Has anyone seen on the news...

Sciguy · Post by **Sciguy** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:23 pm

Religon isn't the only thing that can do that to some one. Take Hitler's rise to power. Getting swept up by a strong personalaty or going with the crowd is damn seductive.

And that's a scary thought.

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:29 pm

JakeWasHere wrote:The real tragedy of Fred Phelps and his ilk is that they make an easy target for all those who wish to reject Christ, Christianity, and all religion in general. "If religion can do THAT to a person, I'd much rather be an atheist."

Which isn't to say that any argument for atheism is a good one. It's a short step from atheism, which I can understand, to nihilism, which is a philosophy that makes - shall we say - far less sense. And nihilism has ruined a lot more lives than Christianity.

Now that is an interesting idea (for certain values of interesting). In what way is atheism a stepping stone to nihilism? As far as I am concerned, weak atheism/strong agnosticism is the default state until a religion (ANY religion) provides some evidence for its truth that isn't equally applicable to all other religions. In the absence of such proof, one is required by one's own self-interest, if nothing else, to help to maintain a stable, comfortable, secularly-based society; which includes defending it if necessary from both internal and external threats. The internal cheaters who decide to take advantage of the majority of decent people by gaming society's rules, or ignoring them completely, deserve to be taken out of the gene pool at the earliest opportunity. Outside threats should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Nihilists are sociopaths, and dangerous to the body politic. Their religious beliefs are secondary, and indeed irrelevant, to their sociopathy.

Yes, Stalin was an atheist, but he was a sociopath first and foremost. Hitler was a Christian socialist, but primarily a megalomaniac sociopath. Farrakhan is a pseudo-Muslim, and a racist sociopath. Fortunately, in the US he doesn't have the ability to gain much power. You look through history, and you find an unfortunate number of sociopaths who have gained power - the inability to sympathize with others makes it easier to backstab your way to the top, it seems. Their religious beliefs have been reflective of the societies they were raised in, and are irrelevant to the fact that they had damaged psyches.

UncleMonty · Post by **UncleMonty** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:45 am

Sciguy wrote:The attrocaties done in God's name are long and numerous.

Let's face facts. None of us can really say what's on God's mind.

We were left with some good ideas, that got interpited into a coupple books, which some people take way to literaly.

People, take the good advice and roll with it. Don't see and say what you want it to. Because interpitation is up to preception. And again, with so many views in this world, one thing can be seen as many.

On this matter I have one thing for this Phelips:

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone

If he tosses anyway climing the right, then he has no idea what God's word is really about.

It's those who take scripture liberally, rather than literally, who go around doing such horrors. They make stuff up. That's what liberalism is - making stuff up. Religious liberalism is no less offensive than any other kind, and Fred Phelps is a religious liberal. He rewrites God's word to suit his own personal beliefs. I'm sure there's a judgement awaiting him, though I dare not take God's place in suggesting what it may be.

Sciguy · Post by **Sciguy** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:31 pm

Phelps sadly has a right to beleave what he wants from religon. If it offends is up for those who precive.

If he's seen wrong by the eyes of the religous comunaty, then it's the job of the branch of Christianisty that he claims to be a part of, to rein him in should they see fit.

The sad truth of the matter is we can find him unacepptable, but due to our laws, what he does is legaly acceptable. What, within the limits of what is accepted by law can we really do?

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:34 pm

You know, there's an old cliche about people who seriously hate something so intensely..

...that it's so they can deny they like it themselves. I wonder what that says about Mr Phelps?

MikeVanPelt · Post by **MikeVanPelt** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:37 pm

Sciguy wrote:If he's seen wrong by the eyes of the religous comunaty, then it's the job of the branch of Christianisty that he claims to be a part of, to rein him in should they see fit.

There's an old joke, "I'm opposed to organized religion. I'm a Baptist." "Baptist" is not a denomination; there are a whole lot of different variations of Baptist denominations, from the really big denominaions like American Baptist, Conservative Baptist, Southern Baptist, etc. to independant churches which can call themselves whatever they want to.

Phelps' church belongs to no organization beyond his own congregation. He essentially is the pope of his denomination, which consists of about 90 members, if I recall correctly.

I don't know of anyone, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Pentacostal, or anything else, who approves of what this tiny group is doing.

Squeaky Bunny · Post by **Squeaky Bunny** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:48 am

Is it possible that he hears voices telling him what to do?

“Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…”

Narnian · Post by **Narnian** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:12 am

Squeaky Bunny wrote:Is it possible that he hears voices telling him what to do?

“Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…”

Nah, that's impossible.

EdBecerra · Post by **EdBecerra** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:54 pm

Narnian wrote:
Squeaky Bunny wrote:Is it possible that he hears voices telling him what to do?

“Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…”
Nah, that's impossible.

I thought it was Kim Possible.

MikeVanPelt · Post by **MikeVanPelt** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:22 pm

Squeaky Bunny wrote:Is it possible that he hears voices telling him what to do?

“Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…”

Probably the voice of L. Ron Hubbard, wherever he is.

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:15 am

Squeaky Bunny wrote:Is it possible that he hears voices telling him what to do?

“Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…”

Actually, that would make a lot of sense..

Squeaky Bunny · Post by **Squeaky Bunny** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:13 pm

MikeVanPelt wrote:
Squeaky Bunny wrote:Is it possible that he hears voices telling him what to do?

“Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…”
Probably the voice of L. Ron Hubbard, wherever he is.

Hell if I know, and Issac Hayes can join him.

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:59 am

Squeaky Bunny wrote:
MikeVanPelt wrote:
Squeaky Bunny wrote:Is it possible that he hears voices telling him what to do?

“Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…”
Probably the voice of L. Ron Hubbard, wherever he is.
Hell if I know, and Issac Hayes can join him.

Now, now.. Isaac Hayes is really a victim of Scientologist brainwashing..

JakeWasHere · Post by **JakeWasHere** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:47 am

LoneWolf23k wrote:
Squeaky Bunny wrote:
MikeVanPelt wrote: Probably the voice of L. Ron Hubbard, wherever he is.
Hell if I know, and Issac Hayes can join him.
Now, now.. Isaac Hayes is really a victim of Scientologist brainwashing..

I like that line in the last South Park (the one where they finally killed Chef off) that was pretty obviously aimed at Isaac: "We shouldn't be mad at Chef for leaving us like he did; we we should be mad at that fruity little club for scrambling his brains."

Calbeck · Post by **Calbeck** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:54 pm

It's all too true, though. Scientology has a long and venerable history of suing at the drop of a hat to prevent the public release of what they call "Church Secrets" (which is all the material relating to "OT 9", which is guess what? A set of sheets of paper with El-Ron's scribbled pencil concepts all over it. Exactly like he was working out a science fiction plot outline, brainstorming the concept.

The only difference is that instead of writing an actual book, he just claimed that this outline amounted to an extended "vision" he had, and that it should be taken literally. Of course, you don't find out about this stuff right off the bat if you join Scientology --- Hubbard claimed that peoples' brains would "hemmorhage" if they learned of OT9's details "before they were ready".

Oh, and guess what? The Scientology episode is online, in its entirety, for your enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSj9gc36Bw8

(note that I just checked, the site is being revamped, try it in a few days)

Sciguy · Post by **Sciguy** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:21 pm

I'm sorry. Scientology had to be the funniest religon out there. And I never say a religon is funny. I only make this exception for them.

And religons in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Great Profit Zakron.

StrangeWulf13 · Post by **StrangeWulf13** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:02 pm

Calbeck wrote:Oh, and guess what? The Scientology episode is online, in its entirety, for your enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSj9gc36Bw8

Apparently, the video was scrapped due to violation of the terms of use policy.

Which only makes me more curious as to what exactly it showed...

Nick012000 · Post by **Nick012000** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:26 am

Kerry Skydancer wrote:.... Hitler was a Christian socialist, but primarily a megalomaniac sociopath....

No, he wasn't. He was a pagan National Socialist (Nazi), who used the church as a tool to manipulate the masses.

Calbeck · Post by **Calbeck** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:19 am

Sciguy wrote:I'm sorry. Scientology had to be the funniest religon out there.

I still don't get how Scientology can legally claim to be a religion. It didn't START as one. In fact, it was first marketed in science-fiction pulp magazines as a scientific means of improving mental health. The "church" label and such like were introduced right after the IRS began investigating Scientology for tax evasion.

JakeWasHere · Post by **JakeWasHere** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:36 am

Calbeck wrote:
Sciguy wrote:I'm sorry. Scientology had to be the funniest religon out there.
I still don't get how Scientology can legally claim to be a religion. It didn't START as one. In fact, it was first marketed in science-fiction pulp magazines as a scientific means of improving mental health. The "church" label and such like were introduced right after the IRS began investigating Scientology for tax evasion.

They had a ten-year-long argument with the IRS over this. The IRS eventually gave up and said, "Fuck it. If you want the tax breaks badly enough that you're willing to spend TEN GODDAM YEARS suing us - fine, TAKE them. You're not worth the effort anymore."

Of course, I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't have given in.

For more information, I refer you to xenu.net, scientology-kills.org, whyaretheydead.net, and lisamcpherson.org most relevantly.