THE SEVENTEEN-HUNDRED-YEAR OPPRESSION OF HUMAN HAPPINESS
About 300 A.D., Christian theologians discovered the ultimate neocheating technique to control human beings. That technique was to link guilt with sex [Re: Section Four Neotech Reference Encyclopedia]. With that technique, the Christian church rose to its height in power, causing Western civilization to crumble into the mystical Dark Ages as human well-being and happiness sank to the lowest level in recorded history.

The history of Christian oppression of individual life, rights, values, happiness, pleasure, and sexuality is outlined on the following pages:


CHRISTIAN OPPRESSION OF HAPPINESS


(from research by Morton M. Hunt and others)


100 A.D. - 385 A.D.


Roman Empire still appeared vibrant, but was surrendering to a new religion...Christianity. Rome plunged into altruism and asceticism.

Roman pagans began persecuting those Christians who became altruistic fanatics and used any means to meet their goals of destroying the life-enhancing and productive aspects of Roman civilization. Those neocheating Christian leaders had the dual objective of wiping out the pleasures of human life as well as destroying the high standard of living enjoyed by the Romans. The early Christians heroically formed tightly-knit anarchist groups for effective protection from the oppression of the bureaucratic Roman government while laying the foundations for their own much greater oppressions.


385 A.D. - 1000 A.D.


The rise of the unkempt ascetics (hippies) in Egypt. Based on Christian self-torture and denial (e.g., St. Simon).

Christianity discovered a fast, neocheating route to power -- the foisting of guilt onto innocent value producers. As an effective rallying symbol, they found and elevated to martyr-level status an obscure historical individual who died three centuries earlier. That individual ironically was a gentle, appealing rebel who heroically stood up to the injustices of the parasitical-elite authorities -- the same type authorities who three centuries later usurped and mystified him for their own dishonest exploitation. That individual, their new symbol, was named Jesus Christ. ...Jesus has been done a rank injustice by the Catholic church.

Christians became increasingly preoccupied with sex as they struggled against lust (e.g., by burning off fingers to resist temptation). Thinly veiled, neurotic eroticism steadily increased within the church.

St. Augustine (born 354 A.D.) promoted guilt through his books: (1) Confessions -- self-accusations of his pagan, lustful youth. He converted to a Christian in 386 A.D., then gained power through neocheating by hatefully using guilt to turn the goodness and pleasures of man against himself. Promulgated how all are born between feces and urine. (2)The City of God -- his major work -- speculates how babies might be born from women "uncankered by lust and sex". Demonstrates passionate hatred for human life. St. Augustine became a master neocheater in achieving respect and power by making problems where none existed. He destroyed values rather than create them.

By the 5th Century, marriage came under church domination.

The decline into dark ages coincided with the rise of Christianity. Collapsing under the Christian stranglehold, 6th Century Rome was repeatedly ravaged and looted. One million population was reduced to fifty thousand. The city lay in rubble and ruins. The Senate ceased for lack of qualified men. The hygiene, science, and culture of Rome was abandoned as Christianity took hold.

By 585 A.D., Catholics argued that women did not have mortal souls and debated if women were even human beings.

Sex was reduced by Christianity to an unromantic, harsh, ugly act with penance easily and hypocritically granted to men whenever required. Women became pieces of disposable property.

Clergy and popes turned to prostitutes and neurotic sex. (e.g., The Pope of 904 A.D. practiced incest and was a lecher with children).

By the 9th Century, Christianity dominated. Women were considered property of men. The church sanctioned wife-beating. Men were merely fined by the church for killing women.

For the Catholic clergy, sex without values (e.g., prostitute sex, orgy sex, even forced rape or sadistic sex) was not a serious offense, but sex with values (e.g., loving or valuing a woman) was a high sin with severe penalties. For, love and valuing resist control by "authorities", therefore, had to be squelched.

St. Jerome stated that he who too ardently loved his wife was an adulterer.

Christian marital sex was performed only in one position and then only to conceive a child. Sex was never to be performed during penance nor on Sundays, Wednesdays, Fridays, holiday seasons.

The major Christian sin was not sex, but pleasure.


1000 A.D. - 1500 A.D.

Courtly love reflected happiness and contradicted the malevolence of religion. Churchmen feared and fought courtly love (e.g., St. Thomas stated that to kiss and touch a woman with delight, even without thought of fornication, was a mortal sin).

The struggle was between oppressive religion and renaissance free thinking. Also, the struggle was between papal power and the new Aristotelian ideas.

In the 1300s, an ominous new interest in witchcraft and exorcism began appearing in the church. Priests fulminated about the evil powers of women who formed sex pacts with the Devil.

By 1450, the dichotomy was complete and the dogma was established by the Catholic church that all physically desirable women were evil witches. The church was losing its power, and demonizing women was their means to fight the rediscovering of human joyfulness brought on by the emerging Renaissance.

Renaissance noblemen in the 15th Century equated beauty to good. To counter this trend toward good and beauty, the church attacked through the Pope. The Catholic church developed a new breed of neocheating malefactors not known before...the inquisitors who were backed by a series of papal pronouncements and bulls. The Pope set up two theologians (Jacob Sprenger and Henry Kramer) to act as inquisitors. Sprenger and Kramer wrote a widely influential book dealing with the "evils" of women and witchcraft. That led to the burning to death of tens of thousands of innocent women during the Renaissance.

Crosscurrents and contradictions -- the "lady ideal" projected by the happy, benevolent spirit of the Renaissance versus the "evil witch" projected by the unhappy, malevolent spirit of the church.

King Henry VIII was the first major figure to combine love and marriage. He waged a long battle with Bishop Wolsey and Pope Clement VII about his divorce and subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn.

Renaissance enlightenment made sex seem not so sinful and disgusting as the church insisted. The middle class began to associate sex with love.


1500 - 1700


The Reformation combined with the enlightened Renaissance by considering sex in marriage as wholesome and free of guilt. But the malevolent Christian position continued to burn women as witches.

Martin Luther battled Catholic asceticism by advocating the enjoyment of every pleasure that was not "sinful". Luther lived in a lusty "eat, drink, and be merry" style. He fought Rome and claimed that celibacy was invented by the Devil. He insisted that priests could marry and asserted that marriage was not a sacrament at all, but a civil matter. Luther asserted that sexual impulses were both natural and irrepressible. He broke from Rome and married. He cheerfully loved his wife and held pleasurable sex in marriage as good. Luther's reformation rapidly spread across Northern Europe.

John Calvin (the father of the Bluenoses) was the opposite of Martin Luther. Calvin was sour, malevolent, and had a ferocious theology based on human depravity and the wrath of God. He was an unhappy ascetic who had ulcers, tuberculosis, and kidney stones; he considered life of little value. Calvin set up a brutally strict theocracy in Geneva that allowed no dancing, fancy clothes, or jewelry. The death penalty was imposed for adultery. Even legitimate love was stringently regulated. Engagements were limited to six weeks. No lingering at romance was allowed. Weddings were grave with no revelry. The Calvinist marriage had two functions: (1) to produce children, and (2) to reduce sexual desires.

Most Puritans, however, were quite unlike the inhuman joylessness of Calvin. But a few vocal fanatics such as John Knox in the United States continued to pile misery onto others. His Blue laws of the 1650s were against amusements, smoking, drinking, gambling, fancy clothing. He also promoted public whippings, scarlet letters, executions for adulterers, and the Salem "witch" executions (executed 26 women and two dogs in 1692).

Early Puritan traits were mainly stern expressions masking mischief and romance. Church trial records show much "sinning" existed. But only sex outside marriage was attacked. Puritans were very much for sex inside marriage and condemned the virtue-of-virginity concept. Most Puritans were tenderly romantic and good lovers.

The image of the sexless Puritan with a stony heart is false. For example, the 17th Century Puritan John Milton (Paradise Lost) projected a healthy view of *spam filter*. He displayed idealistic, romantic views about marriage. Moreover, Milton sent tracts to Parliament urging modern-day, easy divorce. Milton's Paradise Lost projects a benevolent view of Adam and Eve in a romantic-love context. Milton rejected St. Augustine's malevolent views of life, sex, and pleasure.

16th Century Puritans combined the ideals of romantic love with the normality of sex in marriage. Woman's status improved under Puritanism (e.g., if beaten, women could separate and even divorce.). Property rights and inheritance laws improved. Marriage became a civil contract.


1700 - 1800


The rationalists in this new Age of Reason rejected the gloom of Christianity. They scrapped the church's portrait of woman as evil.

18th Century love rejected Christian anti-sexual values and idealized the mythical Don Juan, who was impeccably mannered, lustful, haughty. Love was reduced to mere sensuality and pleasurable sport with the motive to seduce and then desert.


1800 - 1900

Religious Victorian men, on the other hand, were patriarchal and stern. But they played that role at their own sexual expense.

Out of religious Victorianism arose a great hunger for a fantasy sex life. Flagellation, pornography, and prostitution rapidly increased.

Capitalistic economics were greatly accelerating the dissolution of medieval religious ties along with their unjust social customs and racism.

The religious Victorian home was threatened by talk of female suffrage, divorce reforms, and free love.

Victorianism was a reactionary, desperate delaying action (in collusion with the church) against the inevitable changes made by an emerging industrial civilization. Religion-oriented Victorians tried to fight change via religious coercion, government force, and police activities.


1900 - 1950


Margaret Sanger staged a historic fight for birth control claiming that a woman's body belonged to her alone. She published birth-control information in 1914 and opened birth-control clinics in 1916. Outraged Roman Catholic elements had her arrested and jailed.


1950 - 1980


Modern sexual revolution toward openness and honesty has caused the church's malevolent influence over sexuality to wane. In a last desperate effort, "modern" and new-wave churches evolved that adopted existentialist and fun views of sex in order to diminish the value and importance of sex. Thus, those churches kept control by undercutting people's self-esteem. Without self-esteem, one cannot experience abiding happiness or psychuous pleasures. Without self-esteem, a person will continue to be controlled by neocheaters using the tools of mysticism.


1980 - PRESENT


An ominous rise of overt mysticism, born-again Christianity, and fundamentalist religions signal a turn back toward malevolent views of life, love, and sex. A revival of fundamentalism and theocratic concepts are conditions ultimately sought by all mystical leaders. No matter what deceptive facades they present, all mystical leaders are destructive neocheaters who ultimately want to reign with murderous power. But today, for the first time in history, mysticism and neocheating are being irreversibly undermined by the spreading Neotech matrix.



edit missing last text.

Its a shame what religion has done to Christianity

But what was your point of this post?

GW I think you're great but sometimes even you're threads make me wince and I'm a atheist too LOL

Wince? I think the wince should come with a post that asked you as an Atheist that reads a subject line asking if you are such because your dreams died.

"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.” Edmond de Goncourt

Hey GW, I like that quote....that is very true...

This is the stuff that makes me roll my eyes. Even the other posters have asked whats the point? There is none, other than apparently to voice some hatred of Christianity. This is the polar opposite of "fundies" as the anti-religion set like to call them here. It is as offensive as some brainwashed freak screaming that you're going to hell because you don't believe what he or she does, then going home and having fried twinkies and pork-rinds for dinner.

You're entitled to flame here all you wish. I didn't write the history other people live.

<.<...

I've wanted to post something like this on here for a while, but I'm horrid at doing so.

So, thanks GW.

But yes, the point is simple: Due to the more authoritairative(did I spell this right?) people in christianity, the world has suffered as a whole(in terms of humanity's perceptions of things such as sex, ect). In the words of Nietzsche-

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.
Sec. 130(Of "The Gay Science")

Im Glad you caught that too

where could somebody get the idea that you hate Christians? you must be all consumed in your hatred for us, no matter where our stand is. vengeance is mine sayeth the atheist.

randomhit10

I'm glad you found it informative. There is an authoritarian complex attached to any religious affiliation, I think. One makes of themselves a subservient to the will of something they've never seen, but that asks them to obey it on word alone. And those words are written and were put into context, by men. Just as sinful as those that read it are, for being born into that state from which they need saving. If they follow the rules. If they believe a certain way, which then precludes them from thinking anything less, or anything more. Else their very soul is imperiled.

And I think that's what imparts a paranoia, a viciousness, a self-conscious emotional reaction between the camps of those that accept that conservative authoritarian dominion over themselves, and those that shall have none of it, at all. One side, in most every faith, sees the other side as worthy of conversion, while they that have already converted continue to supplicate and obey what they believe asks it of them, so that they please it and it rewards them when their dead. Meanwhile beseech for the happiness one wishes in their life, beg for the energy that empowers the dreams one can take for themselves and make real if they but know they're all they've got and they're worth it.

What I think is expressed in this excerpted article about 1,700 years of human happiness destroyed, is that it was faith that permitted it to be done. Instead of having and being inspired, to believe one is perfect and wholesome and worthy of the greatest joy all their days. They're told from the outset their burdened with being bad, by nature. And all that they are has to constantly police which side of that self is inspiring them forward. The bad or the implied good that is set down as a religious moral dictate that reigns sovereign over body, mind and spirit. So one has to abdicate their full power as being creator of what they are and want, to believing there's this authoritarian figure that sits in judgment if what one feels and does with their intimate sense of self, is suppose to be there, doing that thing, for it's self, by the rules. Else one is damned. Else one sins, more and again. Else one may disappoint daddy.

It's horrific that our history saw the loss of our cunning women and men (Herbalists). Because at one time the church said working with herbs, natural healing, could be tools plied by the devil. When, if one believes in god, what more precious gift than to have one's neighbor care to heal thyself? How is that wrong?

So, I guess I posted this thread as a defense. When Atheists can be questioned as to their motives for attending a spirituality forum, as if by being Atheist they aren't really suppose to be here, or know what that is about. When flamers can live to apply subtle innuendos from a religious perspective, and imply Atheists must be held in contempt because they don't bow to fiction, don't join the herd, dare to think people are worth more than making slaves of themselves to someone else's words, and call themselves christ like, righteous, spiritual, and one's that belong in these forums because that's how they see the spirit in spirituality, I think it speaks to what the OP article tables out as 1,700 years of religious oppression of happiness and how there are many people, myself included, that don't believe in a god that oppresses and destroys what it creates, because it can. Man does.

And that's why the thread asking if Atheists are so, because their dreams died is a beautiful example of the revolution against such entrenched tradition. I read that title and it's author, and then I opened the link. And while many here say they read things into my posts, that I don't even put there myself, I can then say I read in the opening part it's intention well enough. And what is so perfect is the microcosmic/macrocosmic truth that transcends any god philosophy. The small world is a reflection of the larger one. As to are the currents of evolution in it's patterns of it's society. So what started as a flame bate insult to Atheists, as one may perceive it to be in a personal opinion, has morphed into what some have called a "Love In". And if tradition, of 1700 years, says anything at all, that's not suppose to happen in a forum of believers and non, in a thread that asks why non are there in the first place, or why they exist at all. And that, that realization that underneath the man made philosophy we're all people that want to live and love and be loved, and shine as our very best selves, hit home. And that's beautiful! Because that is reclaiming the happiness that is suppose to be alive in what even jesus called the temple self. Passion, self, life. Have dreams? Go get them! It's life, and it's what ever you make of it, if you first believe your worth it.


That's the message beneath the lines of every OP like this. Religious institutionalized control of mind body spirit. And the antithesis to that, the revolution of mind, body and spirit is to ask how is there ever going to be world unity if we believe god is a segregationist!? If you love yourself as much as you love god, you wouldn't ask him to do for you what you can do for yourself and you wouldn't see others as less than you are because they're different. Instead, maybe they can learn you something about what it means to be a fellow human being, in a different way.

be careful that the revolution is not worse than the cause you say is the problem....Lenin, Marx, Hitler, etc all spawned revolutions but the outcome was worse than the cause....True Christians bind up no one against their will, deny no one life to the fullest, or cause anyone to reject any doctrine that allows someone to be all they can....we do it by a different set of rules they are designed to benefit all...no matter how you pund on us this will never change....no matter how bad you try to make us look the truth is the same....i have children and in that life i do many things for them they could do for themselves but i do it because i love them and i like to help them along?.... is that bad?...but if i believe that God does that for me i am an idiot in you book...how can you claim to be so open minded and tell me i'm blind and dumb in the same breath?...in 50,000 years i have oppressed no one, caused no one loss of their right to live any way they want....so who are you trying to convince?...me or you?

randomhit10

definition of ascetic: strictly self-disciplined and avoiding any pleasures or luxuries. (Oxford Dictionary of Current English)

If the author thinks hippies were ascetic, he doesn't know much about the 60's. Guess he never went to a Grateful Dead concert.

right on.....i sure don't remember being ascetic....lol

randomhit10

Ah for the love of mud and dancing bears. Miss you still, Jerry.

I think his use of the word hippy is in the context of the time, as the ascetics would have been as revolutionary as were the hippies of the 60's, to the establishment. This explains more along those lines of thought:The History of Love

It would appear you've convinced yourself this thread is personal. As stated by myself and the OP author, it is a history representative of the institution. And while bringing communism into the topic is OT to say the least, it's not surprising that one would equate that to the theme of this thread. Again, that would be a personal implication that the antithesis of faith based society is likened to what applied in communism.

I second that wholeheartedly.

Ok, am I the first person who has not heard of the source of this article? Pax Neo-Tech?

I read a great deal fo their site and it reads like psychotic MLM guerilla marketing tactics combined with the zealotry of Scientology. Very bizarre. So, because I wanted to see what others thought of the organization I started to do some searches through Google, The very first thing I found is that they're in hot water with a lot better business bureaus, people who have bought their books are flat ticked off (Ripoff Report). Some of their former employees are furious as well (FindLaw). There was a ton of other feedback from a lot of sources and very very little of it was positive.

I don't know if this is a group you support GW, but I know from reading a little about them and reading their material, to me, they seem AS suspect as say Wallbuilders who is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to see some outside reviews that explains their postition and strategy better than they do for themselves. I couldn't find anything.

GW, Interestingly this sounds very true to history (as true as it gets that is) I don't know how you do it but you find the meaty stuff...Very interesting read....

Nice bit of research there MissMelsWell. It’s good that some people take the time to check out the credibility of information given over the internet.
Looks like this sites credibility is on a return flight to Buenos Aries.

Irish

I'm usually pretty good about doing that. If I didn't I'd be gullible.

The article piqued my interest because it was SO negatively written and I found myself saying "well gee, I could write an article about the history of Christianity that was nothing but glowing and positive" so I wanted to see what kind of author would write something so obviously skewed. If it had been an article that was glowingly positive, I'd have done the same research. I prefer objective and balanced truth/opinions ... I want to see the pro's and con's of everthing.

Glad you enjoyed the read.

...

Lenin, Marx, and Hitler delivered on the promises of their respective Revoultions(though, Marx and Lenin were part of the same revolution(s). First, the Communist Revolution to overthrow the Tsar, and then the Bolshevik Revolution). Revolution is almost always, at the time, seen as a *good* thing, or else it wouldn't be a Revolution. Revolution takes numbers, and people willing to fight for whatever they believe in. Now, as we look back, those revolutions are considered 'wrong'(though, the Communist and Bolshevik revoutlions in Russia equalized the sexes, the races, the religions and the different incomes of people. Not such a bad thing...). However...hind-sight is 20/20, foresight is about as good as my vision without glasses.

<.<

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Simple. What we think as 'right', now, later generations might think as 'wrong'.

>.>

Viva le' Revolution!

look back. i was not the one who brought up the analogy of revolution....my point is before preaching revolution and preaching the overthrow of some belief or group, make sure you have an enemy and make sure you are better than the problem you plan to fix....but the topic at hand is how i can blast Christians for what they believe in some way that i have not done before...how can i group everyone who believes in God, whether they are nut cases or not into a unified group so i can make them all look like idiots, mock, laugh, belittle them for what they believe and yet maintain a stance of being oppressed for myself...correct me if i am wrong....your foresight should be fine for this...and you are correct in you idea that history will judge someday.

randomhit10

ps....thanks hairston630 for your comment....

I flame, you bait. Works out nicely too I see. Fortunately, I'm not the only one as you've seen.



Even your source material is trashy. Keep posting though, I like all the spare ammo.

The article didnt say anything about the pope that killed the Knights Templar.

That would be, if not mistaken, Pope Clement V , with the blessing of King Philip IV of France.

Gw a suggestion if I may would be to Pm mako and ask his opinon on the validity of this article ...Or Beowolf, or even Gideon mage...these are really noted for bieng real histrorians or history buffs all three of them.......Before we are all ready to wrtie this off as invalid why not we ask the experts???? what do you think....

I actually don't think it's historically all that inaccurate. It's just the bias that runs through it is blatant and pretty obnoxious sounding.

Imagine me writing the history of the Nazi party, from a pro Nazi point of view.

Or a history of the UK and the importance of Christianity in it's formation, and how secular progressives have tried to destroy it through the ages.

So it's not the validity of the history itself, but the tone it takes, right from the get-go.

It's not necessarily an invalid position, but it certainly is written in an anti-Christian tone.

i didn't notice a tone, i know the thread starter was sharing a article she found interesting, she enjoys learning reading lots of things... i too feel its not inaccurate either based on what i myself know historically , little is objective one has to keep that in mind with anything and really the article is colored by the reader other than that its just words on a page it has no inherent meaning. by itself also christianity has dominated humanity for years and especially in this time, dark ages it permeated everything .... .... ...IMO...putting aside this tone what is your opinion ..... ,thanks for your input gumby very interseting and candid POV ..i will be curious to see what mako says too.....

Like Eggumby, I saw the tone to be biased and agenda pumping as well. If you're going to do a history of Christianity, you cannot leave out all the good parts. And despite what anyone might think. there ARE good parts.

now i am curious as to the validity of the article ...mako is a historian you may have read some of his stuff, he is a genius on religious history so i have pmed for his input ...he will also include what was good of those times, I don't think too much it was the dark ages the roman empire had fallen people were hopeless etc......if you ever get a minute his posts are incredible, a real scholar this one...we are blessed with some really intellegent folks on here....GW isn't exactly lacking in smarts either LOL....IMO

Actually, after going back to read this article, there is one point that I DO think is important in that tangle:



This is actually TRUE. While the Puritans were a crazy and dangerous lot at times (see Salem Witch Trials), they DID believe in sexual enjoyment for men and women within marriage. Step outside a marriage or engage in sexual sport without being married and you'd find yourself wandering around town with a big red letter A on your dress. As far as I'm aware, men were never bedecked with the A brand.

But it's worth noting that most Puritans were not Puritanical within their marriage. It's a common myth that they were.

That troubles me.

Why not write a history of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei(otherwise known as the NSDAP or "Nazi Party") from a pro-Nazi view? Why not write one that explains a viewpoint that is rarely seen? Whoever said the Nazis were the badguys?

What am I getting at?

To write something that is pro or anti something *is* a fair way to write a history. Why? Because you can take each and every event in said history(though this one is lacking, but given the subject, it is understandable that not much information is known in general), and explain it in a way that either brings you great pride for the event, or makes your blood boil. This is also known as "Propaganda". All accepted forms of "Unbiased" History are not "Unbiased". The victors of the world write history, whatever "Victor" means in that particular case.

Understood. My point is just to illustrate that the article quoted by the OP (I believe it's a cut and paste and not original material, correct me if I'm mistaken) is written from a certain perspective, and not SOLELY based on fact.
And honestly, the original article here is really blatantly anti-Christian. I have had to write about several topics from differing perspectives without being editorial, and it's not easy to do it without sounding like that's what you are doing. This article really sounds like it was written by some one that genuinely dislikes Christianity from a historical perspective.


I was going to go and quote it a little, but I won't even bother. It is just too obvious. So I'll just quote the "modern" area.



This article actually seems to contradict itself, or at the least bashes organized religion on sexual issues no matter what happens. Either the Church stifles sex, or crushes ego's and self esteem so people can't enjoy sex...seems almost obsessive about sex.

That would be correct. That's why the title of the piece is underlined and contains a link to the OP host site, not to mention the authors name is credited to the article.

The problem with all articles ever written on anything is humanity's lack of an ability to write something that is not, even in the slightest way, influenced by their own opinion of the subject. But, the great thing about opinion is that it is different with everyone. That also makes it...hard, to find the truth in most cases.

Remember, "Truth" is relative to the person.

As with a few here, I believe the title of the thread is overstated and biased.

I think it is important we learn from the past though... and as with communistic and socialistic societies, religious rule over the people is not something we should strive for. Religious rule is similar because all people are equal under God and his laws, except of course the ruling class. All three forms actually provide equal misery. I think a lot of people too quickly grasp onto the idea of mass equality... a quote by Dr. Strangelove
I highlighted the part I thought interesting. Whatever the context is, when has equalizing the sexes, the races, the religions and the different incomes of people ever been a good thing?

Making people equal is a..bad thing? Giving men and women, whatever their religion, race, sex, or income, equal rights is a...bad thing? Wha? Since when?

Yes.

No.

The title of this thread represents the title of the Original Article that is linked to the server that hosts the OP.

I don't see anything wrong with a blatantly biased article. Maybe someone here will refute it by posting a history article called "Seventeen Hundred Years of Mercy and Salvation", biased in the opposite direction.

***shrug*** I'm a neopagan. People on the web post horrible things about neopaganism all the time. So what? I have the option of rebutting if I feel it's worth my time. Most of the time, it isn't.

Yeah, but that's because you sacrifice kittens and drink their blood...or was that Republicans? I can't remember... (Just a tease, I had to do it!)


Any way, I don't get the purpose of even posting this article other than to incite people. Hell, I'm sure I could find some anti-semitic literature and post it to try to piss off the Jewish community. But what's the point?

good point arty and regardless of how this article leans to one side relgioun tends to encourage that, a one narrow view perspective, rarely are mistakes learned from, or looked at as mistakes ..Of ourselves we can observe that some practices will not get us where we say we want ot go and that i thee important point..

Equal as in we are all the same meaning color, race culture, tradions, beliefs etc, also no one is saying we can't have core guiding principles that we all agree on, but what we have now is a regime that forces us all to be the same, wants us all to think the same follow the same god etc... Same leaves no room for uniqueness or diversity, but we most certainly should all have equal rights, equal oppourtunity, be thought of as equal to each other...

Back on topic!! *clears throat* OK...

Throw out your Bible and get your **** on!


PS Dr. Strangelove you hit hard and hit fast welcome to UM!

Warnings
Don't hate Atheists because they don't believe in a higher power!
Atheism is not a Religion. It is an absense of belief in god.
Watch out for people trying to convert you back. They may not understand.



Things You'll Need
Common sense
Open mind
Freedom of Speech


hey. guess who said this? especially the last part.....don't bash me but i can you mentality is a giant load of...so why as Christians are we expected to go along and the atheists skate?...take your own advice....and if you don't want to convert to anything then don't....who is trying to make you?

randomhit10

Christians do not believe that following rules saves them. Salvation is offered through grace, with no price tag attached, and results in changes in the believer's heart that manifest themselves in the believer's life, as a natural by-product.

I'm becoming bored with your attacking Christianity with incorrect information. You can ask me questions, if you would like, then you can know what you're talking about when you attack it.

great reply...amen.

randomhit10

Nice to see I'm not the only one that sees a pattern here of attacks on religion. They should change the name of this particular forum to "Religion Sucks:Agree or We'll call you Stupid!"

Very well said!