Obama Haters

[maidai]

There is no misinterpretation or manipulation of scriptures. Those who use scriptures to justify their actions have every right to do so, that is, Their able to justify such actions because the scriptures enable them to do so. They did not just pull words out of thin air, those words are directly pulled out of the bible itself. Whether its one line or 50 lines being used to justify their evil intentions, those evil intentions have justification under their religious "law."

thats why i say christianity is inherently evil, because it justifies or ppl can use it to justify things that are harmful to other human being.

that charge could be laid against most religions ... and their "holy books" !!!

I can only name 2, i will let you guess what those 2 are.

Jeudism is close, but they dont truly believe in hell. So they dont at least damn ur eternal soul, and their only concerned with their ethnic ppl, they dont wish to convert anyone.

[maidai]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

[zeusbheld]

There is no misinterpretation or manipulation of scriptures. Those who use scriptures to justify their actions have every right to do so, that is, Their able to justify such actions because the scriptures enable them to do so. They did not just pull words out of thin air, those words are directly pulled out of the bible itself. Whether its one line or 50 lines being used to justify their evil intentions, those evil intentions have justification under their religious "law."

thats why i say christianity is inherently evil, because it justifies or ppl can use it to justify things that are harmful to other human being.

while there is no doubt the bible can be used to justify just about any evil deed, to say that it unequivocally endorses such things is simplistic to the point of being comical.

have you actually read the thing? the bible i mean.

Yes, I went to bible study

HA! no wonder you hate it then. i was lucky enough to be raised with no religion whatsoever. (by some accounts that must mean i think murdering babies is a-ok, because how could anyone have any morals without some religious patriarch pounding them into you??)

For me, i feel even if it was used to justify Just ONE evil act, then it is inherently evil. Every Good deed that was ever done on behalf of Christianity, is null and void if it was used to justify just a single act of evil. Evil is what it is, you cant hide it by doing good deeds every now and then to try and cover up for the inherently evil nature of christianity.

well the nature of christianity and the nature of the book are two separate questions. if you look at the bible as a historical object rather than the word of God (which to my eye is a silly notion; even if it were the word of God, humans have to write it down, translate it, interpret it, etc), it's actually a collection of fairly diverse documents, ranging from moral parables to obsolete codes of law to mythologized history (the 'begats'). i don't think the bible can even be viewed as one book, let alone the source of the problem.

the problem isn't this book or that book. books are just mirrors. they reflect human nature, both in terms of content and how they're used.

[GoodKarma]

maidai the bible is not evil it's a guide not to be taken literally.. but to be taken as an inspiration.it has verses in their to go an drink lambs blood but that doesn't mean you should go to the grocery store and ask the butcher for a quart of lambs blood to be faithful to the bible. all the verses are in parable's that is why everyone sees different meanings in it's words..but to interpret them it all depends on the individuals frame of mind when they read it. it was written that way on purpose. just like anything you read it all depends on your frame of mind when you read it..I would never trash the bible it is the best book that I have ever read.

I differ with you on that. Sure it has with it very touchy feelly story's in it, which make us feel good about ourselves. But it also has with it a hidden inherently evil side, a side that damns those who dont follow their faith.

any faith whose core belief is based upon "My god is the only God, and everyone else is damned," has with it an inherently evil intent. Such a foundation based solely upon ur participation and has nothing to do with one own good will is utterly evil, well to me at least.

based upon scripture, one can have the purest heart, and the kindest soul, but if u dont believe in what we believe then ur damn no matter how good ur heart is. That to be, is the most inherent evil thing about Christianity.

which is the cause of most of the senseless killing of innocent life since the foundation of christianity 2000 years ago.

it's still one of the best books I have ever read. faith is blind no matter what spiritual book you read..weither you believe in buddha,mohammed,god,jesus, confucious... I suggest you read the book but don't follow the religion(s) it's the other way around the books are good the people are bad..

no denying that many wars have of course been fought in the name of it but I don't necesarily believe the book made them do it as much as the people fighting the wars needed a tool to have people follow them blindly..

[Neo]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

[zeusbheld]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

it's very easy to see how that can be 'twisted': all you have to do is take it metaphorically rather than literally. the problem with the bible is that people take passages that *read* like moral parables as literal truths. to my eye there's not so much wrong with the book itself and everything wrong with the institutionalized stupidity that promotes it as the direct and unequivocal word of God.

[eagle]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

it's very easy to see how that can be 'twisted': all you have to do is take it metaphorically rather than literally. the problem with the bible is that people take passages that *read* like moral parables as literal truths. to my eye there's not so much wrong with the book itself and everything wrong with the institutionalized stupidity that promotes it as the direct and unequivocal word of God.

blasphemy :shock: :shock: :shock:

[eagle]

This thread has become evil and contains evil thoughts :twisted:

[CiaranM]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

[zeusbheld]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

as Douglas Adams said (more or less) any God worth believing in would totally understand why i didn't believe in him/her/it.

[eagle]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

heres some evidence http://www.iconocast.com/EB000000000000069/Y1/News1_0.jpg

[GoodKarma]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

it's funny how this thread is supposed to be about obama and we are talking about nothing but the bible...gotta love TF :idea: :roll: 8)

[GoodKarma]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

heres some evidence http://www.iconocast.com/EB000000000000069/Y1/News1_0.jpg

OMG who is that....the bible calls your type "evil doer" she is fiiiiine

[Neo]

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

Ah, but if the evidence was completely irrefutable, then we would not have any choice other than to serve god. The god of the new testament would rather that we exercised free will. 8)

[Hobbes]

I think people have the evil in them not the book.

again, i disagree, its the book that has the verses that says ur soul is damned. I cant twist it anyway to make that sound good? or twist it so that it has any good intent other then hate for those how dont follow what you follow.

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

heres some evidence http://www.iconocast.com/EB000000000000069/Y1/News1_0.jpg

Are you sure she ain't working for the competition? .....Heck, I'm sold! 8)

[Stramash]

The dark ages began because Rome was destroyed. Roman Civilization. The Barbarians from the North destroyed the "civilized world."

completely wrong and revisionism of not quite the worst kind but pretty bad nonetheless!!!

[CiaranM]

What if it's right?

It's all well and good to judge the bible as evil, but that just means it doesn't agree with your world view. The idea that there is no almighty god or gods is quite a recent one, and for all we know it could be wrong.

Imagine arriving, with some surprise, at the gates of heaven and telling Saint Peter "why didn't you tell me about this?" 8)

"not enough evidence god ... just not enough evidence !!"

Ah, but if the evidence was completely irrefutable, then we would not have any choice other than to serve god. The god of the new testament would rather that we exercised free will. 8)

nope ... we would only have to believe god existed .... we could still decide whether or not to serve him !!! :wink:

[Scuba_Referee]

I pray for President Obama safety. And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, d*ck Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat sh*t and die motherf*ckers.

:x

The REAL hate is coming from the left.

[eagle]

I pray for President Obama safety. And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, d*ck Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat sh*t and die motherf*ckers.

:x

The REAL hate is coming from the left.

[Mister Moobs]

The dark ages began because Rome was destroyed. Roman Civilization. The Barbarians from the North destroyed the "civilized world."

completely wrong and revisionism of not quite the worst kind but pretty bad nonetheless!!!

Educate me...

The Dark Ages is a term in historiography referring to a period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning.[1][2][3] Increased understanding of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages in the 19th century challenged the characterization of the entire period as one of darkness.[3] Thus the term is often restricted to periods within the Middle Ages, namely the Early Middle Ages, though this usage is also disputed by most modern scholars, who tend to avoid using the phrase.[1][4]

The concept of a Dark Age was created by the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s as an age which separated his own from the riches of classical antiquity and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[5][6] Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.[7]

Generally speaking, I'm right. Rome fell due to the many incursions of the "barbarian kingdoms" of the North, South and generally all around. They lost their grain fields in North Africa to the Visigoths (?). The Vandals and Huns and several other Germanic tribes attacked and attacked and ate away at the Kingdom. Alaric the Goth sacked Rome supposedly leaving only the Christian Cathedrals untouched. And so forth and so on.

After Rome fell, a power vacuum was created and many "barbarian kings" (Germanice) who would eventually become or be replaced or united by the eventual lines of the Divine Monarchs of the Kingdoms of Europe took the various territories for their own.

It's a very simplified version of it and there is MUCH MORE to it than that.

But when Rome fell, much was lost. Much was saved, but, much was lost. And a great part of Europe fell into a wasted era. Not all. But some, if not most.

In many places, the Church became the power. And that remained very much the case until Martin Luther and the various other splits such as the creation of the Anglican Church so that a King could become the regent of God on Earth and annul his marriage to his first wife and take several more to his bed. The Church did some terrible things but some of it's members also handed down to us much of what we know today about the ancient world.

Much as the founder of Christianity was a Jew, the founders of the enlightenment were Christians. Now many Christians see the Jews as enemies and many "Progressives" hate Christians/Christianity. lol Kinda funny how that worked out.

oh and here's your damn links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+dark+ages&hl=en&sa=G&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1&ei=EI03SpXVDaGmM4uS1JgN&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=12

http://www.history.com/content/darkages/history-of-the-dark-ages

Early Middle Ages

No one definitive event marks the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Neither the sack of Rome by the Goths under Alaric I in 410 nor the deposition in 476 of Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor in the West, impressed their contemporaries as epoch-making catastrophes. Rather, by the end of the 5th century the culmination of several long-term trends?most notably a severe economic dislocation and the invasions and settlement of the various Germanic tribes within the borders of the Western Empire?had changed the face of Rome. For the next 300 years western Europe remained essentially a primitive culture, albeit one uniquely superimposed on the complex, elaborate culture of the Roman Empire, which was never entirely lost or forgotten.

[Mister Moobs]

By LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- A prominent gay-rights organization, long supportive of President Barack Obama, sent him a scathing letter Monday to protest the administration's recent legal backing of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The frustration, expressed in an emotional letter by the president of the Human Rights Campaign, also stems from Mr. Obama's reluctance to move on other issues on its agenda, such as allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

As a candidate for president, Mr. Obama said he would try to repeal the law known as DOMA. It prevents same-sex couples married in states where gay unions are legal from benefiting from federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security spousal benefits.

But on Friday, the Obama administration filed a brief seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a California couple married during the brief period when gay marriage was legal in the state, who are challenging the 1996 federal act.

The letter Monday from Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese included a detailed critique of the administration's filing. "This brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you," he wrote.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said in a statement that the department was following routine in the filing, and wasn't making a policy statement. "As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court," said Tracy Schmaler. "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

In a statement, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said it has already begun working to help gay and lesbian Americans achieve equal rights. "The president remains strongly committed to signing a legislative repeal of DOMA into law," he said.

Write to Laura Meckler at [email protected]

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A6

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[Mister Moobs]

I pray for President Obama safety. And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, d*ck Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat sh*t and die motherf*ckers.

:x

The REAL hate is coming from the left.

That is obvious.

But the left is so T O L E R A N T :wink: and so open :wink:

Riiiiiight :roll:

[CiaranM]

The dark ages began because Rome was destroyed. Roman Civilization. The Barbarians from the North destroyed the "civilized world."

completely wrong and revisionism of not quite the worst kind but pretty bad nonetheless!!!

Educate me...

The Dark Ages is a term in historiography referring to a period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning.[1][2][3] Increased understanding of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages in the 19th century challenged the characterization of the entire period as one of darkness.[3] Thus the term is often restricted to periods within the Middle Ages, namely the Early Middle Ages, though this usage is also disputed by most modern scholars, who tend to avoid using the phrase.[1][4]

The concept of a Dark Age was created by the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s as an age which separated his own from the riches of classical antiquity and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[5][6] Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.[7]

Generally speaking, I'm right. Rome fell due to the many incursions of the "barbarian kingdoms" of the North, South and generally all around. They lost their grain fields in North Africa to the Visigoths (?). The Vandals and Huns and several other Germanic tribes attacked and attacked and ate away at the Kingdom. Alaric the Goth sacked Rome supposedly leaving only the Christian Cathedrals untouched. And so forth and so on.

After Rome fell, a power vacuum was created and many "barbarian kings" (Germanice) who would eventually become or be replaced or united by the eventual lines of the Divine Monarchs of the Kingdoms of Europe took the various territories for their own.

It's a very simplified version of it and there is MUCH MORE to it than that.

But when Rome fell, much was lost. Much was saved, but, much was lost. And a great part of Europe fell into a wasted era. Not all. But some, if not most.

In many places, the Church became the power. And that remained very much the case until Martin Luther and the various other splits such as the creation of the Anglican Church so that a King could become the regent of God on Earth and annul his marriage to his first wife and take several more to his bed. The Church did some terrible things but some of it's members also handed down to us much of what we know today about the ancient world.

Much as the founder of Christianity was a Jew, the founders of the enlightenment were Christians. Now many Christians see the Jews as enemies and many "Progressives" hate Christians/Christianity. lol Kinda funny how that worked out.

oh and here's your damn links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+dark+ages&hl=en&sa=G&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1&ei=EI03SpXVDaGmM4uS1JgN&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=12

http://www.history.com/content/darkages/history-of-the-dark-ages

Early Middle Ages

No one definitive event marks the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Neither the sack of Rome by the Goths under Alaric I in 410 nor the deposition in 476 of Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor in the West, impressed their contemporaries as epoch-making catastrophes. Rather, by the end of the 5th century the culmination of several long-term trends?most notably a severe economic dislocation and the invasions and settlement of the various Germanic tribes within the borders of the Western Empire?had changed the face of Rome. For the next 300 years western Europe remained essentially a primitive culture, albeit one uniquely superimposed on the complex, elaborate culture of the Roman Empire, which was never entirely lost or forgotten.

do u actually read what u post to "support" ur claims !!! :roll: :roll:

[zeusbheld]

I pray for President Obama safety. And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, d*ck Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat sh*t and die motherf*ckers.

:x

The REAL hate is coming from the left.

That is obvious.

But the left is so T O L E R A N T :wink: and so open :wink:

Riiiiiight :roll:

i'm stopping by the night market, should i pick up new skirts for you Nancys? the ones you're wearing are obviously too soaked with your own tears for you to carry on...

[Hobbes]

I pray for President Obama safety. And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, d*ck Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat sh*t and die motherf*ckers.

:x

The REAL hate is coming from the left.

That is obvious.

But the left is so T O L E R A N T :wink: and so open :wink:

Riiiiiight :roll: