Goodbye Everyone

Im not convinced that the deaths are actually unrelated.

There are many similarities in opressive totalitarian Facist Governments and opressive totalitarian Communist ones.

I wonder, really, if the concept of the Dictatorial Police state which led directly to all these Evil regimes is the core of the problem.

Prior to this century the means to hold a whole nation of people in such total opression didnt really exist, but starting with The Russian revolution the tools were in place to be exploited.

So the Nazi's the Italian Facists, Franco, The USSR, the Chinese, Che, Castro, North Korea, and so on were all using similar tactics to maintain power.

In this context confronting the smaller opressive communist Regimes in Korea and Vietnam was just a natural continuation of opposing Nazi Germany in World War 2.

This would make Churchill right of course ..

before you quote the the bible you should under stand what your speaking of. The book of Leviticus was a guideline of rules for the ancient Jewish people. According to the laws passed from God to Mosses. They are in no way intended to be followed by today standards. If your going to quote any religious text, under stand the entire works not just one sentence. The new testament is the guidelines intended for the modern church. Any one who takes one statement and twist it to fit there needs or goals is misguided. If your a Christian or not, read what Jesus taught and it teaches you to be tolerant of all people. No matter there beliefs.
Love others and do unto them as you would have them do unto you.
Thats the message you should be spreading.

OK interesting thread.....now heres a 'what would you have done'.

I have a satanist resident on my sim. Nice enough bloke.
He put a pentogram on a small wall of his house and had a fiery cauldron in part of his garden representing the gates of hell. This is what it was as I edited it and thats what the creator called it.

This was on his property for a few days, none of the other residents complained and personally being an athiest I have as much disdain for devil worship as I do any other form of worship, so no problem for me.

I then get an irate IM from someone (not an island resident) saying that there is the Star of David (which he considers is anti-semitic) on my property and a depiction of a gas chamber and its very offensive...what am I going to do about it.

After explaining the difference between a 5 sided star and a six sided star this guy wasnt satisfied and then proceeded to get all his friends to IM me about it threatening to report me for allowing racial hatred.

Now....what would you have done?

Oh, I do understand the Bible pretty well, having been raised by conservative Christians and having spent a lot of time studying the Bible in 2 languages and 5 different translations (Luther, revised Luther, KJV, NISB and NASB), plus various theological interpretations and articles about the historical background.

As you said, the old law has supposedly been passed from God to Moses. It was the law of your god himself that homosexuals should be put to death. No matter if you believe that God made up his mind and changed the rules at some point (quite odd for a supposedly omniscient and perfect being), it doesn't change that a Christian worships a god who finds it perfectly ok to kill people for being homosexual. As well as adulterers, unruly children, girls who had premarital sex, witches, heathens, people who work on saturdays and pretty much everyone who doesn't live by his rules. By worshipping this god and calling him impeccable, a Christian agrees that it was once good and right to kill people for their sexuality. That's like saying "Hitler was right back then, even if his rules aren't ok any longer".

But, to make it worse, there's absolutely no basis for the claim that Jesus did away with the old laws. On the contrary. Read Matthew 5:17-18, where the Bible character Jesus says that the old laws will be valid and applicable "until heaven and earth pass away". Revelation 21:1 tells us that this event, heaven and earth passing away, will supposedly occur after Jesus return, at the end of days. Until then, if you have a homosexual neighbour and tolerate him instead of stoning him to death, you've broken God's laws which were confirmed by Jesus.

Besides, if you think that Jesus only teaches love, tolerance and charity, it's you who should read the Bible. Most Christians never do, otherwise the number of atheists would rapidly increase. Reading one of the gospels should already do the trick. Let's take Matthew for example. In Mathew 15:22-26, Jesus refuses to heal the daughter of a Canaanite woman (because she has the wrong race and faith). He finally gives in after she begs for some time, but first he says "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Racism at its best.
In Matt. 10:34-36, he says he came to destroy families and make family members hate each other. In Matt. 11:20-24, he condemns entire cities to death and eternal torment because they weren't impressed by his magic tricks. Finally, because it fits the overall topic of this discussion, read Matthew 13:41-42, where Jesus says that his angels will throw all people who are "stumbling blocks" in his eyes (like jews?) into an oven (a furnace of fire); this is his long term agenda. Quite the opposite of love and tolerance I'd say.

If you then also take into account what his apostles teach, there's not much love and charity left. Paul for example teaches that sex is a sin, even touching a woman is wrong (1 Corinthians 7:1-2), that women are inferior (1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35), that homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1:26-27), that homosexuals are immoral on the same level as kidnappers and liars (1 Timothy 1:10), that Christians shouldn't have any contact with unbelievers and that unbelievers are "unclean" (2 Corinthians 6:14-17), that slavery is not only ok but that even christians are allowed to keep slaves (1 Timothy 6:1-4, Titus 2: 9-10, Ephesians 6:5-6) and that people who don't have work shouldn't be allowed to eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
It's pretty hard for a Christian to carefully navigate around all this intolerance, sexism and hatred. That's why I'm almost thankful for those who, in best Westboro Baptist manner, simply embrace everything taught by their holy book and spread the hateful message, to show the world what this faith is about. At least they're honest with themselves, and don't claim "It's all about love and harmony, even when my loving and forgiving god will torture and burn all of you unbelievers for eternity".

I wouldn't have given in to those threats. I think no Linden would possibly be upset about a pentagram and a cauldron, no matter what the abuse report says.

Responded with: "I don't tolerate misguided ignorant whiners. Get off my land."

this is kinda funny but since a star of david is made of two triangles and the other isn't they really dont look the same at all really anyone who actually knows what they look like. I would let him report me and then the Linden (assuming he knows what a star of david looks like) can come and laugh.

Told him to go Fuck Himself....And , How is a Star of David anti Semitic?

Again Brenda nails it with the proper reply!

Really? You should. The motives are usually wildly different from each other. Do you make a distinction between being knifed by a random mugger, and being slowly poisoned to death by a parent suffering Munchausen's by proxy?



Maybe worse, maybe not - but definitely different. From a perp standpoint, one crime is completely random and the result of a (perceived) need to survive, and one is intentional and personal and has nothing to do with need.

My opinion is that any crime is worse when the only possible motive is, "because I felt like it". There is no dark alley you can avoid to prevent stupid crap like that from happening to you.

Kill me and my family because you don't like X about us, we are dead. Kill me and my family because you want my farm, we are dead. So Hate or economic reasons, we are still dead. Evil is evil, it does not come in degrees. The use of force against the innocent is ALWAYS evil.

You don't buy into this "poverty caused me to do X" crap do you? It isn't the need to survive that motivates the mugger, it is laziness, selfishness, and a desire to avoid work.

All crime is committed "because I felt like it".

Notice how I put the word 'perceived' in parenthesis.

My opinion is that there is never a good excuse for committing crimes against the innocent, and that is a hard platform to take in a society that promotes empathy for criminals with sad stories of abuse and neglect by their parents in the media. These "poor guy had no choice but to be a criminal, look at how he has suffered" stories turn my stomach.

All I am simply saying is: I am personally more appalled by crimes committed out of sheer mean-spritedness than I am by crimes that are a result of someone thinking that's what they have to do to feed their need. At least you have a motive you can wrap your brain around when the junkie shoots the store clerk. People who attack total strangers out of sheer ignorance and hatred are far more terrifying to me than some meth addict with a craving.

And ponder this - bigots can put on sufficient appearances and elevate themselves to positions of power and influence pretty easily. No street junkie will ever be elected governor. That frightens me all the more, and that's why (getting back on topic for a minute) we as a species/society/community should not tolerate that mindset - in this world or a virtual world. It's like asking to be targeted when you turn a blind eye to it.

But we have strayed somewhat. When I was discussing economic reasons, I was referring to murder by government, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea.

Most politicians are sociopaths, just more polished than the street junkie.

That was the definiton of economic I was addressing. I'm back a few pages from you. Sorry to slam it into reverse on you.

To be honest I skimmed over the whole discussion of murder at the governing level, that's a whole different subject, and one I can't muster up the energy to get into right now. Crimes that are committed against the people, by the people, for the sake of the people, and tolerated by the people - that has connotations my brain doesn't want to delve into at the moment. Throw in a deity and my head shatters.

on top of that add how expected greatly extended lifespans complicate the appreciation for life and how that pertains to questions of death penalty and all.(whoops, now WAY off topic, sorry)

I use thug and politician interchangeably.

Please stop quoting one verse with out quoting the message. Matthew Chapter 5 is a very long and important speach.
Matthew 15: 22-26 you need to get your fact straight. The disciples said send her away. Jesus tested her faith.

22:And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23: But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. edit
24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. edit
25: Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. edit
26: But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. edit
27: And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. edit
28: Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. edit

Its a teaching of faith not intolerance.

Matthew chapter 10 dose not say he is going to destroy families. He is teaching how families will destroy them selfs. Yes this has to do with beleiving in Jesus and god but no claim he intends to cause harm.

I can go on actually describing the entire chapter and what it is teaching instead of taking one sentence and interpreting how i see it to fit my goals. When you were in school did you read one sentence of world history and make that the lesson. No you studied it all.

*sighs* I've been through such discussions a hundred times, and despite the obviousness that the Bible describes an omnipotent monster throughout the OT, who repeatedly kills large amounts of people including women and children out of a temper tantrum or because of a decision of their king, it's still supposed to be a good ideology.
Because one was brought up to believe that the monster loves everyone and was greatly misunderstood when it was blamed for killing all people on earth in a flood, or slaughtered thousands of Egyptian children, or burned down entire cities. That this is a nice and loving monster, and since there are a few nice passages in the NT, all that is less nice and less tolerant gets interpreted differently and argued away.

The arguments and interpretations are always the same. I quoted some modern Christians. "But they are only a few of us, and they're misleaded". So I pointed at the written Christian agenda, getting the typical reaction "Oh, that's the OT. That's really ugly, but those were different times. Please read the last pages of our agenda only, the rest is too hateful and doesn't apply any longer. We are unsure why it's still in there, perhaps because it comes in handy whenever we need some good oldfashioned fire'n'brimstone hatred." I then pointed at some passages of the OT, not quoting them but listing the verses, to give everyone the chance to read it in context. Now it's "Stop quoting single verses only". Even if I'd paste entire pages, I'd still hear the old arguments "That's out of context", "You don't understand the message" and "You have to read and interpret it in the historical context, it was once ok to oppress and kill people".

Even a single hateful and wrong idea is enough to make the complete ideology hateful and dangerous. But for some odd reason, things like "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are completely harmless if they appear in the Bible, because it's the "good book", because Christians stopped following that rule a short while back and no one is supposed to speak about it anymore. Besides, all the hateful parts are not the message. The message consists of a few verses only that are repeated over and over to distract from the rest of the book, unless the ugly rest is needed to judge and condemn minorities.



Jesus says to her, he is not sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (like Canaanites, who had adopted different religious practices, lived outside of Israel and were regarded as unclean and heathen foreigners). Then he adds that he won't cast the children's bread to the dogs. He calls a woman and her sick daughter "dogs". That's exactly what I wrote earlier. I also mentioned that he did finally heal her daughter. Perhaps because he liked the woman's witty answer, showing him that foreigners aren't so bad after all? Or perhaps she had a pretty face. However, his initial reaction is "lost sheep, not worth bothering".

Calling foreigners of a different faith "dogs" does in no way show tolerance, and treating them different because of their heritage is contrary to the idea of compassion and charity. But of course that was only a lesson in faith, no insult. Calling everyone who disagrees (with an invisible "holy spirit" who of course chose Jesus as its spokesman) a "brood of vipers" was no insult too, I guess, just a teaching of faith (Matt.12:34). Insulting and attacking people personally isn't nice, no matter in which context.

As for racism: Jesus made it quite clear that he believed to be sent to his fellow countrymen only. In Matthew 10:5 he instructs his twelve disciples and later apostles to avoid the cities of the Gentiles (non-Jewish people) and Samaritans (the wrong brand of Jewish people), after telling them to go and heal diseases throughout the country. Gentiles and Samaritans didn't deserve to be healed I guess. Another "teaching of faith", no intolerance or racism at all?



It's odd that you don't quote the passage in this case. Let me do it for you then (quoted from the the New American Standard Bible, because the language is better understandable for modern English speakers; the KJV is almost identical here):

Matt. 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

That sounds almost like Moham... uhm... nevermind. It's all the same mindset.

Matt. 10:35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
Matt.10:36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD."

I didn't set it in caps, it's the Bible translators who added emphasis here because they found this message important.
Does it say that families will destroy themselves, without Jesus having any intention to do so? No. Jesus clearly says that he came to set family members against each other, with the result of them having enemies in their own household. "I came to" clearly implies intent. Now it's clear why you didn't quote the verse. Jesus adds:

Matt. 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."

What he means with loving him more than them becomes clear when you compare it to another gospel text:

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."

Christians are supposed to hate their own parents and children in order to love Jesus more than anyone else. They're even supposed to hate themselves (their own life), and that's clearly what I learned when I grew up as a Christian: to hate myself. "I am a sinful lowly worm" is not exactly a healthy attitude to begin with, but the need to love an invisible friend more than other humans, and even hate close relatives in order to do so, is outright ridiculous and ultimately leads to a sociopathic personality disturbance.



But you don't do it; you don't explain what the other references I gave are supposedly teaching, because they are too ugly and teach a clearly wrong ideology, from a humanist point of view. Instead you accuse me of taking one sentence only (I gave a variety of references and can come up with a lot more) and interpreting it wrong. World history has nothing to do with this; the NT is an ideology and a religious agenda, not a history book (all events described there are historically unsustainable). And I did study it all, every single page in different translations.

I'll quote the last gospel reference I gave in my previous post, to show you that I don't misinterpret anything here. It speaks of Jesus supposed return, and how he intends to treat humanity at the "end of the age":

Matt. 13:41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
Matt. 13:42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Jesus, the person who is supposedly a symbol of love and forgiveness, will have people burn. In a furnace, another word for oven. Not a metaphorical cleansing fire; a real one that causes excruciating pain, weeping, gnashing of teeth. For all eternity; a fire that burns forever and ever to torment them day and night (Revelation 20:10). Even the worst criminal doesn't deserve this treatment, it's totally incompatible to any idea of humanism.

But it's not about criminals only. Jesus makes a point listing not only those who committed lawlessness, but also mere "stumbling blocks". Those who didn't go with the program, who had the bad luck to grow up in the wrong country in a society with the "wrong" religion. Who might have never even heard of this Jesus guy. Or people who loved their relatives and children more than the invisible and/or long dead Jesus.

How many people? The majority of them. Jesus says in Mathew 7:13-14 that only few will choose the right, narrow path; most will follow the wrong way. Jesus already knows this, because it's God's great plan. Consider this, the vast majority of humanity is supposed to eternally burn and suffer in hell, according to the Christian ideology and the master plan of their God. The majority of the Earth's population is meant to end up in an oven. Your neighbours could be among them. Or your parents. Or perhaps your wife and children. I couldn't stand the thought to sit in heaven, listening to their screams and knowing that it was me who supported the fascistic rulers of that place, even worshipped them (aside from common sense keeping me from believing such fairy tales). But that's just me.

But let's concentrate on the criminals, "those who commit lawlessness". This is the part Christians usually point at, to claim that this mass torture, that surpasses all evil ideas of the Nazis, is only righteous judgement. Who is a criminal, according to the Bible? I won't point at Jesus confirmation of the old OT laws in Matt.5:18 again, let's just stick to the NT. I won't even quote the hateful and judgemental Paul again:

Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Being a coward is enough to end up in an oven, or a lake of fire as John puts it. Also a liar. Did you ever lie in your life? Sorcerers (including witches, female sorcerers) will be tortured and cremated too, history repeats itself. An idolator is simply a person who worships the "wrong" gods; all Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims and of course all unbelievers, atheists like me, will supposedly be burned and tortured by Jesus' angels. Also immoral persons; immoral according to the biblical morality, which condemns most forms of the human sexuality, like my own bisexuality, among many other harmless things.

Of course that can all be forgiven, says the gruesome book. But only if you have the luck to grow up in the right country and become a Christian, willing to love Jesus more than anyone else, to the point where you hate your own family. If you are one of the few who picked the right Christian denomination out of almost 34,000 (!!!) different brands of Christianity. If you have the luck to get the right sexual preferences assigned by God, or completely refuse to follow your natural urges that God created you with. And if you have the luck that the Christian god himself doesn't mess with your head, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11, where Paul says that "God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie", once they "refused to love the truth" (a "truth" that is so obviously wrong).

But even then, there's one thing that can't be forgiven. It's not rape or murder, or otherwise violating human rights. Jesus forgives all that; he throws people with the wrong religion into an oven, but he forgives murderers and rapists, as long as they worship him. What he can't forgive though: "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:32).
It's so utterly ridiculous. How could this be justice? Speaking against an invisible "Holy Spirit", as nonexistent as fairies, unicorns or gods. There - I spoke against this spirit thing already. Freedom of speech, that's what this thread was about. Do you really think it's ok to burn me in an oven now? Jesus says so.

Aleister: here here... *thunderous applause* good job.

this thread has moved fairly off-topic. neither is it a topic which has a place within these forums.

Francesca, i'm sorry you've had a hard time of things and wish you well no matter what you decide to do.