Archaeologica.org

Rokcet Scientist wrote:Because from it you derive the 'right' to shirk your co-responsibility.

For what, exactly?!

The co-responsibility for 100 million to 200 million DEAD PEOPLE because 'the' church forbade them to use condoms to prevent AIDS.

And since you want to nail it down: your church, nor any other!, did NOT scream bloody murder when that other church, the Roman Catholic church, forbade the use of condoms in at least TWO 'episcopal letters to the faithful'.
That makes your church co-responsible!
Hence you!

Here we go...you seem to have an obsession with denigrating everyone who disagrees you with as being religious fanatics.
'The church' didn't forbid the use of condoms, only the Roman Catholic faith did. And 'my church' can't be 'co-responsible', since I have never been brought up in any faith. Apart from that, I leave guilt trips to neurotic types like yourself.
Now, why don't you stop ranting and concentrate on growing up?

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Here we go...you seem to have an obsession with denigrating everyone who disagrees you with as being religious fanatics.
'The church' didn't forbid the use of condoms, only the Roman Catholic faith did. And 'my church' can't be 'co-responsible', since I have never been brought up in any faith.
Now, why don't you stop ranting and concentrate on growing up?

For someone who wasn't brought up in any faith you sure go out of your way to artificially distance one 'faith' from another...

Curious.

It is the whole concept of 'faith', 'religion' if you will, that causes these hundreds of millions of AIDS dead. 'Roman Catholic' is just a label. A fig leaf. Interchangeable for any other 'denomination'.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:For someone who wasn't brought up in any faith you sure go out of your way to artificially distance one 'faith' from another...

It's called being objective; try it.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:It is the whole concept of 'faith', 'religion' if you will, that causes these hundreds of millions of AIDS dead. 'Roman Catholic' is just a label. A fig leaf. Interchangeable for any other 'denomination'.

Try telling a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox member that they're really RC, and be prepared to run.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Try telling a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox member that they're really RC, and be prepared to run.

Protestants or Eastern Orthodox 'faithful' never uttered one peep when those 'episcopal letters' were published. That makes them co-responsible.
I submit they should prepare to run before I smash their faces in!

And how many people of either faith do you actually know?
As I said, perhaps you should concentrate your energy on growing up.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:And how many people of either faith do you actually know?
As I said, perhaps you should concentrate your energy on growing up.

And leave the church(es) – the cause of such unspeakable misery to people – in peace?
Don't count on it.
They don't leave me alone. They do their damnedest to impact my world. I cannot ignore them even if I wanted to.
If you can and do, you're looking the other way...
Do you really think that absolves you of any co-responsibility?
Think again.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:For someone who wasn't brought up in any faith you sure go out of your way to artificially distance one 'faith' from another...

It's called being objective; try it.

If you really were objective, you would see there is basically very little difference between all the 'denominations'. Pure cosmetics. The basic concept of religion – all religions! – is the same everywhere: 'god' is an unfallible mystery that must be obeyed. And to hell with the consequences.

Religion turns people into lemmings.

And jumping on the trendy 'I hate religion bandwagon' turns people into obnoxious, self-appointed 'spokespersons'...sound familiar?

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:And jumping on the trendy 'I hate religion bandwagon' turns people into obnoxious, self-appointed 'spokespersons'...sound familiar?

Indeed, RK.
But far preferable to being co-responsible for a couple of hundred million dead people.

More vacuous posturing on your part....it's all rather childish, really.

The choice between being co-responsible for a couple of hundred million dead people and being obnoxious is childish?
I submit you re-examine your priorities.

Let's get back on topic and leave the caustic remarks and attacks out of the forum.

MichelleH

instead,i would ask you to use your intelligence and discern the difference between true believers in Christ and those who use God's name to further their own ends.

No. You won't be happy with that either, arch. Most "christians" I know are far more concerned with the Old Testament 'eye-for-an-eye' shit than they are with Jesus's alleged 'turn-the-other-cheek' routine.

When I call them on their 'uncharitable' nature they reply with some nonsense like 'Jesus was perfect but I'm not.' If you believe in the murderous, petty, vindictive god of the old testament than you are a Jew or a Fundamentalist moslem. These people use god as a cover for their own hatreds and prejudices.

I'll tell you this, if Jesus were to come back to Texas and run for public office on that pacifist, socialist, agenda which the gospel writers put into his mouth he could not be elected dog catcher. They sure as hell wouldn't let him into their churches.