Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous …and so that is why the U.S. is a nation of infidels who must burn in hell | DAMN!! Next »
How many starving people could they feed if they hocked all their fancy costumes, decorations and jewelry?
(Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I)
Picture by: RamonaQ. Caption by: RamonaQ via Advanced Lol Builder
 | Rando the Filthiest,… on WOOPS |
 | mabsba on WOOPS |
 | Nucky, the Official … on WOOPS |
 | Aremis on WOOPS |
 | keithybabes on WOOPS |
 | Endarkened on Let’s imagine the look o… |
 | The Steve on WOOPS |
| Endarkened on Let’s imagine the look o… |
| Rando the Filthiest,… on Let’s imagine the look o… |
 | deadinfrance on Let’s imagine the look o… |
Cheezburger Network Blog
Who are you, Martin Luther? = )
*grabs nails to pound tenets on Vatican Door*
“Thou shall hock all wealthy possessions and give proceeds to the poor”
Don’t forget to get a mortgage on the Vatican while you’re at it!
Actually, selling an item that has been blessed is a sin. It’s called Simony.
Once a rosary or a cross is blessed it can never be sold… only given away. The same would go for anything put to holy use, like the vestments and other gifts that are offered to the Vatican.
Logic. Whaaaaaa??? *splodies*
Dont you think God would understand if you sold all the decorations of the vatican and the jewels and other things, got like somewhere around 2 million dollars for everything and used it to feed, clothe and shelter starving, poor catholics?
yeah where is that in the bible? that is another catholic “rule” then why do i always see rosaries for sale that are blessed and holy water for sale in little bottles. sorry i came after you just i get miffed when the pope wears versace slippers and people in africa are dying of starvation and the catholic church is the richest institution.
well maybe pope man should hire starveing peoples in africa to make him shoes, dat fix everything
Sin well only if its sold as a blessed item, like if you were trying to get more money for something because its blessed is the reason that that Sin exists.
Thas stoopid
I was just gonna say, “Martin Luther said it first!”
caption’s still true tho.
More like Judas Iscariot. Remember the perfume?
No. But he was a friend of my great x ? Grandpa ;o)
A) Martin Luther was Catholic
B) Those clothes are gifts.
C- That didn’t mean he didn’t criticize the Catholic Church.
Don’t remember that bit? Cause I sure do.
D) Luther’s thesis nailed to the church door was not an uncommon action to do.
E) Half of what he criticized the church about were isolated incidents (church indulgences were only widely happening in Germany)
F) The Protestant Reformation was a power bid by the landed nobles and princes of Germany to secede from the Holy Roman Empire.
G) He inadverdently caused the deaths of hundreds of people because of the territory and loyalty disputes.
H) The Catholic Church contributes the most to the donation of funds, supplies, and other necessities to impoverished regions of the world.
I) The Vatican is by relation the last territory of the Holy Roman Empire, it is its own nation and as such the Pope is the head of that nation.
J) Dime store arguments about the a religion makes one look retarded. Last time I checked being a preachy uptight douchebag wasn’t funny.
I agree with you Neoritter. you weren’t funny.
Zing!
Eh, I didn’t think the caption was very funny either. It was very preachy and self-righteous. These captions are supposed to be funny!
Glad you agree, I wasn’t trying to be funny
We should start a Space Marine Chapter, dude ^_^
G2) Actually, you low-balled the estimate. Ten thousand peasants were killed in the uprising, and Luther condemned the rebels, facilitating their deaths…
D) So you can’t sell a gift? The pope wipes his ass with toilet paper that probably costs more than I make in a year while Catholics the world over starve.
Wow! You know what brand of TP the Pope uses? Bully for you.
Neoritter, thank you for the truth, but I guess it’s not welcome here.
You’re basing everything you say on speculation and not fact.
*wow he mus thave one tough ass ‘couse every church I’ve been to has some weak and rough stuff*
foo’
How does the fact that the clothes are gifts keep them from selling them to give money to the poor?
Regifting makes baby jesus cry.
LOL
This whole argument is retarded. Ok, so sell your clothes and jewelry, how much is that going to be in relief money? Maybe enough to feed a small number of people. They are already pouring a huge amount of money into helping the poor, far more than you guys accuse them of spending on clothes. The fact that they wear fancy clothes has nothing to do with anything.
So, feed the damn small number of people! Should everyone not pay the part of the taxes that go towards homeless children and poor families that aren’t gold diggers because “it would only feed a small number of people”? If you were in Darfur, telling the people not to use sexual protection, and then went and saw a village of starving children, would you not give them $20 in food because “it’d only feed a small number of people”? Every small number of people matters. You wouldn’t be saying that if you were one of small number of people.
The Vatican gets great deals at Wal*Mart
go sell every non essential thing that you own and give the money to poor people. Go on, do it.
What if they come back all stoned?
Boofer has it. The church gives a lot more away than it takes. I’m an atheist but for the past 100 years or so, the Catholic Church has generally been a good thing. Whatever happened in the past, who cares – none of those people exist anymore.
The Catholic Church gives more money than it takes in. None of the rest of you give even 5% of your total income to the poor. Think about that.
kidtruth, you have received a noble invitation to join my Space Marine Chapter.
“for the past 100 years or so, the Catholic Church has generally been a good thing”
Um, no. There are too many reasons to list. Don’t care to start a flame war here, dude, but NO.
Actually you mean Y-E-S. One or two incidents don’t make up the whole.
if it gives more then it takes it, how does it still exsist? would it not sooner or later vanish? if you pour water out of the tub faster then you pour water into a tub, the tub will never fill up
That’s why they a) collect money and are funded and b) only give so much at a time. they can’t help that many people if they don’t have the money to do it. They have a hose and a steady stream of water.
Except they’re not the person who is the leader of a religion based on helping everybody, and who is supposed to strictly follow a book with a specific story about giving your material possessions to the poor to be able to get into the wonderful cloudiness that is heaven.
And this is why I’m an atheist
Yeah, I started getting uncomfortable with that when my dad started criticizing pastors like Paula White and Joel Osteen for big churches and makeovers, and then I see the ‘Bishop’s Palace’ in Galveston, TX, near my hometown Houston, or Popejets…
The Bishops palace is awesome, I agree. But go to Saudi Arabia if you want to see REAL vulgar religious displays of wealth- gold domes, gold toilet seats, etc… Think of the poor they could feed, if only they were Muslim……
Think of the poor they could feed, in their own country!
Actually, the Pope doesn’t own a jet, airlines lend him one when he needs to travel.
The Bishop’s Palace was built by a lawyer. A Bishop did live there for a while, but it was not built for him.
Ironically the person writing this is being preachy!!!!! Not a funny LOL, saw much funnier ones for this. “Wonder Twin powers Activate!!” Or “Welcome to Christmas land, would like some sugar plums little boy?”
Aw man! The Wonder Twin one would have been so much funnier than this one… -_- why do people always vote up preachy instead of funny?
I think a lot of people vote on them because they think they’re true, not that they’re funny. Which really kinda sucks when you think about it.
The whole point of the site is to have funny captions on pictures. >_< *sigh*
If it seems that the majority of the commenters agree, that the captions should be funnier, who’s voting?
And yes, “wonder twins” would have been much, much funnier.
Again, there are a lot more voters than there are commenters.
Wonder Twins caption awesome….way funnier, I agree!
Oh those are both teh awsum! But which one gets the form of water? It’s the lamest of the lame superpowers.
Hurry up and clap really hard or Aquaman gets it!
What does Aquaman get? Does he get the clap?
He could have that treated… I guess he didn’t condom up?
No I think he has crabs.
He’s gotta watch those skanky mermaids he’s going out with. They all seem to have a fishy smell for some reason.
Lost and Found:
Peter Pan reference (see the part where Tinkerbell is dying)
*sigh* I know…
Form of…..Dumb Ass Dogma!
Let me guess you don’t believe in religion, so let’s mock it. Also let me guess you get mad when people mock that oyu don’t believe in religion!!!! IRONY, no wiat HYPOCIRSY!!!
People don’t mock that I don’t believe in religion. They tell me I’m going to Hell, that I’m un-American and should leave the country, won’t let their children around me at the company picnic, etc…
It’s not the religion, it’s the trenchcoat/bare leg combo….
and the body odor…..
…and the muttering….
*fresh meeeeeeaaattt*
You got me.
*throws Khaaaaan back*
No thanks
Where did the fracken’ trench coat come from?
I don’t get mad at all. I pet them on their little heads and say, “There,there…it’s OK.” I think you jumped the gun on the hypocrisy thing. You guessed wrong. Wait till I display it, then call me on it.
Well you showed it by saying, and I quote “Dumb Ass Dogma”. So you seem to be either bitter or hold some resentment towards religion, or else you wouldn’t have felt the need to insult it.
What you said was, and I quote, “Also let me guess you get mad when people mock that oyu don’t believe in religion!!!! IRONY, no wiat HYPOCIRSY!!! ” I replied that it doesn’t make me mad at all when folks question my opinions.
As a reformed Catholic, of course I have resentment….most of us do. And as such I am allowed and qualified to use the phrase Dumb Ass Dogma. Absolutely no hypocrisy here whatsoever, just a statement of opinion.
By the way, who is this girl Hypocirsy?
Is she hot?
Should I wiat for her?
No you’re not. Hypocrite.
That is a brainless and thoughtless reply, DT, not worthy of your usual self. On a par with, “I know you are but what am I?”. Because I stated an opinion I’m a hypocrite? Lame. I know you aren’t a troll, DT. You have cracked me up more than once with very clever posts. Don’t act like one please. It’s beneath you.
Dooshbag circumvention fail.
Can’t win ‘em all.
Meh. I remember the first time you disagreed with me, DT, I imagine it’s somewhat like a girl losing her virginity for the first time.
It’s always gonna hurt.
losing virginity for the first time? I thought it could only happen the one time.
there are people who claim “born-again virgin” status. i actually know a couple of them.
Guess I did win! No one else said it, so….
*waits for apology*
I do apologize….you ARE a fekin troll after all, aren’t you? My mistake. (Withdraws feeding tube)
So what if I am? Apparently, you’re a humorless twat.
I know you are but what am I! O man….I am soo sorry people but I had to. (Puts away box of Troll Treats)
ROFLMAO! Dance little sister, dance…
LOL. Touche, muthafukka.
Second brainless thoughtless reply in a row fail.
Ankle deep thought.
Wow. You really are stupid, aren’t you?
Sarcasm recognition fail.
Oh, and FWIW, :kiss:
My apologies folks, I’m fairly new here and I let myself get sucked into the name calling game with a troll like object. Not the way to make an impression. Sorry. I’ll try to do better. Honest.
The fact that you just apologized for being stupid totally just made you seem more ignorant, and not the bigger person like you were aiming for.
Lesson: Never back down once you’ve started up a troll.
Even if I agree with said troll.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
Brak: You’re agnostic, you can’t be damned!!!!! Very slick… very very slick….. Did you take lessons from Bill Clinton?
That, my friend, is a valuable piece of information!! I can’t be damned….wow! That means I can….woohoo….I gotta go make a call…
So you’re allowed to ridicule a religion, b/c you’ve been there, done that, have the T-Shirt? Oh and BTW resentment is a form of anger, you said you didn’t get mad, so which is it? Resentment or not mad?
You seem to be putting out a lot more anger than I am, friend. And yes…been there, done that, have the T-shirt. It’s called life experience. Let me ask you,…isn’t there a girl in your past who hurt you horribly and don’t you still feel resentment for what she did to you? Same kind of deal. I’ve managed to dissipate the anger for the most part because anger is poison to the soul but it’s never completely forgotten. I have no resentment toward people who practice their particular religion (as long as it does no harm), only toward the institutions that use and abuse them. And yes, dumb ass dogma is part of that particular institution. Why are you so upset with me? Cripes, let’s try and get back to teh funneh.
Ok funny… a Preist a Rabbi and a Pollack all walk into a bar….
…with a four-foot-long purple dildo….
…and so the dildo says….
….hey bartender! Mix me a Sidecar…..
And the bar tender replies…..
…We don’t serve dildos in here…..
…to which the priest responds, “why, what do you have against us?”…
*bah. dum. tish*
That was AWSOME!
1)I Like Peanut Butter and Deep Thought, you are invited to join my Space Marine Chapter!!
2) So brak, what make you a ‘reformed Catholic?’
The realization at an early age that Catholicism (or basically any religion that demands unthinking loyalty under threat of damnation or the rack) made no sense to me. It seemed unreasonable and cruel. At age six, on being instructed in the lovely concept of original sin by dear Sister Micheal Barbara, I had the temerity to ask how could god be so mean as to put sin on the soul of a baby who never DID anything. It just seemed so WRONG. For this I was subjected to a good week of physical and mental/emotional abuse for daring to ask for clarification. It only stopped because good old Mom came down and practically punched her out. That was only the first incident. There have been many.
I say reformed, as in no longer, because I finally managed to shed the guilt that religion thrives on and decide to live as good and upright a life as I can, NOT because of threats of whatever, but because it is the right way to be. I ain’t perfect but I try like hell to treat folks right.
I see ‘Sister’ Micheal Barbara diserved to get pinched.
1) I woudn’t say damnation is a threat but a natural conclusion to seperation from God, like being away from the Sol’s warmth (that’s the Sun, BTW)
2)God did not put sin on a baby just to be mean. What Barbie there didn’t seem to keen on is the fact that the sin is inherated from Adom and Eve eating the friut off the tree, and babies don’t go to Hell if they die, the go to Limbo, just FYI.
Oh, much better. Because babies who never got the chance to live don’t deserve heaven.
Learn to spell.
Well that belief is if your specific denomination of Christianity believes in Limbo, or Purgatory. The church I used to attend as a child held the belief that to sin takes a conscience thought and to know what you’re doing is wrong. Therefore, babies were incapable of committing a sin. Like I said, it all depends.
I know Maxwell, I was commenting directly *at* Sigma.
Even if I believed in Christianity, or Purgatory, I still think babies would go to heaven. If God is the way he acts in the New Testament, I can’t see him condemning something that never even got the real conscious ability to choose for eternity.
Anyway, I’m agnostic, so no need to start the railing on atheist pigs.
Do it on agnostic procrastinators.
I, myself, am an open agnostic, so there’s no railing. I was more just clarifying to Stigma that calling and to everyone that sticking “FYI” after a religious belief is completely, well, pointless.
Whoa I completely deleted part of my sentence there… its supposed to read “clarifying to Stigma that calling out a certain religious belief as fact by sticking an FYI at the end of it is pointless.”
I think I spelled about 98% of that correctly, no need to try to tear me down ’cause I made one or two errors.
-Coughs-
6
>.>
Does it really matter?
1. Damnation is USED as a threat. It was pounded into our poor little minds at every opportunity by God’s Wives and back up by the priesthood. Whether there is actually such a thing-of course the jury is out on that one. Nobody’s come back to fill us in on that one, eh? Oh….and no, Sol is not the sun, my friend. He’s the heater repair guy down at Weinstein’s Heating and Cooling. Sol’s warmth good.
2. The whole concept of original sin is barbaric no matter how you slice it. If there is a god and he does that, he’s a dick. And making babies who die dance bent backward under a stick for eternity is even worse!
Like I said, they disserve to get punched. Also, original sin stemmed from our free will, which God has no power over. And not all sects or cults or whatever believe there is a Limbo, especialy the Catholic Church as far as I know. It’s also a place like Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, it’s name used for a party game some time in the recent century.
Sol is [a] name for the Sun. Hence *sol*ersystem. Look it up.
As someone who has never posted here before and just read the thread, you come off looking stupid brak.
Calling something that a lot of people consider to be valid “dogma” and being derogatory towards it with absolutely no evidence to support your statement is the basis of trolling and hatespeech. That’s why the locals at the site jumped all over you.
Constructive criticism.. away!
oyu wiat
What language is that?
Dislexian.
Crackberry!!!
Nobody gets offended when idiots mock them for not believing a religion. You don’t get offended when the party insulting you hasn’t got a leg to stand on. ‘I Like Peanut Butter’, are YOU offended?
How do you mock someone for being an atheist?
It’s quite easy. It basically means you believe in nothing. (I’m not saying that is so, but it’s pretty easy to mock)
Hmm. I think I thought the word “mock” had more of a “make fun of”-meaning. Looking it up I see it can also mean “to treat with contempt”. Adding that meaning to the word in my vocabulary, I now do know several examples of mocking atheism.
(…over and out… ;p)
No, it just means you don’t believe in deities.
I read it as if ILPB just meant that that is the sort of thing that people who try to mock atheism will say.
If it wasn’t so, let me join in on the correction post. ;p
Ahh…perhaps you are correct!
I’m not an atheist. I’m an agnostic. Do I need to explain to you what that is? I doubt it. I’m sure you already know.
I know what it means. I was just repsonding to Danbala on how you can mock an athiest or agnostic.. not necesarily a good mock, but it can be done. It’s not that I believe it, just showing it coudl be done. I believe people should believe what they want. I rarely even mock Scientology and that’s easier than Christianity.
Ohmy, yes. All you need to do to mock scientology is to say “scientology”. :p
DO NOT MOCK THE THETONSSSS! THEY WILL COME FOR YOU NEXT, TRUST ME NON-BELIEVER!
See?
And you don’t? Danbala, CLEARLY the souls of an entire race were dropped in a Hawaiian volcano here on earth by someone with the name “Fire Lord” Xenu, and their souls are what make us sad and depressed today.
Shhheeeesh, non-believers are SO doomed.
P.S.- Anyone think that maybe if we tell Scientologists that psychology drugs are specially designed to make the theton souls leave them be, they will hate Psychiatry less?
Trogdor will protect me. He is a man….but he is….a DRAGON man. Beefy arms, consummate V’s. No fear.
Until Xenu comes back. Then we’re all up shit creek without a paddle…
Oh Shit….and Gozer…could be trouble.
I’ve seen dogs and cats living together lately o.o
The End of Days are upon us, my friends >_<
Yes, and I’m not religious. I’m offended by the liberals (not all) who mock religion and then turn around get all offended we their belief system (whether it be PETA, living Green, etc…) is mocked. I just get tired of the religions is a crutch, religion is BAD, religion makes people do evil things, religion opresses me…… Don’t listen to it. If they come to your door, politely ask them to leave (like I do with the ACLU or Democratic Politicians who try and change my voting), let them have their beliefs IF they don’t infringe on your rights (ie get inacted into laws). And YES there are some fantaics out there, just like there are fanatics on the left, but you can’t judge a whole by the radicals. Isn’t that what the liberal agenda tries to teach?
I would recommend a couple of books for you, by Sam Harris – The End of Faith, and/or, if you prefer a more succinct summation of his argument, Letter to a Christian Nation.
May I suggest ‘Letter from a Christian Citizen’ by Douglas Wilson?
You ARE more angry than me! I love it!! LOL
Not angry, just tired of the whole, let’s mock people’s beliefs. It’s so juvenile. You don’t agree with them, get over yourself. Unless you can mock yourself accordingly, don’t mock anyone. That’s all I’m saying. There wasn’t any anger in my post actually.
I see your point. And believe me, mocking myself is a full time occupation. But isn’t the whole premise of this place based on mocking the people who are elected or appointed to do a job which none of them ever do well? I guess I’m still getting the feel of the give and take here.
See once we get beyond our initial stoopid knee jerk reactions we’re being civil…….. let me ruin it, you’re an idiot!!! (I’m kidding…) I just didn’t see you mock yourself that’s all. And yes I do have resentment towards those that mock religion. However I see where it comes from. There is quite a bit of hypocrisy there (in all religions), just like liberalism and conservatism, I just think mocking it feeds the divide vice trying to understand each other.
Unfortunately, it’s built into the human psyche to automatically yell, “Hey! My thing is better than your thing. So you better come over here. Or else.” No matter what “thing” you have chosen, be it religion, politics, musical taste, there is an almost genetic compulsion to defend it, preferably with violence of some sort whether physical or vocal or teh interwebz. I wonder if we’ll ever be able to defeat this miserable failure within ourselves. Stuff would get better if we did.
My main problem with religion in general is that is so incredibly divisive at such a visceral level by it’s nature…and we not only let it be, we completely buy into it and let the institutions and organizations that form around it encourage the divisions and grow fat and rich because of them. It’s actually not necessarily the religion itself that bothers me, I guess, so much as the arrogance and superiority it inspires, even demands in it’s followers.
I believe that religion and the right to think it silly carry equal weight. Wish we could evolve beyond the need for it….and politics.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Pass out poppies!
Sounds similar to the political part system…..
*party* not part…
Yeah, doesn’t it?
Never give a sucker an even break.
If men were angels, governments would’t exist.
@Deep….Dude….don’t bogart, pls.
@Sigma…..If six turned out to be nine…….
PURPLE HAZE, ALL AROUND…!!! *o*
I’m the TROGDORRR dragon of PK.
How far from that is an angel?
Depends on the degree of Burnination.
Degree?
My friend, there is no degree.
There is exist (pre-burninate)
and extinction. (post-burninate.)
OK….Old Testament type angel, maybe…all that fire and devastation and stuff. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
But be wary and do not become overconfident. Remember, I hold……..the Mushroom of Truth!
badgerbadgerbadgerbadgerbadger
Hey, don’t make fun of that movie! That is a great movie!
LOL
Froo you are awesome XD.
I woman-love you too
Snootchie Wootchies!
Best. Movie. Ever. (at least to me).
I’ll even watch it cut on TNT if it comes on, I love it THAT much.
Look, it’s a sailboat!
Wow, you’re standards are lower than the depth which the Eldar race has fallen. So, so tragic.
6. they could feed 6 people.
6 BIG hungry people.
LOL ^_^
How many starving people could you feed if you hocked your computer?
Not too many. It’s 3 years old.
I could buy some starving people a round of Happy Meals. That’s about it.
I’ve always wondered why the meal is “happy”…
it’s a perv, gets touched by children, gets happy.
Michael Jackson Meal??
*Cue too soon*
Yup. I tried to avoid it.
though if it was michael jackson meal it would come in a plasstic box…
They serve a drink with that in honor of MJ, it comes in small cans. OHHH!!!
50-year-old meat between two 12-year-old buns…
*slaps own hand*
“BAD MG!!! BAD MG!!!”
as prize you get a small detachable nose, nowhere to attach though
and if you peel the tag on the drink you get a free an overnight (wink)trip to a certain themepark
Good lord.
I’m laughing and all, but that was WAY over the top XD.
He shoulda’ stayed awsome -_-
You know that cow wasn’t too happy about the prospect of being turned into a yummy cheeseburger…mmmmmmmmm
*realizes she hasn’t had lunch*
when the cow dies they tell her she will become a nice steak in some fancy restaurant, so they can die happy.
Mmmmmmmm, kobe beef.
you’re eating Kobe Bryant… cannibal, yikes is a cannibal!!!
Hey, he died happy. It’s a win-win.
That’s what they want the cow to think, so it doesn’t get nervous and clot the meat, when they do, they make nuggets
No Kobe beat the Nuggets!!! Damn europeans can’t follow our sports correctly. We don’t even try and follow soccer (oh sorry futbol).
I don’t follow soccer, I know who kobe is and the cow is still dead anyway.
Euch… Join the vegetarians! We have fungus and Soya bean Curd!
The cow is already dead. Might as well eat it.
I don’t think the fungus much cares…
Yeh but that carrot screams real loud when you YANK it from the ground away from its family.
I read a book that said that if you hook a plant up to a polygraph and think bad thoughts about it you can see it react on the chart thingy…..
Mind you that was the same book that stopped me from sleeping as a child due to fear of Arnold Paol the vampire….
I don´t like to hurt veggies. they don’t scream.
Myth BUSTED on MYTHBUSTERS!!!
PS I think it died of a heart attack!!!
it wouldn’t have been inseminated, born, bred and fed if people didn’t want to eat it….
or if it didn’t taste SOOOOOOO good!!!! Well wait that means people wouldn’t want to eat it.
Rare. With a side of tartare.
I just had dinner, steak.
yum
I had pasta salad and am looking forward to fungus sausages tomorrow thank you very much….
I’ll probably lunch something non-screaming tomorrow, but I can’t abandon my steaks.
It all screams. Yes, even the vegetables. You just can’t hear the ones without mouths.
That’s why they don’t taste so good.
veggies lack that life hanging feel.
do you know what is the best way to catch a rabbit?
scream like a carrot!
Fungus sausages? Omg, lol.
Just eat some meat. If you’re worried about the environment, just make it some human meat!
Computers serve several purposes and are heavily relied on in today’s society.
Fancy clothes cover you, but unlike regular clothes, make you look like an ass.
Some people require clothes to look like an ass, unlike Igor the Vigorous being a prime exception.
Your insult makes no sense.
Abort? Retry? Fail?
RETRY:
Sigma = two squads of Terminater Space Marines
Deep Thought = Space cruser in orbit w/ cannons ready for bombardment
Igor the Vigorous = Two squads of Shoota’ Boyz Orks
Game. Set. Match.
Looks like Sigma experimented with it *and* inherated it.
?????
Sorry, weird.
Was playing with your misspelling of inherited, which sounded a bit like inhaled, and since to me your post made no sense whatsoevvah, I made a (granted, loose) association to Clinton’s claim that he experimented but didn’t … oh, FFS, this is just getting worse by the minute.
Was amusing to me, for what it is worth!
Well you’re my gal. You’re just my gal!
-Idiot in the crowd shouting during moment of silence voice-
I did toooo…
Your insult carries no water because all you did was call me an ass, no proof given or point relayed. That’s called trolling.
Therefore I am not offended by your insult, just feel pity towards you.
Ah, so you can call good people an ass for beeing better than you and carring more about people than you, is that it?
No, I can say a person I don’t know personally looks like an ass because of the ridiculous outfit they’re wearing.
Re-read my sentence.
You don’t like looking sharp, clean, or profesional in what you do for a living? Their outfits represent the old school clothing of the Ancients, like today’s suites have stuff that date back past the Victorian Era or something.
If I were trying to help the poor? I wouldn’t spend more than I have to for some thing decent, and whoever judges me can think what they want.
Someone who looks down upon “just decent” appearances isn’t worth the worry anyway.
They are doing the same thing, but while getting generous gifts they are giving more than they earn (see kidtruth above). As Gods messengers they resemble the spiritual splendor of Heaven and God. Or are they still pretentious to you?
I’m not saying they’re pretentious, just saying they don’t need the damn outfits pictured above.
Just doesn’t seem necessary to me.
They don’t always wear that, just at special occasions, like *this* example.
What’s the difference between a BMW and a porcupine?
The porcupine has the pricks on the outside!!!
same thing applies for EVERYONE
No, it applies to Christians and those who wish to live according to the bible. It applies even more-so to those representing the Catholic church.
People who don’t believe in the bible aren’t being hypocritical by not giving to the poor, because they never said they would, nor have they told others to do so. These guys have done both.
Bullshit. It applies to everyone.
Liberals just want the government to spread it out for them, rather than to distribute it themselves…
Thanks for throwing the word Liberal in there as an insult, that really helped you make your point.
Maybe they just want the government to take care of the poor and hungry because if they didn’t force people to do so via taxes, many would not.
I know that not every wealthy person is a greedy twit, but there are some that would rather watch people die in the streets than hand over their hard earned money to feed the hungry.
Insult? BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA… sniff.
Truth hurts, eh?
No. Why would it hurt? I stand firmly behind my beliefs and I couldn’t care less what you think of me. I’m socially liberal, but want smaller government and more power delegated to the states.
It just makes you look like a child when you resort to name calling.
Get off my lawn.
Chillax… it’s the truth because it’s the truth. Libs want government to do it, and God wants cons to.
Fu(ktard… now THAT’S name calling…
Excuse me Mr. Deep… but vcktard is my word. I have the copy right for it, so that’ll be one billion dollars please.
No. ‘vcktard’ was not used by Mr. Deep Thought, he used ‘fu(ktard.’
Sentenced ten years servise in the Planitary Defence Force (PDF).
I appreciate someone who realizes that the expression is “couldn’t care less”. Proper idiomatic expression win.
People who say “irregardless” bug me too. Regardless is already without regard…/sigh
AUGH! “Irregardless” makes me see red. >_< I think the majority of people who use it are just trying to look smart.
irregardless of that i always see red, and a lot of other colors
lay off the mushrooms
BUT THEY’RE SO DELICIOUS!!! 0.0
Irregardless of your feelings on the subject at hand, I will continue to use the word Irregardless, Irregardless of the circumstances and Irregardless of the subject matter, Irregardlessly, Irregardless of whether that is a proper word or not… Irregardless of whether I know what I’m talking about, or not.
Clearly you do, irregardless of what you say.
This is exactly why I don’t like zombies…
I don’t like them cause they’re sloppy eaters.
grammar is the least of their problems.
Their limbs tend to fall off too.
Isn’t “irregardless” a double negative? So it would actually mean “with regard” instead of “without regard?”
Yeah.
What if you use it twice in a sentence? Does the first one cancel out the second one?
irregardless of what we think irregardless means, I’m not going to judge iregardlessly…
Same.
It doesn’t make logical sense to say that you could care less about something, therefore there are things you care less about in the world, and that means that you actually care a little about said happening.
Those types of people live in their own special type of hell on earth. Most people on their own are generous and would want to help others. If the government is “taking care” of the poor, then you will be creating more of the type of mentality where you hoard what you have. Why should anyone give anymore if the government is handling it, no matter how badly or inefficiently.
I think we have a reasonably high amount of charity here, and a “taking care of the poor-government”. I’ll try to find some figures. Soon … ish.
It turns out to be pretty tricky. What I managed to find so far is that we gave 5.3 billion Swedish krona total in 2005. That’d be about $83 per person and year. What I can find for the US is a number of $200. This are not adjusted to gdp, of course. A rough estimate of our effective tax here is at about 60%.
(And our govt is giving a bit in charity in its turn.)
I can says “this are” in well grammar!!!
LOL
Most of the rich people I know started out poor and worked for what they have. They have no problem giving people a hand- but they don’t want to give handouts either to people who could work and won’t.
Plus there are those poor people who spend money on drugs. And guns. And Gamers Workshop. *sigh* -_-
The Steve: I believe it is the right of the invidivdual to chose whether or not he wants to give his money to the poor. I would rather donate food than give money. I would rathe rit be my choice and not forced to by either the church or government. If someone doesn’t want to give moeny to feed the poor it is his/her choice, and hopefully their conscience is clear. However forcing them to do that is pushing your morals onto them. As you said, it is THEIR hard earned money. Not yours, not mine, not the poors, but theirs.
Buy a bum a burger but begrudge him a booze buck…
Crudely put but quite correct.
Crudely? Never heard of alliteration, bozo?
Jebus crispies! You can’t even take a compliment gracefully!
ANGRY??? WHO’S ANGRY????? NOT ME!!!!!!!
Geezzeeee dude……OK, let me phrase it better….crudely but cleverly put. I liked it! It made me chuckle and I agree with your point completely…..and it was awesome alliteration amigo. OK??
No, no *facepalms* I just wanted to use the “b” in bozo to further the phrase… sorry about that.
Apology absolutely accepted…O lordy I so want to say it, but then Bad Brak would win and he must never be allowed out again. Ever.
CONVERSATION = EPIC WIN!!
Plus, eventually the money runs out, then what do the poor do? Better to teach the poor to be self sufficent if at all possible.
ILPB: You’re 100% right.
On the other hand, I don’t think that the greatest nation on earth should have hungry and poor dying in the streets.
What to do, what to do?
We don’t have that! Where is anyone dying in the streets?!
There’s a dead squirrel in the middle of the road I live on… does it count?
untill you find a person it will have to, for purposes of discussion.
*pokes the dead squirrel with a stick*
ouch! I’m not dead yet!
Oops! Sorry!
Squiggly: Poke harder. That’ll take care of that minor problem.
yes you are
*points to name*
Is it a pointed stick?
I think the squirrel is a zombie. Is the discussion still valid if it’s UNdead and in the middle of the road?
did it die on the street or did it walk there after dying?
I just posted a comment and it didn’t show up, I REALLY AM A ZOMBIE!!
I dunno. Hey Squirrel, did you die in the road or not?
Dead set: Origins (the zombie squirrel)
NAh, just ask the Redneck down the street, he’s looking for some squirrel soup.
Yikes, look in any major city. People are dying, or worse eating rotten food thrown out by a fast food joint. Trust me if you’ve been to SE DC you will see it (it’s still here even after the overhaul).
Wow, that’s not right. I just meant they aren’t dying of starvation, like you see in Africa. But, yes that’s bad.
It’s not the mass starvation like in Africa, but it is happening. Of course I do get annoyed at the one homeless guy who constantly hits me up for money, and one day I offered to buy him a Subway snadwich and he said he’d prefer the money.
yeah, I don’t like subway as well.
Jimmy Johns is better.
I dunno Jane… Jimmy John’s is so fast… it kinda… freaks me out.
See what he wants the money for.
He asked for money for food. So I offered to buy him a sub. He said he’d rather the money. I have a feeling it wasn’t for food.
They’ve done studies, and some “homeless people” are raking in sometimes upwards of $40,000 a year begging for money.
Here’s a GREAT discussion of that very phenomenon…
They’ve done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works every time.
So… anecdotes are bad. Citing studies is bad. Statistics are bad…
How the hell does one back up one’s argument here, then?
Okay DT, to be fair I was just quoting a little Anchorman. I can’t hear “they’ve done studies…” without thinking of Sex Panther by Odeon. I hadn’t even looked at your link…
…but now that I have, I feel compelled to tell you that that is not a study. It’s a blog with a guy making all sorts assumptions. If you’re trying to prove a point, I think the best way to qualify a source is to consider if you could use it in an academic research paper. If not, then it’s probably not a good source to support your argument.
Uhmm… it’s an economic blog, and I said “discussion” of it.
You did, indeed, say “discussion.” But then you said “citing studies is bad…” and I was responding to that post, since you asked how one is supposed to support an argument here.
I like scotch! Scotchy, scotchy, scotch!
HAND ME YOUR BOTTLE OR HAND ME YOUR HAND WITH THE BOTTLE… IN HAND!!!
Yes we do have people dying on the streets. It just isn’t very newsworthy. Boston usually has 3 or so homeless folk dying of exposure every winter. Link to research study comparing death rates of homeless and not-homeless folk in Philadelphia, complete with adjustments for substance abuse. With substance abusers removed from the sample, the death rate is 3 times higher for the homeless.
That’s right, homeless people NEVER freeze to death because there’s no room in a homeless shelter for them and they’re forced to sleep outside in subzero temperatures. And the NEVER die because they were just flat out unable to find food, or the food they DID manage to scavenge gave them some form of food poisoning that would have been just unpleasant for us, but proved lethal for someone with an immune system compromised from mal nourishment. I’m not even counting the ones who are murdered just because someone thought it would be funny to set a homeless person on fire, or beat the shit out of them or whatever. Yup, no homeless dying in the streets here.
According to the United Way, about 400 homeless people per year die in Los Angeles county alone.
Um…which is utterly meaningless unless you have causes of death. 2.5 million people *with* homes die in the US every year. So what? All it means is people die, not what they die OF.
The most common cause of death among homeless individuals was a cardiovascular event, accounting for almost a quarter of all homeless deaths, followed by unknown cause, and intoxication by substance abuse, comprising 23% and 22% of deaths, respectively.
So…not starving and freezing, but as expected heart attacks (like the rest of us) and a whole lot of drug abuse. Hardly the picture that was being painted of people freezing to death on park benches or the long slow death of starvation. There’s a reason our poor people don’t look like “Starvin’ Marvin” and the ChildCare commercials. The poor in this country actually have an “obesity problem” if you can call it a problem – won’t see that many other places on earth.
The life expectancy for the homeless is 36% lower than those who are not homeless. Also, the symptoms of mental illness, combined with the hygiene problems associated with homelessness, result in many untreated physical health problems such as respiratory infections, dermatological problems, and risk of exposure to HIV and tuberculosis.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that our homeless situation rivals that of Africa, so no need for the hyperbole on your part. Homeless people do freeze to death though, without question. Dying from exposure is not a hard thing to do.
The life expectancy stat is easily accounted for by the great (enormous) rate of drug addiction you’re talking about. Color me unimpressed.
On the east coast, where the weather is more harsh, it is a different story than in LA county.
And the high percentage of drug use can easily correlate to the high percentage of mental illness.
It was an answer to “Where is anyone dying in the streets?!”
Yes, but just because people who live in the streets die does not indicate that they died, as has been waxed poetic, of starvation and freezing. We’re the only country on earth that has fat poor people and no, we really don’t have people starving to death on the streets except a few who are drug addicted, mentally ill and unwilling to avail themselves of the help that’s available. There was one huge story, for example that was made into the clarion call for the whole homeless movement – a woman froze to death on a park bench in DC I believe. Turns out she had $300 in her pocket. There was obviously something very wrong with her, but it was made out to be a heartless society who just wouldn’t help this poor woman out of poverty – when in fact she could have stayed in a warm motel room for a week on that money. The whole premise is ridiculous – we are not Ethiopia; we do not have the conditions here, even for the poorest, that any other country does.
“Yes, but just because people who live in the streets die does not indicate that they died, as has been waxed poetic, of starvation and freezing.”
Nope. Never said it did.
Oh, and she probably would have died in Ethiopia as well – to heat or civil war or dehydration or whatever, rather than cold. Some people really need to be instituionalised lest they kill themselves, more or less on purpose.
That you never said it does not mean I haven’t been reading it from others, Danbala. I have.
I am sure. I am just not interested in answering for what other people have said. I only read SB’s comment about 400 dead as a direct response to the question which she had replied to.
Let’s look into the Constitution. What does it say?
The sad part of the Gretest Nation on Earth is people are free not to help the poor, and the poor are free to be poor. There are many different types of homeless: Some fell on hard times, some have mental diseases, some did it to themselves. So should we help those that have done it to themselves, or just those that “deserve” the help? How many times to you send a man to rehab before you realise he’s a lost cause? Do you put the man in a mental institution against his will, for his own good (sounds kind of tyranical) b/c he’s homeless (no crimes attached)…. it’s a quandry, but to me… let the Charities deal with it. People are more giving when not forced, and they feel they’r emaking a difference on their own, vice being preached to about it.
AND SHIT!!! We agreed again.
If you donate enough to charity, then you could get a big enough tax rebate that you will in effect not be paying taxes. Which would mean you could stop complaining about your tax dollars going to the ‘undeserving poor’. Just a suggestion!
Theres a cap on the deductions you can take for charity.
And if I am not mistaken….the current administration is working on making that cap even lower
Not to mention the AMT which cuts you off deducting charity contributions.
Link to some very interesting data on homelessness in the U.S.
A few things that jumped out at me: 23% of homeless are veterans, 25% physically or sexually abused as children, 21% homeless as children, 35% report some kind of mental illness.
The only thing that surprised me about that is the first figure – the 23% vets. I’d thought they’d be pampered in palaces if you listen to how much reverence there is for military personnel.
There’s only reverence when we ship them off. When they get home we give them the shaft, especially when it comes to mental health. My friend’s boyfriend served in Iraq, he was just a kid when he went over there, and it messed him up pretty bad…when the troops returned, the way they assessed who needed mental health services was to get a group of 400-500 of them together and then they said, “Who needs mental health services? Raise your hand.” Of course, no one raised their hands. That was the only time he was asked if he needed help.
Another friend of mine was in the Navy for 8 years, and is trying to get mental health help currently tells a similar story.
You sure got that one right, SB.
One of the biggest aspects, though, is a soldier’s innate inability to ask for help, as you’ve so eloquently stated.
Yeah exactly, and mental health issues are so stigmatized for military personnel…it’s heartbreaking, to see these young people go through so much for their country, and then be completely abandoned when they get home.
Not just abandoned: Denigrated to pariah level, particularly in conflicts that are deemed “unworthy” or “unwinnable.”
And the VA? What a fricking joke.
Not disagreeing, only adding:
I think that quite a few mental issues in themselves make their “victim” unable or not prone to ask for help.
No, they do a very good job of having credible guests on their programs. You don’t hear extremists from either side really; or if you do, it is clear that they represent extreme views…and I can’t even recall the last time I heard anything of that nature.
If you don’t listen, you should give it a try. Bet you’ll be impressed.
Did that comment end up in the wrong place?
Yeppers.
I think she did.
Total nesting fail! That was for DT re: NPR.
If the military wants you to have fealings they’ll issue them to you.
That’s quite, quite depressing. I mean, I know there used to be little help for mental issues post-war, but I had hoped it would be improved today.
I’ve seen a few TV programs, mainly about physical issues (caused by gas/other chemicals) and the lack of help after modern wars but … Well, y’know. TV… They’re always sensationalist in one way or the other so I was hopefully assuming they were few, those cases.
What is it that makes military personnel so fantastic and loved while they’re serving and uninteresting once they’re done? Or rather – why can’t people (== society) be a bit better at seeing that they’re not having mental issues just for fun…
I expect that most people believe the pitch that the military takes care of its own…I wasn’t aware just how bad the services are for veterans until I started hearing about it from friends, although NPR has done a commendable job on reporting the failures of the military to live up to the promises they make to the enlisted.
Another part of the problem could be that if the military acknowledges how fvcked up the troops are when they return from combat situations, it will lead to more public awareness of the costs associated with war, which could lead to more anti-war activism…I don’t really know. But it’s been going on for decades and it continues…the rates of suicide for returning veterans are continually increasing as well.
We treat our Veterans like shit. I admit it. You can gladly raise my taxes for that. However one caveate, don’t necesarily buy into everytime a bum says he’s a vet. We have our fair share of fakers in DC (which I find odd since it has a high population of military or vets).
Yeah… I guess… This is my main issue with charity over taxes. I prefer the taxation approach because it doesn’t become a popularity contest. If someone needs help, they should get it. Wether they are a military veteran, someone who thinks they are a military veteran, or someone who just tries to play that card to get sympathy, they should all be able to get the health care they need.
And Obama tried to pass legislation making Veterans pay out of pocket for the ongoing care for war injuries – mental or physical. Until there was such an angry outcry that he had to backpedal on it.
No, his proposal was that private insurance companies would pick up the cost of this ongoing treatment, not that vets would pay out of pocket.
And the end result of that is that when people reach their family limits for the year (which disabled and injured vets do with ease) they pay out of pocket for their expenses, either for themselves or their families. Not to mention they have to pay for that private insurance out of pocket and most won’t COVER these things. The real-world results are vets paying out of pocket, and Obama didn’t back down until the outcry reached a zenith. This from the man who claimed to care SO much about veterans.
Anniee’s spot on, SB. Did some necessary research myself on this one…
I’m mostly going “WTF, this is obviously something that society would pay for via the usual national healthcare”. I know that is not up your alley, Anniee.
;p
Actually, there is no annual maximum benefit on medical coverage. There are lifetime benefit maximums which are usually $5 or $6 million. If war-related injuries/illnesses/disabilities are currently denied by private insurance carriers, it’s because those benefits are currently provided by the government as the primary payor. If the rules were changed so that private insurance companies were the primary payor, this would not be an issue.
DT, if Anniee is spot on, gimme a cite.
Whatever insurance you have that doesn’t have you paying out of pocket, I want it!
I’ll have to go back and dig some up. All I know is that shit that used to be covered by the VA no longer would be covered, and co-pays were coming.
I didn’t say there aren’t out-of-pocket costs, I said that there are no annual maximum benefits on medical coverage (just lifetime maximums).
Actually, I believe you did say they wouldn’t pay out of pocket higher up, if I’m reading it right.
No, his proposal was that private insurance companies would pick up the cost of this ongoing treatment, not that vets would pay out of pocket.
They will pay more out of pocket. I’m sure you understand where I’m coming from.
Well I’ll put you in touch with my close friends, who is on SSDI while her husband is on VA assistance and all their various adventures with maximum yearly benefits, why don’t I? Since you know ALL about it.
Ah. I should have been more specific. There would likely be co-pays associated with some services, though not necessarily…it would depend on how the contract was written. But the overall burden would not be put on the vet, as Anniee’s post implied.
SSDI is not private insurance, it’s government insurance. Hence, Social Security Disability Insurance.
So…what in the f*ck was he supposed to do, BUY insurance? Are you stubborn or just stupid to know that means money out of pocket?
I have private insurance and it costs me 400 a month for the policy and then an additional 350 per month in doctor and prescription co-pays. That’s if no one gets sick. So don’t sit there and tell me that something – probably the ONLY thing – that should have been understood to be COMPLETELY COVERED by the government – the health care of people who were injured in our wars – proposed to be put back on to the shoulders of the men who bore the wounds already – was not a f*cking slap in the face and a kick in the teeth. Because it was, and the veterans knew it and that’s why they were FURIOUS.
What was who supposed to do?
I didn’t take a position on Obama’s proposal for shifting some veterans costs to the private sector; I don’t know enough about it to have a position on it one way or another. I was merely correcting your errors.
However, I believe that the point was that if a veteran is paying for private insurance, and also has benefits through the VA, then the private insurance carriers are collecting premiums but are not on the hook to pay out claims, and as such, the insurance companies were getting something of a free ride.
I didn’t make any errors.
But holy HELL where did you get that amazing spin job on it? That’s almost brilliant – too smart for Media Matters, so where did it come from? Too smart for KOS too. Huffpo maybe?
Wait, wait, wait…
People actually READ the Huffington Post?
No errors, except claiming vets would be responsible for all costs out of pocket, annual maximum benefits on private insurance, misidentification of social security insurance and private healthcare…did I miss any?
I read any of those sites. I don’t learn about issues from sites which display a clear bias, because of the concept of intellectual honesty; that is, when I learn, it’s not to support an opinion I already hold, but to be open minded and analyze facts for what they are. Sometimes the facts conflict with my ideals, and then I have to reassess my positions. Sometimes the facts support my ideals, and then I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I didn’t say those things, you did. Or simply misunderstood what I was saying – I know you’re not very bright so I guess it’s possible.
Now wait a minute – you DON’T read sites with a clear bias but you’ve already said you don’t know enough about this issue to form much of an opinion. Then you gave me one of the most beautiful pieces of spin I’ve ever seen (I mean it; that was amazing) – there’s no way in hell you thought of that yourself, so where DID you get that idea from? Is that how The One himself spun it? That’s…I’m genuinely impressed. I wish you’d just answer the question because wherever you got it, I want to go there and read some stuff too.
“Sometimes the facts support my ideals, and then I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.”
I thought girls were always warm and fuzzy inside?
-Prepares to be beaten with canes-
Oh my mistake then, when you said
“Obama tried to pass legislation making Veterans pay out of pocket for the ongoing care for war injuries”
“when people reach their family limits for the year (which disabled and injured vets do with ease) they pay out of pocket for their expenses”
“Well I’ll put you in touch with my close friends, who is on SSDI while her husband is on VA assistance and all their various adventures with maximum yearly benefits”
I thought you actually meant those things.
The issue was discussed on NPR a few months back, that’s where I heard the perspective I quoted here. You could try NPR.org and do a search.
Ohhh NPR – no clear bias hehe. Well maybe I will; that was a pretty amazing way of spinning it (but I repeat myself.) But NPR is pretty awfully boring, so who knows. Thanks for the cite.
NPR is the least biased news source that I’ve found. They typically have representation from multiple viewpoints on any issues they cover in detail. This was the case with the veteran’s healthcare proposal.
It might not be as exciting as listening to frothy-mouthed, self-righteous, opinionated pundits shout at their guests and make outrageous, divisive claims about political and social issues, but then, honest journalism rarely is.
SB – they sure do — all the way from whackadoodle hippe lib from mid-centrist riding the ragged edge of commie lib.
SB: What do we do about it? Do we force them into institutions agaisnt there will, without having committed a crime? Really how do we handle this?
I would check the 23% being Vets, remember some people tend to lie. Don’t jump on me for saying that, as I’m sure it is still rather high, but I wouldn’t say 23%. The reason, someone is more likely to give to a person who they feel did something for this country and then was abandoned, vice a druggy.
Lots of the homeless people who I have talked to have expressed a wish to be albe to go back to their institutions. These are mentally unstable, rather trashed people who spent their entire life in institutions until the government suddenly decided “that’s inhumane, let’s close ‘em”, and plenty of those inhabitants now sleep in bus-wossnames-the-little-cubicle-things-where-you-wait-for-them.
Just because we who can take care of ourselves think that institutions are demeaning might not mean they are to the people who can’t, I think.
I’m not sure what to do about it. My cousin works for an outreach organization that tries to get homeless folks in touch with services that are available to them. The vast majority of the people she sees are mentally ill, most often it seems they suffer from schizophrenia. I don’t think forcing the homeless into institutions is a viable option…I can’t imagine how one would get that done, logistically, legally, etc.
The study I cited is from the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, so I doubt very highly that the veteran count was not verified.
Many veterans are also drug addicts, don’t forget. And many veterans are also mentally ill and don’t have it together enough to access the services that are available to them.
The study provides some suggestions on how these people can be helped if you scroll down towards the bottom.
I wasn’t saying the survey was compelely wrong I was just saying that I’m sure the number was somewhat inflated due to Homeless Individuals would lie. It’s also a LOT of money to verify someone’s military record. Chances are some of the individuals couldn’t remember their Social Security # to help them verify (can’t reallly look up by name that well). Actually I would doubt the 100% validity of the count, US DoHHS is a beauracratic branch of the government, so anything they can do to help boost funds to their cause can be done. Everyone does it, CIA, FBI, DoT, DoD, etc…. (I know pessimistic view of things but life experiences).
I will agree most of the homeless have some mental disorder, whether it be addiciton, schizo, etc… but once again how do we go about helping them legally? As you said it’s hard to do.
ILPB, if you have evidence that this study failed to verify a verifiable fact, then you should cite it, but otherwise I’m afraid the study has more credibility than your assumption. Inflating the number of homeless veterans certainly does nothing to improve the image of the government.
Recommendations on how to help the homeless, particularly those with mental health issues, include:
Outreach, whether in shelters or on the street, is effective. Given the opportunity, most homeless people with serious mental illnesses are willing to accept treatment and services voluntarily. Consistent outreach and the introduction of services at the client’s pace are key to engaging people in treatment and case management services. A consistent, caring, personal relationship is required to engage people who are homeless in treatment.
Integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment provided by multidisciplinary treatment teams can improve mental health, residential stability, and overall functioning in the community. Regular assertive outreach, lower caseloads, and the multidisciplinary nature of the services available from these teams are critical ingredients that lead to positive treatment and housing outcomes.
Supportive services to people in housing have proven effective in achieving residential stability, improving mental health, and reducing the costs of homelessness to the community. Supported housing is preferred by many homeless people with serious mental illnesses. Many people who are homeless with serious mental illnesses can move directly from homelessness to independent housing with intensive support and attention.
Prevention. Homelessness among people with serious mental illnesses can be prevented. Discharge planning that helps people who are leaving institutions to access housing, mental health, and other necessary community services can prevent homelessness during such transitions. Ideally, such planning begins upon entry into an institution, is ready to be implemented upon discharge, and involves consumer input. Providing short-term intensive support services immediately after discharge from hospitals, shelters, or jails has proven effective in further preventing recurrent homelessness during the transition back into the community.
SB: My citation is working for the federal government and knowing the beauracy that each government agency has to do. There is always a fudge factor in everything that is done. So I’m sorry my citation is simple, it’s the federal government. That’s all I’m saying. Not a huge disagreement there, I said I bet the number is close, but just a little inflated. Trust me I work in SE DC, I’ve seen the people do their studies. It’s a questionaire on a clip board. My favorite is the ACLU…. “No I don’t believe in equality, now go away!!!”
A lot of your ideas are great, however one flaw. All of them depend on the person looking for help. The sad thing is, that’s not always the case, b/c the individual doesn’t know they need help (due to mental illness), doesn’t want help, or is too scared of help (already been in one of our dumb ass institutions that still believe in shock therapy). I wish we could help everyone we could, and that’s the idealism in me coming out, however the practical side realizes it’s a losing battle, sort of like the drug war. (I know such a bad pessimist, I admit it).
I should clarify, those are not my ideas, that’s a cut and paste from the study I linked.
My cousin does outreach for the homeless, which means when she sees homeless people, she gives them her card and tries to get them to come in. But you are correct, it’s often very hard for the mentally ill to have it together enough to take advantage of the help that’s available to them. She has been trying to help this one kid, he’s in his early twenties and has schizophrenia and has already had serious drug problems and has prostituted himself…sometimes they can get him to come in for periods of time, get him on meds, get him in housing, etc., but he is so damaged already. Recovering from drug addiction and the experience of prostitution would be hard for anyone, not to mention schizophrenia on top of it. Some people just don’t get any breaks.
Breaks = opportunities to change your life. You can only offer so many and be refused. Oh yeah. He’s getting breaks. A lot of them. More than you or I are ever offered.
Schizos prefer the company of their voices. I know you don’t want to hear that, but they invaribly do. They feel depressed and dysfunctional without them, typically.
Well, I’ve had some tough breaks in my day, like anyone, and I’ve gotten through it, but I’m glad as hell I’m not schizophrenic. Don’t know what would have become of me.
One problem with this disorder, too, is that the meds have really rough side effects, so yes, some of them prefer the illness itself than the side effects of the drugs.
Not being confrontational, or suggesting you’re erroneous in your conclusions, just offering a sad reality. As in any problematic behavior, one must want to change. It’s hard to want in when it’s preferential and more pleasant “personally” not to accept that assistance.
“Schizos prefer the company of their voices. I know you don’t want to hear that, but they invaribly do. They feel depressed and dysfunctional without them, typically.”
HST: Can you cite that please?
Nope. Anecdotal as a past med professional and working with an entire extended group of family members engaged in similar professions.
“Prefer” to medicating. As was discussed, the meds suck compared to the symptoms. Bipolars are exactly the same, regarding the highs.
I’ll gladly look for supporting evidence. I’m sure it’s out there; it’s not just a stereotype.
I would love to see some sort of study on that.
Me too. I’ll be looking. I know the docs generalized it: not in a morgue humor way, but more in a head-shaking, resigned-to-the-inevitable way.
This is a common sentiment I found at a website for schizo support but that I have personally heard before, in a fashioin:
the meds make me loose all feelings, like sad, angry, happy,lust love. i feel dead and nothing effects me . i lose all emotional feelings… the voices at least its not so lonely with them… even though they all hate me …well not all of them just the 2…
Don’t worry, I’m still looking, though.
HST: That site is down, I’ll check it in the morning. Charro have to go night night big day sitting on my lazy commie ass waiting for government handouts.
Oops I meant being at work.
Oh, also, I can understand the thing about the meds. I was on Abilify for a while and it really did take away all my feelings. Anger, sadness, happiness; I was basically at an even keel all the time which was frustrating. To be honest though I really preferred it to the crashing depressions and frantic desires to ehm.. Go crazy. For lack of a better term
I can’t speak to how anyone else feels regarding the meds, I only know how I felt. I’m happy to see what you find.
Dunno what you guys are talking about. I’m on emotional stability meds, and I’m just toned down a bit.
Just as crazy as ever, and still have those moods, just feel less anxious about every little thing.
Here’s a good one re: refusing treatment due to desire/need for substance abuse.
Here’s a link to a study on the topic; it’s from 1998 so there likely have been advancements in medicine, but from what my cousin has told me the side effects are still bad.
Good stuff, SB. Thanks.
I was trying to find a link to people “preferring” the voices, but I think that’s all wrapped up in the side effect/refusal to acknowledge sypmtoms phenomenon.
Very well said, ILPB.
We have the “wealthiest” and fattest poor people in the world in America. The definition of poor in america is not having 120 cable channels on the tv.
i’ve only got 40… so what am i? nearly homeless??
/sarcasm
Worse, with 40 it means you have no cable!!! that’s just plain un patriotic. You need the Dish or Cable… I think it’s in the Constitution.
I don’t even watch TV… *hides face*
Your probably the smartest one of all yikes
Thanks, but, well, I do want to watch TV though… *hides face*
i do have cable. just the basics. i don’t need 3 ESPN classics. i watched the games live if i was interested at all.
Communist!!!
Uuuhhhmmmm…Don’t Catholic priests take a vow of poverty? Yeah, big FAIL there for the Vatican.
Why are you directing that comment at me?
No, only certain order take that.
Thanks. I wouldn’t know…
Also, they don’t actually own any of that stuff, the church as a whole does.
Kind of like driving the company car, and having a corporate housing allowance… To bad we can’t tax that!
PSST: These aren’t Priests. It’s a Bishop and the Pope. No most priests don’t take a vow of poverty, you’re thinking of monks. However I’ve never known a “rich” priest as they are housed by the church, fed by the chruch.
Deep Throat (sorry everytime I see your name I think of that): Let’s say “liberl agenda” vice liberals, your point becomes that much more valid. However I believe the point you were making is that the liberal agenda, which is not always friendly to Christianity, also employs the tithing rule, however it is enforced more upon the rich, vice everybody.
Point being that it’s too much work to drop a few bucks in the red bucket at xmas…. ROFLMAO!
Point being that a few bucks in the red bucket at Christmas doesn’t cover it. If it did, they wouldn’t be back out every Christmas.
…and I’d only need to file one income tax statement in my entire life…
Okay, everyone, raise your hand if you knew the droning about “liberals” was going to show up here?
Yeah, me too.
Hey there, dumb bitch, wanna blow me before or after you learn how to read?
Illiterate. Moronica.
Deep Thought, you should change your name. For one of two reasons.
Either due to the fact that the name Deep Thought implies that you actually think deeply which you’ve several times demonstrated that you do not.
OR because it’s a reference to Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and nobody who fails as hard as you should be allowed to quote the Guide.
And you’re no Vonnegut, sweetie-pie.
Point your hard-on somewhere else, pretty boi.
Don’t you have a zit to pop, kid?
Don’t you have a co(k to block?
Who thought the droning from liberals about religion pushing values on them would come up here, raise your hand?
Stromy: It could be said either case so let’s not try and do th epolarizing thing, and actually have a civil diagreement.
doesn’t apply to the followers of Ayn Rand, in fact, they’d be hypocrites if they hocked their stuff for the poor.
There’s not liberals. They’re objectivists. Different beast entirely.
I’m sorry I was replying to the comment “Bullshit it applies to everyone” I was working under the assumption that everyone included anyone whether they are objectivists, liberals, conservatives, stoics, epicurean ect…
The sentiment of the LOL DOES apply to everyone:
How many poor people could YOU keep alive today? is the basic message…
Not as I read it, no.
Literally read, it’s “they” as individuals, and not “it” as in the Catholic Church as an entity.
Ah, but the lol would only apply to people who actually speak for giving money to the poor and saying that that is the morally correct thing to do. So not everyone. The basic message is that urging others to give to the poor because that is right, while you’re more blinged out than a well-off monarch is dodgy.
That’s how I read it.
Yes, but it’s not the literal interpretation, which is what I was addressing. If you didn’t know they were Catholic, you’d just assume the message as being literal.
So nah, nah nah nah-nah.
If I didn’t know they were Catholic I’d assume they were wearing masquerade stuff from a joke shop, cause frankly it all lokks like shite. So I’d kinda assume they were the poor ones. :p
Ok, so not really.
To express it mildly, it was unclear that you were addressing the literal text of the lol and disregarding any common knowledge of the characters in the picture.
Mebbe ah wuz, aayund mebbe ah wuzznt….
Good discussion, either way!
Also, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that was St. Nick and Emperor Palpatine, so I would guess the same thing regarding their costumes…
how many could i keep alive today? hum…none so far as I am aware. My computer is a Frankenstein creature, it’s the only thing in my name and i have a negative net worth for at least a few more years.
I see what you mean though, everyone could be asked that question. it is just there are many groups who have a doctrine that says one thing, and answer another. Christians, Buddhists, Economic Liberals…so on
Okay, guys wait… this LOL is obvious made as trollbait to start arguments. So….
IT’S A TRAP!!!
*obviously
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO………….
Thanks, Admrial Ackbar!
How could they be jamming our signals unless they knew…we were coming…
Well if she does it right, she’ll ask.
They must have used the raspberry..
They look like they’re at Midieval Times! The Pope is totally rooting for the Pink Knight.
Precisely my problem with the catholic church and the vatican.
I’ve read the bible, and I’m pretty sure the carpenter’s son would not approve of a representative of the church carrying a scepter, wearing robes trimmed in gold, etc.
Did these guys even READ the bible?
“Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.” (James 5:1-3)
Well, let’s face it, it’s not like the bible gives the most ethical of instruction…
I’m not saying it does. Hypocrisy just makes me three different flavors of angry.
They act like they’re superior to everyone because they’re devout Catholics but they don’t practice what they preach. /end rant
Then you shouldn’t be here typing on that computer, eh, Stevie ol’ boy. Sell that house and computer and live in a mud hut. It’s all you really need to survive, right?
I’m not a Catholic. I don’t go around telling people to give their riches to the poor…
Do you know the meaning of the word Hypocrisy?
Besides, I’m a liberal. Didn’t you hear? My rich neighbor pays my mortgage and I bought my computer with my welfare checks. /sarcasm
But you are a liberal. So you go around telling people to give their riches to the poor….
No, to the government…
Which is the poorest.
Groan. The majority of people think the government should protect its people from violence. Why not from poverty?
Because governments aren’t designed to be “profitable” such that they have extra income to “give.”
Exactly, government produces no wealth.
If it did, wouldn’t we have to tax it?
I don’t think the government should be overtaxing people to rake in cash to hand out but I do think we need government intervention in basic things. If you’re against the gov’t giving money for welfare you should be against it getting involved in any social matters. Otherwise it’s hypocritical.
I agree!
So then what are we arguing about? Darn the internetz.
Seereyous bizness, teh internetz…
That depends on how you have designed your government. General discussions are tricky if we’re talking about the US government half the time and government in general half the time.
Learn the difference between Social and Economic issues. Then take the time to ask someone about their beliefs before you make assumptions and label them.
I’m Liberal on Social issues.
I prefer they not take ANY tax money for welfare, unemployment, etc. I think that non-profit organizations would do a better job, but when that isn’t enough someone has to step in to prevent people from living on the streets and starving to death.
If not the government…then who?
Or do we just let them starve?
They can eat their shoes!!!! Crap then they have cold feet. Hey aren’t their plenty of rats in the inner cities?!?! (You do realize I’m being sarcastic).
As said before if there isn’t enough money let’s hit up the bleeding heart liberal actors and actresses who do the telethons, but somehow don’t give.
No kidding! I hate how they sponsor all these events where we, the middle class, are supposed to give. But they never do! They could pool all their millions, sports stars too, and feed the hungry for years to come I bet.
How do you know they don’t give? A lot of the rich give generously to charity if for no other reason for the tax deductions.
A lot of them don’t too.
Way to avoid the question. I think he has a valid point.
I did answer the question. Let the people who VOTE to tax me and my kind pay first. Once those who voted for the higher taxes money runs out, then I’ll think about contirbuting. Or I could do what I do every year, clean out my closet of unused clothes (including blnakets, jackets, etc), clean out the cubard of unused cans (which haven’t expired), and continue my monthly gift to charities, and know I’ve done my part.
And those who won’t? What do we do about them? Just say, “Okay, be a dick. That’s great. Want a s’more?” I think it’s sick that some people live in the lap of luxury while other live in the streets.
If you wanna eat, you’ve gotta contribute.
Always been that way, always should be.
I don’t. I think it’s capitalism. I think it’s the right of an idividual to do with their own possesions as they see fit. I know to some liberals that whole “ownership” thing is confusing, but believe it or not people are allowed to own things. People are allowed to have in excess. The sad part Eric is that some people probably believe that you live in the lap of luxury, so are you sick with yourself? When is it deemed too much excess (just above you)? It’s not everyone’s job to help the homeless. Sometimes it’s the homelesses job to help themselves. I know that can’t work in all cases, but forcing people to give up their possesions so those without can have, well that’s thievary.
The problem is that no matter how much “charity/aid” that is given, it will never be enough. People will always want more and more.
No one can eat just one Lays.
Michelle Obama could donate her shoes to help feed the hungry
Oh come one! Her feet aren’t that big.
come “on”
He said “feed” the hungry- not house the hungry!
I doubt they’re THAT hungry.
Or to boat people!!
Social issues don’t exist in a vacuum. They must be funded.
YUP!
Vacuum sucks!
Wind blows!!
i know a girl named wind.
she goes by that
Does she need another plate of beans?
she blows, not break
Can I meet this girl? I want to see if she lives up to her name.
Get in line.
She does. trust me.
don’t you have “blowers” over there?
Yeah but it’s like $10 a pop.
Long live Europe
Yer up… YAY!
At the word flavors, my mind went somewhere it shouldn’t… XD
Squiggly, I’m like a bag of skittles, taste the rainbow!
*wink*
*licks The Steve*
omg you taste like Skittles!
XD
*blushes*
*gets all excited, runs in circles*
*tips over*
*giggles*
I’m bored. Does anyone else have a flavor?
I taste like bacon. ::nods::
*licks*
*faints*
*pokes Eric with a stick*
I taste like Dragonberry.
I’m not familiar with that flavor Tyler. Describe what Dragonberry tastes like and maybe I’ll give it a try…
*cough*
I’m going to bet Dead Squirrel tastes like dead squirrel….
…which, of course, tastes like tree chicken.
Deep have you got a flavor?
Strawberry banana dicksicles.
With cream cheese filling.
:\ Lovely.
That’s the dessert on mj’s meal.
Yeah those pesky Ten Commandments, what craptacualr ethics!!! I personally think Thou shall not kill is the most opressive!!!
As a Christian, I can honestly say that I think a number of the ethics presented in that book are a load of crap. Especially OT stuff that frankly doesn’t apply to us anyway.
Once again, those pesky ten commandments. You know honor thy husband (which actually was translated wrong and said honor thy spouse). Please tell me which commandment you don’t like. Or how about do unto others as you want done unto you.
5 out of 10 of them are pretty universal. I support them. The rest are gibberish. ;p
Yeah – I know you asked Eric, not me, and I would not call myself a Christian, so meh…
4 out of 10. I can count, I just can’t hit the right keys on my feckin’ keyboard.
Since the original discussion was about the bible’s ethics in general, I commented on the bible’s ethics in general. Yeah, the 10 commandments are fine and all…the ones I remember…but there’s still a lot in the OT that’s just silly.
Like what? Splitting a baby in two?
no pork, no shellfish, women on their period are not allowed in town, if they touch a pot it must be broken. don’t make clothing from two different kinds of cloth.
the things that were once dangerous for health reasons but are now extremely outdated and silly.
Which is exactly why nobody practices them anymore. Did you ever notice in the New Testament that Jesus was always speaking out against the “Teachers of the Law?” Did you ever notice that Jesus’ biggest targets of criticism were the “Teachers of the Law” and the Pharisees? People argue that the laws of the Old Testament (referring to the vast number of ridiculous and even immoral laws in Numbers and Leviticus, excluding the Ten Commandments which we are to follow) were once valid but were made invalid by the New Covenant, but I would argue that according to Christ they were never valid and were flawed and made by men, which explains why he was constantly challenging them. (i.e., he stopped people from stoning the prostitute, he helped people on the Sabbath, he fellowshipped with the “unclean” such as tax collectors, lepers, and Samaratins)
I’m not sure if I’m missing your sarcasm or what, but just in case…
There is no commandment that says “honor thy husband” (or spouse). There is an “honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be” something something, you win the lottery and never get old or something.
And “Do unto others…” is not a commandment, either; it’s often used as a paraphrase and summary of ~five of the ten. (With “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and mind” being the paraphrased summary of the rest.)
I’m not a Christian, but the way the Bible gets twisted around sometimes makes me itch, especially when it’s people who claim to build their lives around it.
Do unto others isn’t a commandment. Not saying it’s a bad rule to live by mind you, just that it’s not a commandment.
Now for which parts of the Decalogue I don’t like.
We’ll go with the Catholic version since that’s most relevant to the lol. And as a bonus I’ll do a checklist of the ones i’ve broken
X 1. I am the Lord your god, thou shalt have no god before me and something about idols
Okay being pagan it’s obvious why I’m not a fan of this one.
X 2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
What does this one even mean? I marked it because not knowing it’s exact meaning, i’ve probably broken it.
X 3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Everyone seems to declare a different day the Sabbath, and
what qualifies as keeping it holy?
X 4. Honor your father and mother
Should you honor your parents if they are not worthy of
honour?
5. You shall not murder
Worded this way, I agree with it. Despite the numbers of people who have been murdered in gods name. But the people doing that are hypocrites and they don’t make that commandment any less valid
X 6.You shall not commit adultery
I agree with it, and have only broken this one on a technicality. I do think that this is up to the couple though. If you want to swing, swing.
X 7.You shall not steal
Mixed feelings on this one. There’s stealing out of greed, which yeah that’s bad. But there’s also stealing to survive. That’s different.
X 8. Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Honesty is almost always a good thing, but I’ve had my own failings in this area. Still though, this is one of the good ones.
X 9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife
But have you SEEN my neighbor’s wife? seriously though, this one gets filed right next to the adultery one in my book.
X10. Thou shall not covet anything belonging to your neighbor.
There’s no harm in coveting goods, as long as you don’t allow it to make you do something you shouldn’t. Besides, coveting neighbor’s goods is one of the essential building blocks of capitalism. So is capitalism an affront to god now?
Sorry for the drawn out religious rant.
1. personally i believe that no matter what you call God or how you think of Him/Her/It, so long as you don’t fragment your faith by trusting in “idols” such as money or sex or designer clothes and makeup, you’re not breaking this one.
2. probably referring both to swearing in God’s name (e.g. “Jesus fracking Christ!”) and/or making false proclamations in God’s name (e.g. those idiots picketing the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, with “GOD HATES FAGS” signs).
3. the word SABBATH is derived from a word meaning “designated time of rest” (“but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.”). so in spirit, at least, “keeping the sabbath holy” really means keeping a regular day and/or time set aside to rest from day-to-day living and appreciate the Divine origin of the universe and whatever that means to you personally.
4. the Amplified Bible states this one as “Regard (treat with honor, due obedience, and courtesy) your father and mother, that your days may be long in the land the Lord your God gives you.” as for whether your parents are worthy of your respect as human beings, its up to you to be able to appreciate the fact that they gave you life and have more life experiences than you do, while possibly despising them because of their potential status as worthless human beings.
5. pretty straightforward. the confusion comes when people argue over the legal/ethical/moral definition of what is/isn’t murder. (e.g. “Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” -Albert Einstein)
6. another one based on outmoded ignorance of things such as genetics and sexual health.
7. your “stealing to survive” point deserves an in-depth discussion of moral dualities and ethical conundrums. somewhere else.
8. malicious lies, libel and slander are bad. agreed.
9/10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” i’m with you on this one: desiring possession or access to beautiful things is part of what makes us human, thus any attempt to deny such impulses is tantamount to denying that aspect of our own humanity. i haven’t seen your neighbor’s wife, but i’ve seen plenty of other beauties and wanted to do things with them. what distinguishes a morally responsible person from a reprehensible one is how one reacts to these impulses. insofar as this relates to capitalism, i think you have misstated the case. wanting a car LIKE my neighbor’s is good for capitalism, and different from wanting my neighbor’s car.
i hope i’ve provided some clarification and illuminating comparison, and not just a rant on religion/ethics.
“Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
All taken from the New Testament.
Is this your idea of unethical teaching? Quit using the Old Testament nonsense to attack Christianity. Jesus himself condemned all the laws of the Old Testament, save for the Ten Commandments. Remember the story of the prostitute, who was going to be stoned?
I don’t think he condemned the OT laws – he even said something like, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets, I am come to fulfill them.” (paraphrased.)
With regard to the woman taken in adultery, who was going to be stoned, he didn’t say that the Law was unacceptable – he merely said, “Let he among you who is without sin throw the first stone.” (paraphrased again)
When he said that he was directly challenging the law. If he said he was from God, and that the law was from God, why would he be telling the people to break the law?
He wasnt’ telling people to “break” the law. The point of all of the laws in the OT and how restricting they were is this: No one can obey all of those laws. There is no human on this earth perfect enough to do it. Except for one. The point of the law was to show people that they are fallible and need grace, and Christ. This is what Christ meant when He fought against the teachers of the law, because they were perverting the original intent and meaning. Also, most of the nit picky laws were in place to protect hapless nomads from themselves (they didn’t know how to cook pork properly, things like that), and weren’t meant to get you to Heaven.
-
As far as the woman being stoned, Jesus was trying to show these idiots the way of Grace, which is not earned, but given.
Breaking the law, breaking the law!!! (Beavis and Butthead… ahh I miss them)
Well, it depends on your interpretation. Jesus could be read to endorse the OT in its entirety:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall he called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
—MATTHEW 5:18-19
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”
—TIMOTHY 3:16-17
In any case, all of the love business is only good until the second coming, when a shit-storm of hellfire will be rained down on non-believers:
“God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you … when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might…”
—2 THESSALONIANS 1:6-9
The Golden Rule is great, but it was also espoused long before the time of christ.
And I forgot the NT endorsements of slavery, those are especially ethical:
“Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor,
so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions…”
—1 TIMOTHY 6:1-4
For being omnipotent, it’s amazing how much the Big Guy Upstairs leaves open to interpretation. You would think that an all-powerful entity capable to anything would be so vague and contradictory.
With regard to the ten commandments, if you believe that Jesus was only endorsing the ten commandments in Matthew 5:18-19, don’t you find it funny that of all the instruction god could have wanted us to learn and abide by, he would pick those ten things in particular…I mean, some of them I get (don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.), but these are hardly exclusively Christian ideals. It also seems strange that breaking any of these commandments should be punishable by death. He’s a rather confusing fellow, this god. The Jains did a better job at summing up the important stuff I think, and they did it in a single sentence! “Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.” Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept.
Excuse the typos please
it’s okay, this gold and silver is supposed to make jesus look important. that’s totally different >.>
THIS CAPTION IS AWESOME. I just took a trip to Italy and went through the Vatican museum and obviously St. Peter’s Basilica and this is exactly what I was thinking the whole time. Obviously this same thing could be said about the church as a whole (Protestant churches included)….especially some Baptist and Pentecostal Mega Churches….but it blew my mind how much gold lined the halls of that place.
And when these starving people used up all these guys money, where will they go next?
The Vatican vaults. I’m sure that’d take care of a good chunk of Africa. I’m not saying they should sell their shit and feed the world (and actually, it’d be a much better idea to take all the lost artwork they keep hidden from the world and open a musuem, the profits would be a much better return then a one time sale). What I am saying is that I feel no guilt refusing to donate to the multitude of Catholic charities my grandmother tries to pawn off on us. I’m tempted to write a letter back saying, “You want money to run on the outskirts of the Aleutian Islands? Well write your pope and ask him to sell his gucci shoes.”
“I’m sure that’d take care of a good chunk of Africa.” –
True, but for how long? Africa needs to become self sufficient. If they could sell everything and accomplish that it would be worth it. I hear you about the church though, they are despicable in their excess. They should open a museum, what a good idea. I would love to see what they have tucked in there, gold from the Americas too I bet.
I was mostly being sarcastic there. Whether or not we should feed a good chunk of Africa doesn’t negate the fact that we could.
But to whom should you feed that chunk of Africa?
Keira Knightly. According to what I saw on RoffleRazzi the other day she could use some food.
She should have some cake, even if it is a lie…
The lie is a lie.
there is cake
*eats cake*
the truth is restored…
You have to realize, there is no spoon
Depends on the kind of cake. Sometimes you don’t need a spoon.
Portal reference FTW
Heehehe.
Another chunk of Africa?
When you add it all up, the Catholic Church helps more poor people in the world than whole countries. Food, clothing, medicine, rebuilding after natural disasters are all part of the work of the Holy Father and the Church worldwide. Don’t criticize when you don’t know all the facts
Tell them condoms help spread Aids rather then prevent it, raping indigent children because they aren’t likely to sue…
Catholic Charities USA vs. American Red Cross, 2006
Uses of Funds as a % of Total Expenses
Programs: 97% Fund Raising: 1% Administrative: 2%
American Red Cross
Programs: 95% Fund Raising: 2% Administrative: 3%
Ah, another unfunny commentary of Church excess. Who wants to take bets on how long it’ll take before we reach 1,000 comments on this one? I’m gonna hedge about two days.
Meh. Lols like this only get the win votes because we all like the bickering anyway.
I don’t
I’d rather have more s’mores…
I find all them “friendly group conversations” relatively boring, usually. They rarely are relevant to the topics. ;p
I like both, but when lols get too many comments I have a horrible time trying to sort through it all and often don’t bother. Especially if it has a couple hundred comments before I’ve even had a chance to look at it.
I’m the same way. And often with LOLs that breed arguments, you get the same one over and over again. -_- It gets boring.
I would love collapsible thread structures here. Some branches you quickly realise you aren’t interested in, and it’d be great to be able to collapse them into a “+”-sign style thing, I think.
Nice!
“Well, you people are fu(king boring. Goodbye.”
;p
It’d make it easier to scroll between the branches that are interesting, at least!
Do s’mores trigger the topless camping trip we ended up with in that previous thread?
I think so.
*Buys stock in graham crackers, marshmallows and hershey bars.*
*Orders in bulk, lights campfire*
“I’ve got s’mores!”
It’s a little late to derail the arguing into a full-on topless s’more party, I think…
Maybe if I had beer and unicorns….
*licks The Steve again*
You still taste like Skittles!
XD
*licks back*
You taste like girl! Yummy!
if you have beer and unicorns you’re only a few ingredients shy of creating rob pattinson. now if HE were at the campout it’d probably turn into a topless s’more campout pretty quickly.
If you have illicit drugs, beer, unicorns, and hookers, you’d have Neil Patrick Harris.
But, would you want him?
Neil Patrick Harris?
Who wouldn’t? I feel like nailing Barney wouldn’t make me gay, it would just be an achievement.
You would nail a stuffed purple dinosaur?
We’re already at 300. *puts on fund raising voice* Keep making those comments people, we should be able to make our goal!
I’m workin’ on it. *pant, pant* Think!! Dammit think!!
What’s the goal?
One
Thousand
Comments.
Just posting like this to help you to your goal Jane.
From: The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts”
(Capitalization and censorship as per original text)
1. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don’t Believe In Me, That’s Okay. Really, I’m Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn’t About Them So Don’t Change The Subject.
2. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don’t Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
3. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey = Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We’re Talking About Fashion And I’m Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal and Fuchsia.
4. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Indulge In Conduct That Offends
Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
5. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.
6. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):
1. Ending Poverty
2. Curing Diseases
3. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable
I Might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM the Creator.
7. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You’re Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can’t You Take A Hint?
8. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear a CONDOM! Honestly, It’s A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn’t Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.
k by
Hahaha…I laughed.
I know the difference between teal and Fuchsia.
Am I in trouble? Or just not color blind?
Neither. You’re late for your date with Perez.
EW.
That ain’t right, DT.
Well, then you shouldn’t have asked him for a hook-up.
I didn’t.
Then….
I have a picture of the flying spaghetti monster on my cell phone. Spotted him in all his noodly glory hovering over a campsite at Pennsic in 2008. He didn’t talk to me though.
Too bad. I caught him for you in this poster.
No thanks necessary
“In my scientific opinion, when comparing the two theories, FSM theory seems to be more valid than classic ID theory.”
–Afshin Beheshti, Ph.D.
my wife works in a book store. i just texted her to order the book for me. WIN!
Patriarch Bartholomew I is Santa Claus’ secret identity.
then what would they have to make them look pwetty?
they have to atract the young folks, and the bling does it all
Pretty much. I mean, the Catholic church, no matter how you feel about their teachings, actually does provide relief work – but the pomp and pageantry of the church gives people a guilt-free and affordable way to enjoy, well, spectacle. Who is to say that’s not a human need as well?
I’m a Lutheran myself so it’s not really my thing, but of all the problems that occur in religion, fancy outfits isn’t really the biggest one.
Catholicism guilt free? when did this start?
I would estimate that they would feed 10-20 people for about a year. Considering the economy and the auction value of various cloth pope hats/robes aren’t much. The gold items would be a bit more, but mostly the cost of the raw materials being melted back down. What they cost the church is another question. Feeding 20 or so people for a year is nothing when compared to how much the catholic church gives in charity per year.
I am speaking as an athiest.
Ask the same of Hollywood…in fact, ask the same of yourself..what could YOU give up to aid the poor? Don’t always blame someone else; take personal responsibility!
As has already been said several times, there’s the little bit about the hypocrisy. Nothing wrong with the blingbling, but having the blingbling and at the same time strongly urge one’s followers to give money to the poor – less cool.
Yes, but Hollywood types are always harping on us to give but I’m just not sure how much they themselves do when most are sitting on mounds of wealth… That would qualify as hypocrisy too.
Oh, I bet they are. I missed addressing that particular point of Linda MacDonald’s post, and focused on the “what could YOU do”. Capital letters do that to me. :p
Yes, the definitely should be used sparingly!
I’m not even so mad about them asking us to give money as I am about them having all that money and then asking me to give to the Church. Sorry, open up your coffers to run yourselves, I’m living paycheck to paycheck and you are low on my priority list.
As a citizen of the United States I would like to give up some of the BS government programs
)
I give up more than 40% of the money I earn every year. Does that count?
Only 40%……. slacker.
Opps…41%…forgot about the kids lemonade stand I donate to in the summer.
If you ain’t giving at leat 50% you’re being Un-patriotic and Immoral. Joe might come to your house and steal your dog.
But did Joe pay HIS taxes? Like most of Obama’s cabinet, did he “forget”?
Hee hee. Click me.
Yeah, and the poor would still be poor, the hungry would still be hungry, and those two guys would be naked.
EW! OH GOD MY BRAIN! EW EW EW EW! MIND BLEACH PLEASE!
I would pay big money NOT TO SEE THAT!!!
Ew. Brain bleach, please??!!??
This is the single best response to this school of thought I have ever seen.
Well done, that man/woman.
Analysis fail.
It’s just not FUNNY. I want the FUNNY!!!!
Maybe the next LOL will be funny…
Nope!!! The Next like three aren’t funny… apparantly we get like two funnies a week or something.
NO FUNNEH FOR YOU!!!!
I saw
It’s depressing to think a site that promises LOLs can’t deliver on a regular basis.
Kind of like our Government!!!!
With a penis!
Yeah, so who can afford to buy it – and what are THEY doing for the starving? Should just cut out the middlemen!
Yeah, I like that idea
Let’s give all the silly hats and clothing to the poor in Africa! At least they’ll look fabulous
Oh how appropriate. There’s an advertisement for Ann Coulter’s column right above this text box.
FU(K! I read that as “ann coulter’s colon” and died a LOT inside….
When you think about it, there is little difference between Ann Coulter’s column and Ann Coulter’s colon…they’re both full of shit.
Go read it.
Already had this sort of caption, have we not?
Wasn’t there a leg space one? Or maybe that only appeared in “Vote” or “Upcoming”…
*remembers not*
Already had this sort of caption, have we not?
Not sure about the new “lol” emoticon…. It looks a bit manic…
Agreed.
It screams “BRAINZZZ!!!elebenties!!1″
I am not religious myself, but the anti-Catholic bias here is really obvious.
Nah. Just anti-hypocrisy. Most people don’t understand just how much the Catholic Church does behind the scenes. Ostentatious showmanship thus ends up typifying an entire faith.
Is what is is, dude.
You don’t say?
Yeah, I noticed that too. No pokes at Judiasm, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Islam ( well, only a few), etc….
They got to the altar boys first, it’s just jealousy.
Fail.
Rail!
Tail!
Mail?
Cydesdale?
Oops, meant Clydesdale*
Snail Trail
Pail!
Hail!
Travail!
pale ale
May I avail myself of your pale ale?
Whale! and Wail!
Male sale!!!!!
i believe the word you’re looking for is “hawked.”
Funny there’s never any LOLS about Muslim clerics in spite of there being lots of opportunity ..hmmm..whatsa mattter??? Scared??
Yeah! Why haven’t you made any!?
Maybe she has – maybe they’re hilarious. The voting here is obviously retarded. (Just note the one of Obama probably-not-ogling the girl’s butt for proof.)
Whoa. That comment took well over 24 hours to go through, just because I forgot to use “fornicate” instead of its harassed synonym.
1. Catholic institutions give ALOT to charities. Not everything…but alot. 25% of charities in Africa are Catholic supported. The price of the clothing, in the grand scheme of things, is but a triviality. The robes typically cost less thatn an Armani suit.
2. It’s the people selling the clothes that make them “expensive”.
3. Maybe the world should pool it’s money, and then distribute it evenly amongst everyone…and then no one would be poor. For about five hours.
then everyone would be at war with a spontaneously un-dead-ed ayn rand leading the way into the fray.
Perhaps one should look at the thousands of clergy working for little or no earthly reward to help the poor and the sick and the suffering rather than the flashy gentlemen at the top.
One might also consider that the works of art in the church are meant to glorify God, and through that, they can touch people’s hearts and lead them to living better lives, including helping the poor.
Also, it’s not hypocritical. There actually is a passage in one of the Gospels where Judas chides a woman for anointing Jesus’s feet with perfume (or maybe oil, I don’t remember exactly), that the money spent on the perfume should have been given to the poor. Jesus scolds him and says that since it’s going to the glory of God it’s entirely appropriate.
Or maybe He just didn’t want smelly feet. *ducks lightning bolts*
I mentioned the perfume earlier – Judas was a crook, though – he didn’t really care about the poor. What people DON’T realize is that even if they were to loot all the rich people of, say, the United States and take everything they own, empty their bank accounts, empty their homes, sell their cars, etc. that it wouldn’t even be enough money to run the government for 6 months. And then you would have lost the most productive segment of society, the one that employs all the rest of us, the ones that provide the goods and services all the rest of us need to survive.
People keep wanting to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, because people are too stupid to know that the richer some people can become, the better the standard of living and opportunity become for all the rest of us, the poorest included. A rising tide really does lift all boats. All they know is someone has a prettier ring or car than they do and it’s not FAIR.
They also don’t understand that giving a man a fish feeds him for one meal while teaching him to fish feeds him permanently. Just feeding people without giving them an opportunity to help themselves out of poverty accomplishes nothing except making more poor people. Whatever, it’s all pearls before swine here.
Some truth to that, but everything in moderation right? The chasm between the ultra rich and the regular-to-poor is where it was at in the late twenties…and that says something. Unabashed greed does not lift all boats, it pollutes the waterway.
Our tide hasn’t been rising for a long time. We’ve been in partial socialism for decades. Even what Reagan tried and succeeded in doing ultimately was doomed because of out-of-control congressional spending. He tried to starve the beast but it only grew. And now that we’re crashing and burning as opposed to on a rising tide, it’s a moot point. The tyranny in this country is only growing and you aren’t going to see a true rising tide until that is overthrown.
Citation for Judas being a “crook”, please?
John 12, right from the account of the story of the perfume: “5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii[b] and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.”
Haven’t you ever read it?
“8 For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”
He sure knew how to speak.
Thanks. I didn’t recall v6.
And yes, I’ve read it, but the last time would have been about 20-25 years ago when I still believed, so perhaps you can excuse me for not having the whole thing memorized.
Thats right, kiss the ass of God by giving material things to the ones that are supposably closer to God than you will ever be. You know, to get on their good side.
What’s the wose that could happen?
at least if we don’t get to heaven we know it’s a scam.
Actually only the Pope in this pic is Catholic, Patriarch Bartholomew is Eastern Orthodox.
Actually, when you look at the materials, you have to look beyond the worth now, and actually see what it took to make them, but not just the monetary. For instance, someone had to mine the gold, smelt it, transport and make the piece. The cloth, again, grow the cotton/sheep/silk worms etc, harvest, wash, dye, spin, weave, design, cut, sew etc. How many people were fed through wages earned?
This is the very reason the Franciscans would build large churches in poor areas, to give people jobs, from the labourers to the artisans. A person will do better earning a wage to provide for his family than accepting a handout.
Thanks — you are the ONLY one so far who has pointed out that Patriarch Bartholomew is Orthodox, not Catholic. Sure, the Byzantines committed their share of folly back in the day, but after 400-some years under the Ottomans, the Orthodox Church as an institution is way more impoverished than the Vatican. When I went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1984, every site we went to had both a Catholic church and an Orthodox church on it. Each time, the Catholic one would be huge, ornate, well-staffed, while the Orthodox one would be tiny, falling apart, with maybe one monk or nun running it.
But all that aside, I wanted to say that vestments and jewels are more than just ways to reinforce institutional power (though they are that as well). They are also ways of creating beauty, and for us Orthodox, our theology is deeply tied up with our aesthetics. That’s why we decorate our churches with gold and icons, because we believe not in denying our bodies or our senses, but in filling them during the liturgy.
or buys some guns and lead the starving people in a revolution against their oppressive government.
On the topic of the rich, welfare, social justice and all that stuff:
Uh, yeah, I think the rich do have an obligation to help the poor. They did not single-handedly earn the money they own. Business men who buy and sell products and shares owe their wealth in part to the working class people who make the stuff they sell. These workers receive on average a pretty unfair percentage of the amount of wealth they generate, which is why they often need welfare just to make ends meet.
Welfare is not spent giving bums mansions with flatscreen TVs and fancy vases (I like vases). It’s spent helping people who are struggling a little to get by. I do know some single parents who work VERY hard (harder than the average rich guy IMO) who still find themselves unable to provide for their kids. I knew kids at school who came from pretty poor households who really benefitted from EMA.
Sorry to get all heavy, but some pretty nasty generalisations were made back there. I just wanted to defend some of the people I know who fell into the category that got generaped (I tried to mix “generalisation” and “rape” and made a new word! Gene-rape is now a thing!)
Unless it’s radically different over the pond and American Welfare is just libtard Che-loving hippies giving castles to hobos?
Paragraph 1. The rich EMPLOY the poor. Anything else is generosity.
Paragraph 2. You can buy flat screens & pot with your welfare check.
Paragraph 3. If you can find the rape gene you’d be rich.
Paragraph 4. Yup.
I read that one and decided it just wasn’t worth bothering trying to explain from scratch. Therefore your answer is pretty much just about what the doctor ordered. Thanks for making it a lot easier.
Meh. Thanks.
I don’t proselytize to Yer-a-peons, what makes them think they can do it to us as Uh-merkins?
Sides, there’re beers chanting my name and my work here is done for the day …
Have you ever been in Washington Heights on check day? It’s a mad dash for the crack dealers and heads; their best day of the month. The aftermath is not pretty as the money is gone within hours and the crackheads are more desperate than ever.
I’ll take a pass on that one, Anniee. I much prefer my quiet life of rural bliss: the wildlife (even the bears and mountain lions) is much less dangerous here.
And cold beer > any drug, any day.
It’s not a venture I’d willingly take again – I had a cousin who lived the drug life (still does, only not there anymore) and I used to see it quite often. The rural or at least suburban life is far preferable.
Alcohol is a drug.
Sorry.
Cold beer ≠ a drug, sorry.
Beer is not a drug but an addicting behavior. Caffeine though is a drug, and my durg o choice.
No. Caffeine is a lifestyle.
OMG!!!!111elebenties!!
I think you may be on to something here… Hazardous beer!
I’d like you to read this, bob. I think it sums up your thinking quite nicely – there are the bad guys (who make money and produce goods, services, and jobs) and they don’t pay their fair share (even when they pay upwards of 70% of what they take in), they OWE it to those underneath them on the income scale (you bums owed it to us anyway) which means they owe even more and more and more as time goes by, and hell, they didn’t NEED all that anyway, is that about what you believe? Close enough? Yeah, I really would like you to read this piece and gain a slight bit of understanding just what thinking like that leads to for the *people* who make the *economy* run – individual people, that is. Give it a look.
The Catholic Church is all about (A) money and (B) power. And a damn ex-Nazi isn’t about to give up either.
Jeez!! He was DRAFTED. He had NO CHOICE. Realy, what is it about you people that make you want to smash Christians like that?
I recall reading that, during the reign of an English monarch (Henry V, perhaps?), there was a great outcry that it was indecent for the king and nobles to live in luxury while the poor starved. Some pundit of the era reportedly did the math, and turns out that, if all the wealth were evenly divided, every citizen of England would have gotten the equivalent of one cloak or blanket, one bag of grain, one small cooking pot, and four loaves of bread. Something like that.
Point being: This has been a bone of contention for centuries, not always restricted to the religious organizations of the world.
Glorious math. The great equalizer.
This is a site for humor, not politico-religious commentary. Thanks for being such a downer.
Are you saying there is no humor in politico-religious commentary? I for one have made an ass of myself commenting on here on several occasions which has generated several humorous comments. At my expense i might add
Every god damn’ religion claims it knows what Jesus did and what God wants from us and so and so on. Pathetic. All they care about is draining more money from the those foolish enough to take their bullshit for granted.
Hehehe. That was really funny. :p
PSST.. you do relaize that not every religion belives in Jesus or God, right? Just checking, making sure those synapses were firing in your brain at the proper rate, since your thought process seems a bit in question, ie choice in name.
To call yourself ‘Adolf H.’ …hhhmmmmm.
AMEN!
…To SLIM JIMS!!
I’ve been wondering that for years, especially with regard to the opulence of their cathedrals. It’s actually okay not to believe in some big scary man in the sky.
‘Scary’?
santa?? o_O
Yep that’s Santa. He is real.
The answer is the entire horn of Africa for a year, of steak and lobster
McDonald Happy Meals, actualy.
Dumbledore?
No Dumbledore would be moving in the LOL is that was him.
Just so you know, Patriarch Bartholomew is the spiritual leader of one of the most persecuted religions on the planet. His life is regularly threatened because he represents an oppressed minority in Turkey. In spite of the dangers he faces, Patriarch Bartholomew goes around the world doing good deeds and helping others. He is an outspoken advocate for environmental causes. And his clothes are gifts from the people he leads because he is rightfully loved and cherished.
Next time, maybe you should learn about a man before you judge him.
Q.F.T.
This is absolutely true and makes the above picture absolutely offensive to me. Not only does he lead the Turkish Christians (who were conquered by Turkish medieval imperialism in the 11th – 15th c. and then brutally oppressed from the 16th c. to present day) but he is also the honorary leader of all Eastern Orthodox Christians. This is the same group (which most posters here probably know nothing about) that had 30 MILLION people killed in the 20th c. in an untold holocaust.
The Orthodox Church is NOT wealthy, and it still does perform a great many charitable works. Goodness, expecting all Christians to be like wealthy and affluent Western Christians (who are themselves a small minority even within Western Christianity) is patently absurd.
I wish it had been the wondertwins caption. That would have made me chuckle.
I wonder how many starving people all the overly concerned ICHC people could feed if they hocked all their computers and ipods and everything they don’t actually need, and spent the time volunteering in a soup kitchen instead of making snitty captions.
7….and now you know, and knowing is half the battle….YO JOE!
Actually, all that hardware of those thousands would probably take in more than the jewelry of hundreds. Maybe? Possibly?
IT’S.NOT.THEIRS.
Plus, we all have LOTS and LOTS of things we don’t even need. Let’s sell them and give the money to poor people!
C’mon guys, you can do it!
Creştinismul originar este cult demonic
Acei care au avut tangenţe cu creştinismul ca religie, în special cea creştin ortodoxă, văd la suprafaţă o credinţă a compasiunii şi a milei faţă de om. Aparenţele pot înşela, o evaluare a surselor primare ale acestei religii va aduce mai multă lumină asupra adevăratei ei esenţe. Să începem cu personalitatea lui Iisus Hristos de unde creştinismul a pornit doctrinar. Referinţele citate sînt din Biblia sau Sfânta Scriptură, folosită de Biserica Ortodoxă Română.
Numele Hristos este traducerea cuvîntului mesia (mai precis maşiah) din ebraică. Înseamnă „unsul”, apelaţia dată de evrei celui care trebuia să vină trimis de Iehova (numele dat de ei lui Dumnezeu) ca să îi salveze. Prin urmare Hristos trebuia să îndeplinească în primul rînd o misiune de salvare a poporului evreu. A astfel de salvare cuprindea eliberarea de sub jugul romanilor precum şi scăparea de răul uman şi social, ceea ce evreii numeau Diavol, Mamona, Belzebul, Lucifer, etc.
Venirea salvatorului poporului evreu era aşteptată de multe veacuri. Conform credinţei evreilor omul trimis de Iehova trebuia să fie nu numai un salvator al sufletelor oamenilor dar şi un rege din stirpea regelui David, personalitatea istorică remarcabilă care făcuse parte din tribul lui Iuda. Noul Testament argumentează că Iisus era din acea spiţă şi prin urmare putea să-şi ceară dreptul de a fi rege al iudeilor.
Omul Iisus şi-a început misiunea cînd avea în jur de 30 de ani. Om fără carte, aşa cum se spune în Noul Testament, era totuşi proficient în regulile iudaice bazate pe Vechiul Testament şi pe alte scrieri existente la acea vreme. Treptat omul Iisus a format în jurul lui un grup de prozeliţi care deşi mic era perseverent în a-l urma în misiunea pe care şi-o asumase. Care erau caracteristicile acestei misiuni?
Matei, 15, 24, redă cuvintele lui Iisus atunci cînd o femeie canaaneeancă chinuită de un demon îi cere ajutor ca să scape de acel demon. „Nu sînt trimis decît la oile cele pierdute ale casei lui Israel” răspunde el. Iisus astfel refuză spunînd mai departe că „Nu este bine să iei pîinea copiilor şi s-o arunci cîinilor”. Cu alte cuvinte Iisus îi numeşte cîini pe toţi oamenii care nu erau evrei. Mai departe, în conversaţia lor, femeia îi răspunde că şi cîinii mănîncă din fărîmiturile ce cad de la masa stăpînilor lor. Iată un episod din Noul Testament care redă vorbele unui om despre care mulţi cred ca este fiul lui Dumnezeu. Şi paradoxal aceşti oameni nu sînt evrei, ci dintre neamuri, cei pe care Iisus îi numea cîini.
O altă caracteristică a misiunii salvatorului era că trebuia să fie rege al iudeilor. A fost oare Iisus rege? Cu siguranţă nu. Întrebat dacă este rege al iudeilor omul Iisus spune că împărăţia lui este în ceruri, deşi evreii aşteptau un rege, aşa cum fusese David în vechime, o personalitate politică de excepţie care să aibă regat pe pămînt nu în cer. Deci nici această caracteristică a salvatorului evreilor Iisus nu a îndeplinit-o.
Mai departe, în misiunea salvatorului evreilor era inclusă pacea, pe cînd Iisus declară răspicat că a venit să aducă sabia nu pacea ca să-l despartă pe fiu de tatăl său, pe fiică de mama sa (Matei, 10, 34-35). Cum poate vorbi astfel cel ce se credea trimisul lui Dumnezeu dacă Dumnezeul lui nu era cel a dezbinării? Cum am eticheta astăzi un om care ar spune că a venit la cineva în vizită cu dorinţa de a-i dezbina casa?
Tenacitatea cu care omul Iisus dorea să-i convingă pe evrei că el este aşteptatul mesia era deosebită. Acest fapt a atras reacţii fireşti. Cărturarii ziceau că îl are în el pe diavol, pe Beelzebul (Marcu, 3, 22). Oamenii ziceau că are duh rău (Marcu, 3, 30), că are demon (Ioan, 7, 20). Însăşi familia lui îl credeau că nu e în toate minţile (Marcu, 3, 21) şi nu credeau în el (Ioan, 7, 5). Omul Iisus etala cu adevărat o comportare stranie. Spune în Marcu, 3, 33, „Cine este mama mea? şi fraţii mei?”. Cum ar fi calificat astăzi un om care şi-ar respinge astfel rudele?
Noul Testament este plin de relatarea faptelor lui Iisus referitoare la scoaterea duhurilor necurate din oameni. În Marcu, 5, 11-13, se spune cum el a trimis duhurile rele într-o turmă de 2000 de porci. După acest episod oamenii l-au rugat să plece de acolo văzînd că lucrează cu demonii (Marcu, 5, 17). Fariseii, oamenii scoliţi în legea iudaică a acelor timpuri, îi spun că cu domnul demonilor (adică cu Satana) el îi scoate pe demoni (Matei, 9, 34). Mulţimea i-a zis că are demon (Ioan, 7, 20; Ioan, 8, 48). Iudeii au spus „Acum ştim că ai demon” (Ioan, 8, 52). Dar el nu a recunoscut argumentînd că diavolul nu poate lupta împotriva diavolului. Vom vedea în cele ce urmează de ce a spus Iisus aceasta.
Episodul cu scoaterea duhurilor din acel om şi trimiterea lor în turma de porci ne face se ne întrebăm ce a rezultat din intervenţia lui Iisus? Oare duhurile au murit prin moartea porcilor? Nicidecum, deoarece acele duhuri, aşa cum intraseră în acel om, sau cum ieşiseră din el pentru a intra în porci, tot astfel puteau intra în oricine altcineva. Pînă la urmă intervenţia lui Iisus s-a soldat cu moartea porcilor pentru că duhurile nu au fost distruse cum s-ar aştepta de la cineva cu intenţii bune. În Marcu 5, 12-13 şi Luca 8, 32, se spune despre duhuri că l-au rugat să le îngăduie să intre în porci şi el „le-a dat voie”, „le-a îngăduit” considerîndu-l astfel mai puternic decît ele. Prin urmare i-au cerut permisiunea ca de la cineva mai mare ierarhic ca ele. Deci Iisus dispunea cum dorea de duhurile rele.
Ne întrebăm pe bună dreptate ce se întîmplă cu duhurile necurate care ies din om? Răspunsul îl dă chiar Iisus în Luca, 11, 24-26: „Cînd duhul necurat iese din om, umblă prin locuri fără de apă căutînd odihna; şi negăsind, zice: Mă voi întoarce în casa mea, din care am ieşit. Şi venind, o află măturată şi împodobită. Atunci se duce şi ia cu el alte şapte duhuri mai rele decît el; şi ele intră şi locuiesc acolo; şi starea de pe urmă a omului aceluia se face mai rea decît cea dintîi”. Aceste trei versete din Sfînta Evanghelie după Luca sînt cele mai revelatoare cu privire la adevăratele intenţii ale lui Iisus. Nicăieri în Noul Testament nu se afirmă că Iisus a distrus duhurile rele care îi chinuiau pe oamenii posedaţi, ci le-a scos sau le-a îngăduit să iasă din acei oameni posedaţi. Logica ne îndeamnă să credem că un om venit de la Dumnezeu, cum se crede despre Iisus, trebuia să distrugă duhurile rele şi astfel să le împiedice să intre iarăşi în oameni. Dar Iisus nu face aceasta. Conform spuselor lui Iisus în Luca, 11, 24-26, un duh rău va reveni în cel posedat cu forţă şi mai mare astfel „starea de pe urmă a omului aceluia se face mai rea decît cea dintîi” (Luca, 11, 26). Mai putem oare crede în intenţiile bune ale lui Iisus? Intervenţiile lui sînt malefice fără ambiguitate. Un duh necurat trebuia distrus nu doar lăsat să iasă din corpul posedatului, ca ulterior să revină tot acolo. Rezultă că toate activităţile lui Iisus de scoatere a duhurilor necurate din oameni nu făceau decît să înmulţească duhurile rele. Iată cum a procedat „fiul lui Dumnezeu” cu „ajutorul” dat posedaţilor de duhuri necurate. Aceasta explică şi faptul de ce Iisus spunea că diavolul nu poate lupta împotriva diavolului. Iisus era mînă în mînă cu diavolul, activităţile lui de scoatere a duhurilor necurate nu erau făcute decît ca să-i impresioneze pe oameni, dar el ştia foarte bine că duhurile vor reveni mai tîrziu în omul de unde ieşiseră, de data aceasta însoţite de alte duhuri mai rele.
Revenind la episodul cu porcii, dacă Iisus ar fi avut cu adevărat putere de la Dumnezeu şi intenţii bune ar fi distrus acele duhuri nu le-ar fi permis să intre în porci şi astfel să fie lasate libere să facă un rău şi mai mare după moartea porcilor. Puterea lui Iisus era prin urmare dată de diavol. Întreg episodul cu porcii arată natura demonică a lui Iisus. Din toată acea întîmplare au rămas păgubiţi oamenii, proprietarii porcilor, care fiindu-le frică de Iisus şi puterea lui demonică nici măcar nu au îndrăznit să-i ceară să fie despăgubiţi. Rezultatul final a fost moartea porcilor, paguba oamenilor şi mărirea răului prin duhurile necurate libere să-şi continuie teroarea demonică.
În ritmul acesta de proliferare a duhurile necurate, care fiecare aducea apoi „alte şapte duhuri mai rele decît el” (Luca, 11, 26), nu este surprinzător de ce duhurile necurate s-au înmulţit peste măsură astfel că au susţinut ceea ce ulterior a devenit religia creştină ca şi cult demonic. Se poate face un mic calcul. În Marcu, 5, 11-13, se spune cum Iisus a trimis duhurile rele într-o turmă de 2000 de porci. Presupunînd că în fiecare porc a intrat un duh necurat, după moartea porcilor cele 2000 de duhuri au chemat fiecare cîte şapte duhuri mai rele decît ele (Luca, 11, 26) rezultînd un număr de 16000 de duhuri necurate. Unde au intrat aceste duhuri mai tîrziu? În oameni, deoarece porcii muriseră. Creştinii care au urmat după Iisus au avut din plin duhuri necurate care sa-i posede. La înmulţirea duhurilor rele au contribuit apoi şi apostolii şi toţi cei care cunosc astfel de metode de scoatere a duhurilor necurate, chiar şi în ziua de astăzi. Se explică astfel proliferarea creştinismului care nu duce lipsă de fanatici şi dezechilibraţi, semne tipice de posesiune demonică. Cazul unor neoprotestanţi („pocăiţi”, cum sînt numiţi de obicei) este tipic: unii se înfierbîntă la adunări arătîndu-şi evident latura de posesiune demonică.
Un alt episod din faptele lui Iisus este cel cu zmochinul. Iisus era înfometat şi a găsit un zmochin care nu avea fructe. Supărat, îl blestemă pe zmochin: „Rod să nu mai porţi în veac!” după care zmochinul s-a uscat. Să spună oamenii care raţionează: Ce vină avea zmochinul că nu avea fructe ca Iisus să le mănînce? Să ne imaginăm că un astfel de om merge la casa cuiva şi cere mîncare. Nu i se dă pentru că oamenii din acea casă pur şi simplu nu au mîncare în acel moment. Apoi cel care a cerut mîncare îi blestemă ca în veac să nu aibă mîncare în casa lor. Cum ar fi etichetată o astfel de persoană care aduce ocară unor oameni pentru că pur şi simplu nu au mîncare atunci cînd el vrea să mănînce? Cazul lui Iisus este cel al omului rău şi iraţional. Un astfel de episod s-ar fi soldat astăzi cu furia oamenilor care i-ar fi tras cîteva beţe pe spinare „fiului lui Dumnezeu”.
Să trecem la învăţăturile lui Iisus. Una dintre ele se referă la ceea ce omul mănîncă. Iisus susţine că nu ceea ce intră în gură îl spurcă pe om, ci ceea ce iese din gură, aceea îl spurcă pe om (Matei, 15, 11). Mai departe tot el spune că tot ce intră în gură se duce în pîntece şi iese afară, dar cele ce ies din gură pornesc din inimă, şi acelea sînt cele ce-l spurcă pe om, dar a mînca fără să-ţi fi spălat mîinile, aceasta nu-l spurcă pe om (Matei, 15, 17-20). Este o învăţătură de doi bani. Cîţi oameni cred că nu contează ce băgăm în pîntece? Dacă cineva bagă în gură otravă sau mîncare stricată nici nu mai apucă să o scoată afară că poate şi muri. Cît priveşte ideea că ceea ce iese din gură îl spurcă pe om cum spune Iisus, afirmaţia lui este de asemenea o aberaţie. Vorbele rele îl uşurează temporar pe om de răutatea din el, deşi aruncatul vorbelor pe alţii nu este o soluţie pentru a scăpa de răul din inimă.
Să analizăm acum doctrina păcatului promovată de Iisus, ideea cum că orice păcat şi orice blasfemie li se iartă oamenilor, dar blasfemia împotriva Duhului Sfînt nu li se va ierta (Matei, 12, 31). Să presupunem că există o ţară în lume care are un sistem juridic ce respectă această învăţătură a lui Iisus. De exemplu, un om ticălos este prins în fărădeligile lui şi adus în faţa judecătorului care va aplica învăţăturile lui Iisus în cazul respectiv. Sînt consultaţi martorii care declară că învinuitul a furat, a bătut cinci oameni la beţie şi a omorît un om cu un cuţit. La judecată omul recunoaşte ticăloşiile făcute adăugînd că a cerut iertare lui Iisus pentru tot răul făcut. „Ai spus ceva împotriva Duhului Sfînt?” întreabă judecătorul. „Niciodată!” răspunde omul. Verdictul: „Eliberaţi-l că şi-a cerut iertare în numele lui Iisus Hristos, dar nu a hulit Duhul Sfînt!”. Întrebare: poate o atare învăţătură a iertării veşnice să vină de la Dumnezeu sau de la Diavol? O astfel de metodă de a face dreptate oamenilor este înşelăciune curată, Dumnezeu nu poate iertă răutăţile oamenilor, cei vinovaţi trebuie să repare cumva răul adus şi să înveţe că repetarea răului nu va fi iertată prin simpla recunoaştere a greşelii. Învăţătura lui Iisus este prostie curată. O societate sănătoasă nu poate funcţiona pe astfel de învăţături fără sens.
Evreii în Vechiul Testament aveau o metoda mai logică, deşi nu era cu totul justă, ideea că se plăteşte ochi pentru ochi. Dar în învăţăturile lui Iisus privind aplicarea dreptaţii se vede mai degrabă mîna diavolului decît cea a unei forţe a dreptăţii. Numai diavolul trece cu vedere faptul că merge şi aşa, că simpla iertare dată de el diavolul poate absolvi pe om de relele pe care le face. Diavolul iartă de păcat pentru a-l ţine pe păcătos mereu în păcat. Este şi metoda folosită de Iisus pentru a-i menţine pe oameni în jugul suferinţei pe care a iniţiat-o în locul salvarii pe care trebuia să o aducă aşteptatul mesia, salvatorul evreilor. Este oare acesta salvatorul? Poate trimisul lui Dumnezeu să-i îndemne pe oamenii să se complacă în rele iertîndu-le tot timpul fărădelegile? Mai degrabă un spirit demonic face aceasta.
Să cercetăm mai departe faptul cum Iisus crede că oamenii lui Dumnezeu pot fi deosebiţi de cei ai diavolului. În Matei, 7, 10-20, Iisus îi avertizează pe ucenici să se ferească de profeţi mincinoşi căci după roadele lor vor fi cunoscuţi. Preceptul este bine ştiut din Vechiul Testament, ideea că pomul se cunoaşte după rod. Să vedem ce roade a adus pomul lui Iisus după aşa zisa înălţare a lui la cer?
Creştinismul a pătruns treptat în lumea zisă „păgînă” prin înfricoşarea oamenilor asupra pedepselor ce-i aşteaptă dacă nu se vor supune noii învăţături. Această frică de pedeapsă persistă şi astăzi fiind practic hrana creştinismului. Fără continua teroare a diavolului, care pîndeşte omul la orice pas, creştinismul s-ar dezintegra. De remarcat este atenţia care se pune pe diavol ca personaj principal şi toate cele care vin cu răul şi suferinţa, răstignirea lui Iisus pe cruce, sîngele, patimile lui, etc. În cele din urmă Iisus pozează în învingător, chiar după ce a fost bătut în cuie pe cruce şi i s-a pus pe cap coroana de spini în locul celei regale a regelui din stirpea lui David. Pe cei mai mulţi oameni traumele mentale pe care le implantează în minţi frica, şi toate aspectele suferinţei şi întunericului, îi bîntuie toată viaţa. Deşi se spune despre „învingătorul morţii”, că a ajuns acolo la dreapta Tatălui, el priveşte cu detaşare întreaga panoramă a suferinţei umanităţii care a urmat după „înălţarea sa”.
Să vedem acum fructele date de pomul sădit de Iisus pe pămînt. Ce a urmat? Războaie, măceluri împotriva evreilor şi ale altora, dezbinare veşnică printre cei care au urmat învăţătura lui Iisus, inchiziţie, arderea oamenilor pe rug, arderea cărţilor, obida oamenilor, cuceririle sîngereoase urmînd crucea însîngerată, care cînd era pumnal cînd cruce, şi multe alte „fructe” ale demonului „înălţat la cer”. Astfel de rezultate ale misiunii sale „salvatoare” ne sugerează că Iisus s-a dus direct în iad de unde nici că-i pasă ce se întîmplă pe pămînt deoarece sistemul introdus de el funcţionează din plin ca fruct al faptelor „mîntuirii” aduse oamenilor. Salvarea care se aştepta din partea unui trimis al lui Dumnezeu este nonexistentă, Iisus nu poate fi decît un trimis al diavolului care în loc de mîntuire a adus durerea.
Cine sînt cei mai în măsură astăzi să evalueze misiunea „salvatoare” ale lui Iisus? Toţi cei care au avut tangenţă cu creştinismul! Salvatorul se dorea un personaj al salvării din durere nu cineva care aduce suferinţă prin sabia pe care cu adevărat a lăsat-o omenirii. Şi sîngele continuă să curgă şi astăzi şi va continua atîta timp cît oamenii venerează pe demonul care a adus suferinţă omenirii cu 2000 de ani înainte. Iată că în ciuda obiceiului diavolului de a minţi, totuşi de cîteva promisiuni s-a ţinut.
Care este spectrul creştinismului astăzi în lume? Nici o altă religie nu are mai multe secte decît cea creştină. Existenţa sutelor de grupări creştine arată cu claritate că dezbinarea generată de Iisus încă de cînd era viu pe pămînt continuă astăzi cu aceeaşi forţă încît te întrebi cum de este posibil ca oamenii să interpreteze diferit ideile dintr-o carte care este destul de coezivă în conţinut, Biblia? Explicaţia nu poate fi decît că Biblia este o carte plină de contradicţii, atît Vechiul cît şi Noul Testament. Cel puţin Noul Testament este grosier privind salvarea oamenilor de la moarte de către cineva care nu s-a salvat pe sine însuşi. Oasele i-au putrezit de mult acolo în Orientul Apropiat. Evreii nu l-au acceptat pe Iisus deoarece nu era nimic în el să sugereze că-i poate salva, că-i poate elibera de sub jugul romanilor aşa cum se aştepta de la un rege din spiţa lui David.
Cine a fost Iisus? Respingerea lui de către evrei în mod automat îl califică drept impostor şi amăgitor. Nimeni nu a făcut o evaluare mai justă asupra cine a fost Iisus decît poporul din care face parte şi în mijlocul căruia a trăit. Şi ei l-au categorisit drept amăgitor. Învăţăturile ieftine şi stupide ale lui Iisus au mai mult marca răului decît cea a binelui. Omul Iisus este un caz demonic a cărui misiune „salvatoare” a supravieţuit prin conjunctura istoriei, prin frică pe care o împlîntă în minţile oamenilor aşa cum numai duhurile rele o fac, deghizînd răul într-un ambalaj pe care scrie fericire şi salvare. Dezbinarea adusă de „fiul lui Dumnezeu” continuă să ne macine sufletele şi să ne despartă inimile cu sabia pe care a promis-o. Şi asta avem astăzi: fiul despărţit de tatăl său, fiica de mama sa, aşa cum se arată în Matei, 10, 34-35. Creştinismul este un cult demonic, cea mai mare minciună care a putut vreodată exista în omenire: venerarea unui demon ca „fiu al lui Dumnezeu”. Iisus este cel care a înlesnit înmulţirea duhurilor necurate îngăduindu-le să iasă din oameni şi să revină apoi cu alte duhuri şi mai rele ca ele (Luca, 11, 26). Pe această bază de idei demonismul creştinismului originar nu poate fi contestat.
Vă veţi întreaba cum se explică atîtea frumuseţi văzute în biserici şi catedrale? Există realmente creaţii minunate care glorifică amintirea narativă a celui care a fost Iisus. Răspunsul este că aceste minunăţii sînt rodul idealului minţii omeneşti, nu cel al învăţăturilor lui Iisus. Creştinismul este o religie parazitară a sufletelor care se întinde oriunde poate să ajungă cu teroarea fricii. Oamenii au creat cu mare elan frumuseţi în biserici şi catedrale pentru a contracara urîciunea creştinismului originar al lui Iisus, idealizînd aspectele durerii, portretizînd un Iisus cu faţa blîndă şi resemnat în faţa morţii, postura victimei care induce milă în cei care o privesc.
Dar cînd este să evaluăm obiectiv consecinţele acestor aberaţii doctrinare gunoiul creştinismului iese la suprafaţă în felul de a se comporta al oamenilor, în modul lor de existenţă, în violenţa şi răutatea socială a unor creştini, deoarece Iisus le-a promis că orice li se poate ierta afară de blasfemia împotriva Duhului Sfînt (Matei, 12, 31). Oamenii sinceri aflaţi printre creştini sînt doar victime credule care resemnaţi şi depăşiţi de înţelegerea reală a demonismului lui Iisus nici nu ştiu practic în mîna cui se află. Pioşi în viaţă, aceşti oameni aspirînd la Dumnezeul adevărat s-au rugat cu devotament lui Iisus. După moarte vor avea surpriza să ajungă în iad unde îi întîmpină Iisus şi le urează bun sosit.
Ce spune istoria despre rolul creştinismului? Puterea politică de-a lungul timpului a înţeles cu realism marele potenţial de manipulare a oamenilor oferit de creştinism, care a fost folosit astfel de toate sistemele sociale inclusiv comunismul care iniţial l-a respins. Ulterior creştinismul a fost tolerat şi folosit în slujba noilor guvernanţi comunişti care, înclinaţi spre rău, exploatare şi minciună, s-au aliat cu cei de-o teapă cu ei, cei care îl slujeau de Diavol întocmai ca şi ei, dar folosind metodele demonului de pe crucea însîngerată, Iisus „salvatorul omenirii”.
Despre cine a scris aceste rînduri nu este nevoie să vă întrebaţi cine este. Am îndrăznit să gîndesc şi să aştern aici cele aflate. Am scăpat de frica de Dumnezeu şi mă gîndesc la iubirea de Dumnezeu. Mă simt uşurat, nu mai port jugul crucii, nu mai sînt un întemniţat al lui Iisus. Privesc la minunile create de Dumnezeu, la cer, la soare şi mă gîndesc cum oamenii acestor vremuri mai pot crede că undeva în Orientul Apropiat, Dumnezeu şi-a trimis pe fiul său unic să „moară” pentru ca noi să avem viaţă veşnică. Dacă un astfel de Dumnezeu face experimente cu noi să afle că nu i-au reuşit. Dar dacă este mîna Diavolului întreaga decepţie a reuşit. Sînt milioane şi milioane de oameni care au asimilat patologia lui Iisus, un spirit al răului de care omenirea este influenţată în prezent în proporţii gigantice. Aceasta ne duce la pieirea anticipată în viziunea apocaliptică din Noul Testament. „Salvatorul” ne învaţă cum să ne tîrîm, cum să purtăm greutatea crucii însîngerate după exemplul lui şi cum să murim, în loc de a ne arăta cum să trăim fericiţi în viaţă, aşa cum un adevărat fiu de Dumnezeu ar face-o. Iisus ne-a adus încet şi sigur la marginea prăpastiei de anihilare a omenirii. Atît cei care au asimilat duhurile necurate, aduse de către Iisus şi de cei care l-au urmat şi îl urmează, cît şi mulţimea oamenilor de bună credinţă în Dumnezeu, care nu au fost încă atinşi de aceste duhuri necurate, hrănesc în creştinism macabrul salvarii oferite de un om mort pe o cruce. Dumnezeule adevărat, unde să Te găsim?
Problema moaştelor în România
De la Revoluţia din decembrie 1989 încoace, în România se manifestă un fenomen unic în lume: ţara importă moaşte. Este paradoxal că activitatea este complet necenzurată. Cu alte cuvinte nu se ştie public cu certitudine cine sunt acei oameni mumificaţi. Tabuul religios împiedică cercetări obiective asupra persoanelor mumificate declarate sfinte. Mărturia celor care aduc astfel de corpuri, sau bucăţi din ele, în România este îndeajuns ca justificare în sistemul de legi.
Ne întrebăm pe bună dreptate de ce, cei care renunţă la moaşte în favoarea aşezămintelor religioase ortodoxe din România, fac aceasta? La ce preţ monetar sunt procurate aceste achiziţii? Tranzacţiile rămân secrete, credinciosul creştin ortodox neavând acces decât la pupatul moaştelor. În prezent în România s-au acumulat sute de moaşte, revista Lumea credinţei, anunţă cu mândrie că iar au sosit moaşte de pe undeva din lume, vestea dorind să fie o bucurie pentru creştinul ortodox.
De ce renunţă alţii la moaşte în favoarea românilor ortodocşi? Este o întrebare care surprinde pe oricine nu numai pe credinciosul creştin ortodox. Oare acei oameni nu mai au nevoie de puterea sfântă a moaştelor? Sau au constat că nu sunt deloc sfinte? Sau poate că la un preţ bun pot renunţa, astfel că moaştele intră şi ele în circuitul comercial ca orice bun de consum (sigur că aici nu este vorba de a le consuma, ci de a servi ca produse care îl aduc pe cel care le pupă mai aproape de mântuire).
Aceste nedumeriri nasc câteva ipoteze plauzibile:
1. Dându-şi seama ca bate un nou vânt al raţiunii, proprietarii moaştelor vor să scape de ele realizând grotescul şi sminteala venerării unor cadavre. I-au găsit pe românii ortodocşi singurii care să le accepte.
2. Proprietarii moaştelor vor dobândi beneficii băneşti care îi satisfac, astfel că renunţă la moaşte din dorinţa de profit.
3. Proprietarii moaştelor ştiu că mai devreme sau mai târziu pot fi implicaţi juridic privind provenienţa moaştelor. Analizele forensice pot dovedi falsul corpului mumificat. Mai mult, experţii pot descoperi că acel corp de „sfânt” de fapt a aparţinut unui om ucis undeva, neavând astfel nimic din sfinţenia ce i se atribuie, ci fiind un rezultat al crimei cuiva.
4. Moaştele sunt folosite pentru a transporta droguri, scăpând de controlul vamal deoarece trec drept obiecte de cult.
5. Criminalii vor să scape de acele cadavre care pot fi dovada că au comis crime. România, ca ţară predominant ortodoxă, prin regimul de cult al moaştelor, reprezintă protecţia cea mai sigură ca acele crime să nu fie descoperite.
Raţiunea ne îndemnă să credem că motivaţia altruistă de a renunţa la moaşte sfinte nu poate exista atîta timp cât proprietarii lor mai cred în puterile moaştelor. Moaştele sunt nepreţuite pentru cel care crede în beneficiile lor de a-l apropia pe om de viaţa veşnică promisă de Iisus. În plus, prin venerarea lor, moaştele sunt o sursă sigură de venituri încasate de la cei care le pupă. Nu rămâne decăt să credem că beneficiile de a renunţa la moaşte, spre a le exporta României, întrec pe cele de a le păstra.
Vremea nu este departe când statul român va lua măsuri ca moaştele aşezămintelor ortodoxe să fie cercetate forensic şi astfel să se afle vechimea acelor cadavre mumificate şi poate chiar identitatea acelor oameni morţi. Mitul inviolabilităţii moaştelor se va spulbera odată cu primele cercetări în această direcţie. România a ajuns în prezent un dumping, locul unde se aduc mumiile „sfinte” ca bătaie de joc făcută acestui popor credul în „păstorii” lor ortodocşi. Românilor ortodocşi li se oferă cu neruşinare grotescul şi sminteala venerării moaştelor, a cadavrele mumificate ale unor oameni spre „mântuirea” sufletelor lor. Nu poate fi un exemplu mai relevant de descompunere religioasă a unui crez care se hrăneşte spiritual din morbidul moaştelor.
Crestinismul si vocea ratiunii
(Traducere adaptatã dupã Why Won’t God Heal Amputees – lucrare de pe internet)
Iatã 10 întrebãri la care un crestin intelectual sã încerce sã rãspundã…
Tu esti un om educat, ai studii superioare, ai obtinut o diplomã, ai fost învãtat sã gândesti rational si logic despre lumea în care trãiesti…
Sunteti persoane inteligente, stiti cum functioneazã o societate si cum se dezvoltã seturile de valori, gânditi critic si analizati o situatie în functie de considerente rationale si nu dintr-o poveste. Stiti de Legea Gravitatiei, de inertie si magnetism.
Mã adresez acum unor persoane inteligente care gândesc rational si stiu sã-si aplice aptitudinile critice asupra faptelor si lucrurilor din jurul lor. Dacã sunt crestini, cu atat mai bine, vor aplica aceste aptitudini asupra religiei.
Sunt câteva întrebãri simple la care orice crestin ar trebui sã caute un rãspuns logic, dar ei gãsesc mai întotdeauna unul inventat, o scuzã mai mult sau mai putin penibilã în numele d-zeului lor…
Crestinii cred cã rugãciunea are ca efect vindecarea cancerului, tratarea bolilor, iluminarea si gãsirea “cãii”. Totusi, membrele amputate refuzã sã creascã înapoi în completarea trupului unui om.
1. “De ce d-zeu nu vindecã persoanele cu membre amputate?”
Cu totii stim cã membrele amputate nu cresc la loc ca rãspuns la o rugãciune. E o întrebare simplã, nu? Ciungii, cum sunt numiti ei popular, nu primesc nici un ajutor de la acel d-zeu, nici un miracol, nici o regenerare.
Dacã esti o persoanã inteligentã trebuie sã recunosti cã este o întrebare cel putin interesantã. Pe de altã parte, tu crezi cã d-zeu rãspunde la rugãciune si face minuni. În acelasi timp stii cã d-zeu îi ignorã total pe cei cu membre amputate de vreme ce acele membre nu mai cresc înapoi, chiar dacã oamenii care au membre amputate se roagã ani în sir sau întreaga lor viatã.
Cum te împaci cu aceastã discrepantã? Ca o persoanã inteligentã, sigur cã ai o pãrere despre acest fapt, pentru ca toatã baza ta în d-zeu sã aibã sens. Pentru a avea o pozitie fatã de acest fapt, trebuie sã creezi un fel de rationalizare: trebuie sã inventezi un raspuns în numele lui d-zeu pentru a explica acest fapt ciudat. Ai sã spui: “Cred cã d-zeu are un plan secret, anume legat de aceste persoane.”
Deci îti inventezi o scuzã, apoi încetezi sã te mai gândesti la acest lucru, pentru cã îti creeazã disconfort în minte stiind cã explicatia ta este complet irationalã, iar opinia ta intrã în contradictie cu faptul cã esti o persoanã educatã si ai un simt critic ce poate rationaliza logic si gãsi un rãspuns firesc.
Uite un alt exemplu: Ca si crestin, crezi cã lui d-zeu îi pasã de tine si îti rãspunde rugãciunilor. Se pune acum o întrebare:
2. “De ce sunt atâtia oameni care mor de foame în lume?”
De ce ar fi d-zeu îngrijorat de mãrirea salariului tãu sau boala mamei tale si în acelasi timp sã ignore rugãciunile disperate ale atâtor copii inocenti, care pur si simplu mãnâncã insecte ca sã nu moarã de foame? Nu prea are sens, asa-i? Nu are nici o logicã. De ce ar face asta un d-zeu care e prezentat de religie ca fiind iubitor si cãruia îi pasã?
Pentru a explica aceasta trebuie sã inventezi vreo scuzã încredibilã în numele acelui d-zeu, precum cã: “d-zeu vrea ca acesti copii sã sufere si sã moarã de foame pentru cã are un plan divin si misterios legate de ei.” Sau: “Acesti copii trag pãcatele pãrintilor…”
Si, bineînteles, îti scoti cât mai repede din minte toatã situatia, pentru cã îti creeazã un disconfort psihic, te deranjeazã cumva ca – fiind o persoanã inteligentã cu studii superioare, care are abilitatea de a gândi rational – nu poti folosi un rãspuns logic, argumentat ca sã explici de ce un d-zeu iubitor si cãruia îi pasã ar comite o asemenea atrocitate.
3. “De ce d-zeu a vrut moartea atâtor oameni inocenti în Biblie?”
Exodus 3:52 d-zeu ne spune sã ucidem pe toti cei care muncesc în ziua sabatului. În Deuteronom 21:18-21 d-zeu ne spune sã ucidem pe toti adolescentii neascultãtori. Leviticus 20:13 d-zeu cere moartea homosexualilor. Deuteronom 22:13-21 d-zeu ne cere sã ucidem toate femeile care nu sunt virgine în momentul cãsãtoriei. S.a.m.d – sunt o multime de îndemnuri si cereri violente în Biblie.
Nu prea are sens, asa-i? De ce ar vrea un d-zeu care e caracterizat de o iubire fãrã margini moartea atâtor fiinte umane pe considerente atât de triviale?
Doar pt cã lucrezi în ziua gresitã a sãptãmânii sã mori? Chiar e absurd! De fapt, dacã într-adevar esti o persoanã inteligentã, realizezi cã acestea sunt de-a dreptul nebunii!
Asa cã inventezi fel de fel de explicatii neargumentate pentru a scuza intentiile criminale ale acestor versete.
4. “De ce biblia contine atât de multe informatii nestiintifice, nonsensuri fãrã argumentare?”
Ai o diplomã care atestã cã nu esti ignorant/a, deci stii la ce mã refer. Stii cum functioneazã stiinta. Folosesti bucuros produsele stiintei zi de zi:
- masina
- telefonul mobil
- cuptorul cu microunde
- televizorul
- calculatorul
- iluminarea
- mp3-ul
Acestea toate sunt produse ale stiintei. Stii cã stiinta este vitalã pentru orice fel de dezvoltare economicã. Aici intervine o problemã: ca persoanã educatã si inteligentã stii cã biblia contine o serie de informatii care sunt un total nonsens din perspectiva stiintei. De exemplu:
- d-zeu NU a creat lumea în 6 zile, acum 6.000 de ani în urmã, cum sustine biblia.
- NU a fost niciodatã un potop care sã acopere muntele Everest, cum sustine biblia
- Iona NU a stat 3 zile în burta unui peste, cum sustine biblia.
- Adam NU a fost creat din lut, cum sustine biblia.
Toate povestile acestea sunt DOAR POVESTI. De ce un d-zeu atoatestiutor ar lãsa sã se scrie în biblie atâtea prostii irationale, adevãrate povesti de adormit copiii? Nu prea are sens, asa-i?
Asa cã vei încerca sã inventezi tot soiul de scuze idioate pt a explica “de fapt” cum stau lucrurile, de ce biblia contine atâtea informatii care nu au nimic în comun cu inteligenta, pt a-l scuza pe d-zeu cu povestile tale.
5. “De ce d-zeu e prosclavagism, de ce îndeamnã fiintele umane sã creeze sclavi din alte fiinte umane?” Exodul 21:20-21, Coloseni 3:22-24, Ephessians 6:5, 1 Petru 2:18, s.a.m.d.
Ai sã vii cu vreo explicatie ciudatã, inventatã pe care sã o oferi drept rãspuns. Asa-i?
6. “De ce lucruri rele se întâmplã oamenilor buni?”
7. “De ce nici una din minunile despre care se spune în biblie nu a lãsat în urmã absolut nici o dovadã?”
8. “Cum îti explici – în mod rational si inteligent – cã Iisus nu a apãrut niciodatã (nu în închipuirea ta, ci real,) în fata ta, sã stea de vorbã cu tine?”
9. “De ce Iisus ar vrea – chiar si la figurat – sã-i bei sângele si sã-i mãnânci corpul?”
Tie nu ti se pare cã sunã grotesc si de-a dreptul revoltator? De ce ar vrea un d-zeu, care are absolut toatã puterea posibilã, sã faci asa ceva, când – în oricare alt context – sunã a ritual satanist, canibal, dezgustãtor?
10. “De ce rata divorturilor la crestini, la credinciosii-care-nu-contesta-nimic, e la fel de ridicatã ca si în cazul necredinciosilor?”
Crestinii, din câte sustin, se cãsãtoresc în fata unui d-zeu si a pretenilor lor crestini, toti rugându-se la acel d-zeu spre succesul acelei cãsãtorii. Si apoi spun: “Sã nu despartã nici un om ceea ce d-zeu a unit”. D-zeu, se presupune, este atotputernic, deci dacã a unit douã persoane nu se mai poate face nimic, nu? Si totusi crestinii divorteazã în aceeasi mãsurã ca toti ceilalti, care nu se pretind anticrestini, ci sunt doar oameni normali, cu probleme si griji normale, cu bucurii si atitudini sociale normale.
Ca sã explici asta ai sã cauti în minte o serie de argumente care vor cãdea pe rând oricum, si ai sã inventezi pânã la urmã un rãspuns fãrã nici o acoperire, pentru cã asa faci tu si te simti dator sã arãti cã nu esti idiot si cã nu degeaba ai luat examenele si licenta.
Deci ca sã crezi în d-zeu trebuie sã vii cu tot soiul de scuze penibile inventate care sã justifice o serie de acte si situatii. Dacã esti o persoanã inteligentã, cu studii superioare care poate gândi logic si creea un rationament sprijinit pe argumente valabile îti dai seama si singur/ã cã toate aceste scuze inventate în numele unui d-zeu nu sunt nimic altceva decât disperarea de a te agãta de ceva ca sã poti crede în continuare, chiar dacã stii cã e o tâmpenie.
Dacã te gândesti sincer la toatã problema asta, fãrã sã te pãcãlesti singur, folosindu-te de toate aptitudinile învãtate în scoli, de tot ajutorul primit ca sã gândesti si sã fii inteligent – trebuie sã recunosti cã toate rãspunsurile si scuzele cu care ai încercat si vei încerca sã vii sunt niste absurditãti, niste inventii penibile si fãrã sens.
Dar iatã ceva extrem de interesant legat de tot ce am scris pânã acum!
Ce-ar fi dacã ai presupune cã d-zeu e imaginar? Cã este o inventie menitã sã ajute oamenii cu mult timp în urmã, o inventie ce în timp a luat-o razna si a devenit peste mãsurã de antisocialã.
Acum lucrurile încep sã se clarifice pentru cã absolut fiecare rãspuns la oricare dintre aceste întrebãri capãtã înteles si sens.
Uitã-te acum la toate aceste întrebãri ca o persoanã inteligentã, capabilã sã gândeascã rational…
De ce d-zeu nu vindecã persoanele care nu au toate membrele?
Pentru cã d-zeu e inventat si nu are cum sã rãspundã la rugãciuni. “Rãspunsurile” pe care le “primesc” crestinii sunt doar în imaginatia lor. Toate dovezile si studiile stiintifice sustin acest fapt.
De ce sunt atâtia oameni si mai ales copii care mor de foame în lume?
Pentru cã d-zeu e imaginar, e o inventie si nu are cine sã rãspundã la rugãciunile acelor copii.
De ce d-zeu cere moartea atâtor oameni nevinovati în biblie?
Pt ca d-zeu e inventat, iar biblia e scrisã de multã vreme de niste oameni care nu numai cã gândeau primitiv dar si erau primitivi si tindeau spre indoctrinare ca sã obtinã o anumitã influentã care sã le poate oferi putere asupra semenilor lor.
De ce biblia contine atâtea date antistiintifice?
Tocmai am spus: biblia a fost scrisã de niste oameni primitivi si nu de vreo fiinta supraumanã atoatestiutoare.
De ce d-zeu sustine sclavagismul?
Tocmai am spus…
De ce se întâmplã lucruri rele oamenilor buni?
Pentru cã d-zeu e o inventie, e imaginat, – lucrurile rele se întâmplã în aceeasi ratã statisticã tuturor.
De ce nu existã nici o dovadã a minunilor sãvârsite de Iisus?
Pentru d-zeu e imaginar si toate miracolele despre care se vorbeste sunt un mit ca sã ajute oamenii naivi sã creadã mai usor.
De ce Iisus nu ti-a apãrut niciodatã real în fatã?
Pt ca d-zeu e imaginar, iar Iisus, conform arheologilor si istoricilor care au dovezi în ceea ce sustin, a murit acum 2000 de ani.
De ce ar vrea Iisus sã sãvârsesti un act de canibalism, sã-i bei sangele si sã-i mãnânci carnea?
Pt ca d-zeu e imaginar si toate religiile din lume se sprijinã pe ritualuri bizare ca acesta, sustinând lucruri ce depãsesc bunul simt.
De ce rata divorturilor la crestini este egalã cu rata divorturilor la acei care refuzã sã creadã povesti cu serpi vorbitori si mers pe apã?
Pt cã d-zeu e imaginar si cel ce crede în aceste nonsensuri o face doar pt cã asa a fost învatat/ã acasã de mic copil si undeva se teme de amenintarea unui iad imaginar.
Vezi ce s-a întamplat aici? Când presupui că d-zeu exista toate raspunsurile la aceste întrebãri sunt complet irationale si nu le poti gãsi nici un argument solid, te strãduiesti întruna sã inventezi ceva în numele acelui d-zeu.
Dar dacã reusesti sã recunosti cã acest concept e inventat, si cã a cãpãtat mai multã putere decât ar fi trebuit într-o societate normalã, întreaga noastrã lume începe sã capete sens, sã aibe rãspunsuri si sã se sprijine pe oameni reali în loc de povesti cu serpi vorbitori si pe amenintarea cu diavolul, care, filosofic vorbind, nu face decât sã sperie mintea umanã si astfel sã o frâneze sã rationeze.
Lumea noastrã e distrusã de religii si de îndemnurile violente pe care le sustin religiile. E distrusã de oamenii care refuzã sã vadã dincolo de povesti cu mers pe ape si oameni care zboarã si se încãpãtâneazã sã fie umili în fata unui zeu inventat care nu le oferã decât nepãsare si prostie.
Lumea noastrã capãtã sens dacã recunoastem cã d-zeu e imaginar. Astfel oamenii inteligenti, care au învãtat sã rationeze si sã fie critici, înteleg cã d-zeu e un imaginar religios.
Când îti folosesti creierul si gândesti logic despre credintele tale religioase nu poti ajunge decât la o singurã concluzie: Dumnezeu de care ai auzit de când erai copil e imaginar, învãtat si impus. Ca sã-l sustii trebuie sã renunti sã gândesti logic, sã refuzi sã te întrebi si astfel sã te prefaci cã nu esti în stare sã ai o gândire criticã. Astfel accepti sute de scuze bizare, inventate, care sã-ti justifice credinta în “dumnezeu”.
Acum, sã te mai întreb încã ceva: Ce importantã are? Ce importantã are dacã oamenii vor sã creadã într-un d-zeu inventat?
Conteazã foarte mult, pentru cã oamenii care cred în fiinte imaginare nu pot face diferenta între situatii normale si situatii anormale, când e nevoie sã le schimbe. Tot ei nu pot face diferenta între dreptate si gresealã. Cu ignoranta si nebunia lor acesti oameni pot face sã sufere sau sã ucidã alte fiinte umane ca si cum ar fi normal cã lor li se permite sã decidã pentru viata altor oameni.
Conteazã pentru cã oamenii care vorbesc sau cred cã vorbesc cu fiinte imaginare au un mental nesănătos nefiind în stare sã decidã corect pentru ei. Cum pot ei oare lua decizii bune pentru altii?
Conteazã pentru cã oamenii care cred în superstitii, precum sunt rugãciunile, nu au dreptul sã conducã societãti sau sã facã legi. NU poti crede în DREPTURILE OAMENILOR si în acelasi timp în serpi vorbitori si sã tragi concluzii rationale privind soarta oamenilor.
E atât de simplu! E atât de evident! Dar de multe ori oamenii refuzã sã fie de acord cu lucrurile simple. Natura umanã mai de grabã complicã lucrurile si inventează solutii la probleme inexistente.
Credintele tale religioase te rãnesc pe tine si pe cei de lângã tine si ne rãnesc pe noi oamenii care trãim în aceeasi societate cu tine.