coincidences, because all things are being orchastrated.

Since you do appreciate the bible, I will recommend the book of Ecclesiastes to you. It is a book of sayings of wisdom, written by a King who had done it all, seen it all, had every thing a man could ever possibly want and more. It his cautionary tale about life.

Also, I honestly don't see how you think that the one who controls life and death is evil for presiding over it. Over 2 million people are born and die every day. God is sovereign, and He can adjudicate His creation how He pleases. As He said to job, "Have you ever in all your life caused a day to dawn?" He didn't need anyones help in making the Earth, and He certainly doesn't need anyones advice in running it. It was *because* of the evil man was doing that He brought His judgement to bear.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Change 'Satan' to greed and self interest, and I'm pretty much on board with what you are saying in this comment. I think attaching greed and self-interest to a demon allows us to put one degree of separation between the good and bad side of our own nature - hindering us from taking responsibility for the ill we actively or passively commit on others. "Satan made me do it."
I think there is much wisdom in the Bible, so long as we look at these stories as cautionary tales rather than literal truth; so long as we look at these stories as the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of a just God - because there are a number of horrors perpetrated by God that far surpass the evil of men.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This "ridiculous caped horned boogeyman" is the image that Satan prefers, and the secular media portrays. It's the image the spiritually undiscerning have of Satan, that he is some overt and absurd caricature of evil. Nothing can be further from the truth. Satan masquarades as an angel of light. When he shows himself to someone, it's under the pretense of good not evil. He is a master manipulator and tactician, more intelligent and powerful than any other creation of God. He shows himself to be a giver of secret knowledge, a liberator of humanity. Someone who has our best interests at heart. His influence is everywhere, in our culture and media, from main street to wall street to pennsylvnia avenue. His product is sin and everyone is buying, and all those who do become his slaves.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Unsaved people don't believe in Satan. You are confusing love with mockery. Satan is one of the most poorly constructed characters in all of Christian mythology - a ridiculous caped, horned boogeyman designed to frighten young children and gullible adults into going to church. When South Park or Tenacious D features Satan, they aren't praising Satan, they are making fun of religion. >> ^shinyblurry:
Unsaved people love this idea of devil as some sort of freedom fighter..but that wasn't the case.

Change 'Satan' to greed and self interest, and I'm pretty much on board with what you are saying in this comment. I think attaching greed and self-interest to a demon allows us to put one degree of separation between the good and bad side of our own nature - hindering us from taking responsibility for the ill we actively or passively commit on others. "Satan made me do it."

I think there is much wisdom in the Bible, so long as we look at these stories as cautionary tales rather than literal truth; so long as we look at these stories as the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of a just God - because there are a number of horrors perpetrated by God that far surpass the evil of men.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This "ridiculous caped horned boogeyman" is the image that Satan prefers, and the secular media portrays. It's the image the spiritually undiscerning have of Satan, that he is some overt and absurd caricature of evil. Nothing can be further from the truth. Satan masquarades as an angel of light. When he shows himself to someone, it's under the pretense of good not evil. He is a master manipulator and tactician, more intelligent and powerful than any other creation of God. He shows himself to be a giver of secret knowledge, a liberator of humanity. Someone who has our best interests at heart. His influence is everywhere, in our culture and media, from main street to wall street to pennsylvnia avenue. His product is sin and everyone is buying, and all those who do become his slaves.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Unsaved people don't believe in Satan. You are confusing love with mockery. Satan is one of the most poorly constructed characters in all of Christian mythology - a ridiculous caped, horned boogeyman designed to frighten young children and gullible adults into going to church. When South Park or Tenacious D features Satan, they aren't praising Satan, they are making fun of religion. >> ^shinyblurry:
Unsaved people love this idea of devil as some sort of freedom fighter..but that wasn't the case.

God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation how He pleases. God caused a global flood which killed everyone in the world except for 8 people. God recalls the lives of over a million people every day. It's in His hands. It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily. He has the power over life and death and is well within His rights to use it. Who are you tell God what He can or cannot do with it? This entire world belongs to Him.

You seem to be under some illusion that people are generally good. They're not. Have you ever read a history book? People are generally sinful. God dealt with people as they deserved. Are you blind or just stupid? Do you not see the evil going on in this world? Everywhere you put a human authority, you have corruption and death. There aren't any innocents here. I think you are just naive.

I don't know what your sins are, but you do. You are guilty and without Jesus you will stand condemned for them at judgement day. Your sin, btw, isn't just not honoring God, it's also blaspheming Him and speaking all sorts of vile things against Him. You just can't seem to keep your mouth shut about Him. You gravitate to everything I do or say about God here, just to get your mockery in. Well, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole:

Galatians 6:7

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Satan doesn't force people to do evil, nor do people get confused about what is right and wrong. Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong. God allows people to use their free will choice, and He allows them to reap the consequences of their actions. He gives them every chance to repent and gives them fair warning of the consequences if they don't. Everyone has a real chance to prove themselves in this world, and if they prove themselves to be evil, then that is what they are. God isn't looking to send people to hell, but if they prefer doing evil then they deserve to go there.
This isn't about what you consider fair, lets just lay that joke to rest. This is about your desire for personal autonomy and your rejection of Gods authority. It's your desire to sin without consequence. Like every other unrepentent sinner, you are a hypocrite who shakes his fist at God because he knows full well that he is guilty and doesn't want to be judged for it. You refuse to come to God for forgiveness because you prefer your sins.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

In one breath you tell me "Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong." Then in the next you say God doesn't give a shit about what I consider fair? I'm just supposed to shut up, obey, and worship? The list of atrocities committed by your God in the old testament is long and thoroughly revolting, and I'm just supposed to swallow it all and sing his praises?
Talk about hypocrisy!!!
You want to put a joke to rest, stop with that bullshit about wanting to sin without consequence! I know full well that actions harmful to one's self or others have consequences right here and now. No need to wait for divine justice. And the only "sin" I am committing as far as you know is the one about not worshiping God. But honestly, that's all part and parcel with my understanding that he doesn't exist. So unless you have some specifics about my "sins", your assumptions are meaningless and just make you look like a judgmental ass.
"Think for yourself. Otherwise people will think for you, to their own benefit." - Max 11:13

This "ridiculous caped horned boogeyman" is the image that Satan prefers, and the secular media portrays. It's the image the spiritually undiscerning have of Satan, that he is some overt and absurd caricature of evil. Nothing can be further from the truth. Satan masquarades as an angel of light. When he shows himself to someone, it's under the pretense of good not evil. He is a master manipulator and tactician, more intelligent and powerful than any other creation of God. He shows himself to be a giver of secret knowledge, a liberator of humanity. Someone who has our best interests at heart. His influence is everywhere, in our culture and media, from main street to wall street to pennsylvnia avenue. His product is sin and everyone is buying, and all those who do become his slaves.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Unsaved people don't believe in Satan. You are confusing love with mockery. Satan is one of the most poorly constructed characters in all of Christian mythology - a ridiculous caped, horned boogeyman designed to frighten young children and gullible adults into going to church. When South Park or Tenacious D features Satan, they aren't praising Satan, they are making fun of religion. >> ^shinyblurry:
Unsaved people love this idea of devil as some sort of freedom fighter..but that wasn't the case.

Unsaved people don't believe in Satan. You are confusing love with mockery. Satan is one of the most poorly constructed characters in all of Christian mythology - a ridiculous caped, horned boogeyman designed to frighten young children and gullible adults into going to church. When South Park or Tenacious D features Satan, they aren't praising Satan, they are making fun of religion. >> ^shinyblurry:
Unsaved people love this idea of devil as some sort of freedom fighter..but that wasn't the case.

Fear. Mockery. Next will be hyperbole. I'm crossing my fingers.

@SDGundamX

The point, in my opinion, is to remove religion from its current place on a pedestal where it expects to remain untouched. That is the first step toward general acceptance of those who do not believe. You simply cannot have a society of equals when a large segment of the population is socially permitted to mock, insult, and belittle another segment without retaliation. And remember, this insulting of religion that Pat advises is purely intended as a rebuttal to religious verbal attacks.

Perhaps this isn't the single best way of effecting that change, but I believe it is a strong choice. It has been said by some more intelligent than me that if you can't use reason to change a person's illogical conclusions, then mockery might be the answer.

@hpqp

Thank you for your suggestion. Let's get right on that.

From Wikipedia:

Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.”

From dictionary.com:

In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.” The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection ...

Looking carefully at these definitions, it would seem that claiming to believe that the purpose of life is joy in the present and then to go on and wish for harm to others is not actually sarcasm--its hypocrisy: a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I puked. Sorry Knives, but an old, dying pride prohibits me from voting up this mockery. It should be funny (If she wasn't so pathetic) but it's skin-crawling. And the Sgt. from the other video seems like he would suck his own cock because he loves himself so much.
God? Why do I fester with so much hatred towards douches in the uniform?


I should elaborate one point. I love those who wear the uniforms, just not those that parade the uniform for self-gain or self-importance.

I puked. Sorry Knives, but an old, dying pride prohibits me from voting up this mockery. It should be funny (If she wasn't so pathetic) but it's skin-crawling. And the Sgt. from the other video seems like he would suck his own cock because he loves himself so much.

God? Why do I fester with so much hatred towards douches in the uniform?

That bloke is sort of famous now. Just this morning, a lonely article in some regional Austrian tabloid'ish newspaper was the only info about it. By now, he has been featured on the first page over at every single one of the major German news outlets.

Fucking brilliant, public mockery ftw
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Lol. That's just lovely. In reply to this comment by radx:
Austria offically recognized colanders as religious headgear. A pastafarian went all the way: his ID.