How does one get a pleasant immortality?
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in christianity - 061408)

- - -

Strictly speaking, for those who believe
in the christian bible, the following must
be done to get a pleasant immortality and
to relieve oneself of the worry that by not
abiding by *all* of the following -22- re-
quirements, one might place their pleasant
immortality at risk.

(source for the following listed near the
end of this post, and the following is not
complete, as other biblical passages would
have to be adhered to in order to insure
that one was not in violation of any bibli-
cal statement that might place one's plea-
sant immortality ticket at risk)

   1. believe that the Jesus of the New
       Testament was a reality

   2. be baptized

   3. be part of a house in which belief
       that the Jesus of the New Testament
       was a reality is present (by the head
       of the house?)

   4. be just

   5. have faith

   6. be righteous, and be so righteous that
       you exceed the righteousness of the
       scribes and Pharisees (not sure how
       the righteousness of a group of people
       would be determined, as certainly, any
       group of people have many acts which
       wouldn't be considered righteous)

   7. confess, orally or, I assume, if one
       can't talk, one could confess by com-
       municating the following in some other
       way, that the Jesus of the New Testament
       was a reality, and that God raised him
       from the dead

   8. be worthy of the grace of God

   9. be worthy of mercy, be washed of
       regeneration (not sure what that means),
       be renewed by the Holy Ghost (not
       sure what that means)

 10. have worthy works

 11. have worthy ways, worthy doings

 12. do what is lawful and right

 13. have worthy words

 14. keep the commandments

 15. feed the hungry, provide drink for
       the thirsty, take in the strangers,
       clothe the naked, visit the sick,
       visit the imprisoned

 16. love the Lord thy God (not sure
       who that refers to, as the word
       'lord' has multiple meanings, from
       God to Jesus to one having power
       and authority over others, to one
       that has achieved mastery, to man
       of high rank or position, so to be
       safe, love all those guys) with all
       your soul and all your strength
       and all your mind

 17. love your neighbor as yourself
       (difficult to do if your neighbor
       is acting in a manner harmful to
       your own welfare, like sleeping
       with your wife or girlfriend, or
       threatening your life or welfare,
       but just to be on the safe side,
       love is required)

 18. do good

 19. do good deeds

 20. be a doer of the law

 21. when it comes to salvation, par-
       tipate in that endeavor with fear
       and trembling

 22. have faith and have works that
       are worthy, for faith without works
       is dead

- - -
  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html
- - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, for those who think they've played
it as safe as possible by doing their best
to adhere to the above, well, the follow-
ing contradicts that notion, at least the
left-hand side does, placing one in a 'no
win' situation -if- one is attempting to
avoid risk by following ancient religious
instructions:
  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/christians_hell.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also in play, Anti-Pascal's Wager:
  http://tinyurl.com/6ynve9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for hoping for a pleasant immortality,
however unlikely that is, viewing that
as a possibility in an entirely naturalistic
domain, regardless of beliefs or acts,
regardless of myths or religions, simply
reflecting one's natural desire to have a
better and everlasting existence?

Easy to do -if- one disbelieves in the
contradictory and irreconcilable nature
of religions, -if- one accepts the totality
of naturalism, and -if- one rejects the
religious arguments that without the
'right' religious faith, hope is futile.

- - -

In response to a poster who wrote:

> Not to contribute [...], but most Christian groups
> simply require acceptance of Christ as savior [...]

Exactly, you're starting to get it,
how religions will say in the bible
is the 'holy' word of God, and in
the next breath, they'll select a par-
ticular bible passage or passages,
and ignore or spin the ones that
are inconsistent with the chosen
emphasis.

All religions and religious leaders
with their ancient foundational texts,
simply pick and choose passages to
promote whatever agenda they're
into at the time.

Witch trials? Need I remind you
of the biblical passage that prompted
that?

Crusades, tortures and imprison-
ments of 'infidels', the bible is loaded
with passages that the advocates of
those policies used to promote such
things.

Anti-Judaism, religious leaders for
centuries used bible passages to pro-
mote that.

And so on and so forth.

All the seductions, all the threats,
everyone asked to just follow based
on blind faith. How to follow? Not
to worry, your religious leaders will
show you the way, and we all know
how reliable those religious leaders
have been in the past, so how could
they ever go wrong?

In my opinion, blind faith, whether
it be the blind faith of the men who
mass murdered close to 3,000 Ameri-
icans, or the blind faith of the millions
who suffered horrendous deaths in the
black plague, or the blind faith of the
millions who killed, tortured, or impri-
soned their fellow men based on what
religious leaders and the christian bible
led them to do ...

... not the ideal way to live, and indeed,
is a futile and enslaving endeavor at its
best, and opens the door to anti-human
endeavors at its worst.

- - -

In response to someone who wrote:

> I don't consider it playing it safe or scared. 
> I consider it living in harmony when I serve
> my fellow man and my God.

> If I am right and you are wrong, then I get
> one heck of a reward and I wouldn't want
> to be you.

> If you are right and I am wrong, we both rot
> in the ground and my ancestors will always
> have the memories of the good I did, while
> yours will speak of what a selfish bastard
> you were.

Religious myth, the seduction of "do
this, and get a pleasant immortality"
combined with the threat of "don't
do this, and lose out on the pleasant
immortality and (per your particular
perspective) be thought of as a "selfish
bastard". Some of the time, the threat
side consists of "eternal torment".

As for the anti-human aspect of reli-
gious faith following, obvious in your
reply unless you wish to attribute your
shared oblivion -and- "selfish bastard"
comments to sin, ask forgiveness, and
go back to trying to seduce us to follow
based on blind faith, but when you do,
do try to avoid the anti-humanism.

What, you've ruled out a naturalistic
pleasant continuance? Interesting, your
faith in a religious pleasant continuance,
your admission that such a continuance
might not be in the cards, and your cer-
tainty that naturalism and a pleasant con-
tinuance are 100% impossible.

Do tell, share with us your logic, reason,
and scientific analysis that have ruled out
a naturalistic pleasant continuance, as
I'd be very interested in that, if you can
prove it. As for your "selfish bastard"
comment:

Being a type 1 diabetic, there is one per-
son on the face of the planet in charge
of my being on the planet (well, not in-
cluding those involved in the manufac-
ture and distribution of insulin), and
that's me. I suspect that selfish and type
1 diabetic management go hand-in-hand,
but if a type 1 diabetic can find a life
partner willing to participate in the pro-
cess, on a 24x7x365 (366 every leap
year) basis, good for them.

I suspect few are able to do so. As for
being pro-human, apparently you don't
care about that as you perceive religion
as the only way to be pro-human. That's
unfortunate, and is but one of many
views that the religious have instilled
within them, resulting from their expo-
sure to religious faith from childhood
in most cases.

- - -

In response to someone who wrote,
in reply to another poster who made
the "selfish bastard" assertion above:

> Excuse me, but what proof do you have
> that PHF is a "selfish bastard."

> He may have done a lot of good in his life.

Just one of billions living 'neath the
constraints of the slings and arrows
of outrageous fortune (particularly,
those we've been subjected to by
religions and by disease, and by the
way in which the natural risky realm
we exist in harms [some more than
others] and kills all of us, sooner or
later) ...

... simply opposing them via the Pro-
Humanist FREELOVER stances
I've advanced in this newsgroup (and
others) from time to time, and via
support for Pro-Human scientific
research and advancement which
frequently differs from positions
taken by religions -and- by the reli-
gious.

Those views transferred to a website
(through March, 2007, and I've not
yet taken the time to update that web-
site since then).

I understand that to believers who've
adopted the "believe and get a plea-
sant immortality" stance, the stance
of pray and worship and fear and
love an all-powerful entity that will
listen to you and, possibly, answer
your prayer in a positive way, that
any position doubting or differing
with that one cuts to the core of what
they've invested their time, money
(most often), and hopes in, from a
very young age in most cases.

The positions of doubt and disbelief
most often register in believer minds
in the way they've been taught to per-
ceive them by religions, as threaten-
ing, as sin, as damnable acts, as untruths,
not simply as differences of opinion
regarding the import / impact of an-
cient oft-time anti-human myths.

Even though my position surpasses
that of religions in many areas, among
them Pro-Humanism, hope for *all*
based not on ancient superstition, but
instead based on what we know and
can discover about the naturalistic
world ...

... most have been taught to ignore or
dismiss or oppose or spin or diminish
or disparage doubt and disbelief in the
'right' religion, and to treat it as the 'ulti-
mate sin', as 'immoral', as 'wrong'.

Most have been taught to have and to
promote blind faith in the 'right' religion,
with that taught as the ultimate 'good',
in a society / culture with "In God We
Trust" on its money, with Presidents
most often espousing God as the an-
swer (the current one probably the most
God-promoting in U.S. history).

Most receive their news from a secular
media which oft-times buddies up to
religion in a promotive way.

Many are at first, surprised, and some
are opposed and aghast at a Pro-Human-
ist FREELOVER position opposing what
many have been raised to believe about
religion, and not surprisingly, many are
hesitant at first to consider stances which
place their life-long hopes (in immortal-
ity from a prayer-answering, sometimes,
maybe, God) at risk.

Many are at first not open to Pro-Human-
ist FREELOVER stances, as they're so
different from what they've been taught
by religions/religious followers/religious
leaders, as they encourage doubt and dis-
belief and skepticism, as they place the
immortal hopes of the religious into an
area of suspicion.

The fact that Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
stances are presented from a position of
morality, strength, logic, reason,  'good',
and hope, that's difficult for those with
religious exposure to accept, at first.

Why? See above, and see below.

All this, and more, understandable as
every last one of us is a result of the
totality of that which preceded us, the
totality of the environment each of us
is surrounded by, and all that can hap-
pen, all that transpires, simply physics,
results, outcomes, consequences, the
nature of being.

To the extent that my positions provide
a stimuli that, over time, helps to bring
about more Pro-Humanism, less reli-
gious devotion, more 'good', less 'hate',
less violence, more 'open-mindedness',
less reliance on ancient supernaturalistic
notions, more reliance on Pro-Human
scientific advancements which increase
the odds that humanity's future will be
safer, better, and more free than was
humanity's past ...

... I will have considered my time on
this planet to have been a worthwhile
endeavor (although it has, at times,
been a very difficult one, especially
so during the 'recovery from divorce'
period, especially so during the bat-
tling chronic depression period [which
lasted from about age 8 to the time in
which a couple of prescription anti-
depressants 'cured' me when I was
barely surviving a suicidal despair,
said 'cure' still working even though
I've been off the meds for quite some
time now], and especially as a result
of suffering from 47 years of having
type 1 diabetes).

In any case, I am proud to have taken
advantage of this window of oppor-
tunity to openly communicate my
opinions, and am hopeful that they
will some day (the sooner, the better)
help to result in improvements to this
one and only *certain* life experience
we all share.

- - -

In response to someone who wrote,
regarding how to get a pleasant immor-
tality:

> Accept Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and
> Savior.  While there are some denominations
> that "want more", the vast majority of Chris-
> tian faiths believe that nothing more than
> acceptance of Christ is required.  The multi-
> tude of other "requirements" you listed may
> be expected when it comes to proper behav-
> ior,  they're not necessary to the the ticket to
> heaven.

> Sorry to invalidate your posting, but it sure
> was a good rant.


Well, the posting addressed that belief
angle, revealing the the christian bible
has much in the way of contradictory
instructions for getting the claimed
'heaven', and for avoiding the claimed
'hell'.

As for belief, I believed at the age of
-8-, satisfying the belief requirement,
was baptized shortly thereafter, satis-
fying the baptized requirement (bap-
tists believe in baptism upon conver-
sion, while some faiths, like Catholics,
believe in baptism of babies), have
done very little in the way of the re-
quired items listed in Matthew 25 (be-
low) -but- am part of a nation that is
as likely as is any nation to be placed
on the 'right' as indicated in Matthew
25, -but- I disbelieved later in life, so ...

... got any bible verses to cite which
identify what happens to believers who
later stop believing? Would it have
been better, immortality-wise, for me
to have died at the age of -8-, or would
(unbeknownst to me) my conversion at
age -8- have been judged to be false
since, had I lived, I later would've dis-
believed?

-If- not only belief, at any time, is re-
quired, but belief for one's entire life
is required, does that place a believer's
immortality at risk, life's continuation,
since doubts and disbelief can only be
ruled out -if- one stops thinking freely
about the possibilities of error / myth
present throughout the bible?

-If- one objects to anti-humanism, isn't
the presence of so much of that through-
out the bible predisposed to engendering
doubt and disbelief by pro-human indi-
viduals?

Isn't the only way for a believer to stay
strong in their belief is to close their
mind to doubt and disbelief and free-
thought immediately upon conversion,
-or- to simply become a believer at all
cost, even if that cost is open-minded
search for the truth?

Brings up another point, about belief,
is not one simply destined to believe or
disbelieve based on what their genetic
make-up is combined with what influ-
ences they've been exposed to?

Obviously, the likelihood of being Mus-
lim in a Muslim country is high, the like-
lihood of being Hindu in India is high
(for children of Hindus) or Buddhist in
India is high (for children of Buddhists),
the likelihood of being into one of the
ancestral religions in China is high (for
children whose parents follow ancestral
religions), and so forth and so on, as
most children tend to believe whatever
is instilled in them at a very young age.

Aren't present-day humans at a distinct
disadvantage relative to folks around
way back then, -if- the Jesus of the New
Testament actually existed -and- belief
in the Jesus of the New Testament is
required, what with so much time pass-
ing since then, what with so much evi-
dence regarding history and naturalism
countering the views of New Testament
writers, what with nothing evidential
substantiating the New Testament claims
and much evidence to cast doubt on the
claims?

- - -

Speaking of Matthew 25, how do you
interpret the following, a passage which
appears to threaten entire nations (placed
on "the left", the way in which that critical
decision is arrived at, unspecified) who
failed to feed the hungry, provide drink
for the thirsty, provide clothes for the
naked, visit the sick and imprisoned?

Put another way, doesn't Matthew 25:41
contradict the passages which state that
salvation is by belief in the Jesus of the
New Testament?

Further, do contradictions of this type
lead you to worry about the claims that
by belief, alone, you've done all that is
required to insure (or maximize the odds)
of your getting the pleasant immortality
ticket?

Another question, oblivion for disbelief,
if disbelievers are terminated in hell, as
a particular poster in here (and many
others) believes, why would the fire men-
tioned in Matthew 25:41 be everlasting?

Of course, 'dunno' or 'cause God wants
it to be' would suffice for believers, per-
haps to remind those in heaven what
would happen to them were God to
change his mind about them being there,
-but- when it comes to religion, interpre-
tation (what I, at times, call spin) is both
required -and- critical to those interested
in knowing what's going on in there, or
at least in knowing what religious folks
say about what's going in there, oft-times
disagreeing about it.

Matthew

25:31  When the Son of man shall come
in his glory, and all the holy angels with
him, then shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory:

25:32 And before him shall be gathered
all nations: and he shall separate them one
from another, as a shepherd divideth his
sheep from the goats:

25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his
right hand, but the goats on the left.

25:34 Then shall the King say unto them
on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world:

25:35  For I was an hungred, and ye gave
me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was
sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison,
and ye came unto me.

25:37 Then shall the righteous answer
him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave
thee drink?

25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and
took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in
prison, and came unto thee?

25:40 And the King shall answer and say
unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch
as ye have done it unto one of the least of
these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on
the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil
and his angels:

25:42  For I was an hungred, and ye gave
me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
no drink:

25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not
in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and
in prison, and ye visited me not.

25:44 Then shall they also answer him,
saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hun-
gred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or
sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto
thee?

25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying,
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did
it not to one of the least of these, ye did it
not to me.

 - - -

In response to someone who wrote:

> Typical doubletalk from you - NOTHING [...]

You, obviously, would be well-served
to concede the manner in which chris-
tian anti-humanism adversely impacted
Europe, ever since Constantine, and how
religion has had an adverse impact on
human welfare from its inception, with
all its anti-humanism, with its "us versus
them" tribal warfare mentality.

Failing that, your attempt at apologies
for religion are futile.

What, by the way, are you saved from,
God? What makes God disposed to hurt-
ing you, or killing you, or harming you
or anyone, original sin? Why would you
have to pay for what some myth did in
the fictitious Garden of Eden, in the
myths of the bible and quran and torah?

Why, in the name of all that is truly pro-
human, would God 'murder for eternity'
or 'torture for eternity', you or any human
for their biology, totally a reflection of
their genes (which you and most religious
types think God designed) and what they
are taught (which is a result of their being
alive and being exposed to stimuli they
have absolutely no control over) and what
their current situation is (dramatically im-
pacted by the -2- factors mentioned, plus
by actions of others which are totally out-
side one's control)?

Why, in the name of all that is truly pro-
human, do you worship what, per your
religion, is an anti-human God who, per
your religion, will only save you from
his disposition to 'murder' or 'torture'
you -if- you have the 'right' 'blind faith'
in a vast array of unprovable unevidenced
contradictory -and- anti-human claims?

- - -

In response to someone who wrote in
opposition to religion, and to posts sup-
porting or opposed to religion, I replied:

Actually, this thread was started by yours
truly, and it was specifically oriented to
ask believers to consider the -22- examples
of biblical directions which they'd be best
served to follow -if- they really believe in
the christian bible. That probably was a bit
of news to most who, as mentioned by a
couple of replies, had been taught that the
way to heaven was by belief in the Jesus
of the New Testament, and that's all that
is required.

So, that places Pascal's Wager in an entirely
different light, -if- the only so-called 'safe
way' to escape 'hell' is to thoroughly read
and study *all* the bible, and do *every-
thing* that's suggested to achieve more
righteousness than the scribes and Phari-
sees, to be outside the nations put on the
'left', to be worthy based on (see original
post for all the instructions in that brief
list), to avoid unpardonable sin (itself, con-
tradicted in the scriptures), and so on and
so forth.

In my view, christians have, over time, sim-
ply simplified the message to try to induce
people to follow, and are simply 'in denial'
if they think that by doing so, they elimin-
ate the risk of being 'offed' or 'tortured'
by the God they believe in.

Furthermore, when faced with the fact, per
their scriptures and their belief that most
disbelieve in christianity, that billions and
billions of humans will be 'murdered' or
'tortured' (religious views vary on that
one) by God, that cannot be reassuring to
religious types who want their God to be
perceived as worthy of love because He
saved _____ (insert qualifiers here, see
list for details, noting that per christians,
christianity is a supreme requirement)
from his own propensity to kill or torture
most humans for eternity.

Put another way, eternity with a mass mur-
dering or mass torturing God?

Not a pleasant picture.

Now, a naturalistic pleasant continuance,
that's an entirely separate matter. Even
though I know that's merely a hope reflec-
ting, in large degree, a dream, a wish, -if-
one acknowledges the high probability of
an eternal number of space-time contin-
uums, a large number of dimensions far
beyond the -4- in our particular space-
time continuum, the possibility of multi-
dimensional multi-universal nature in
which connectivity is in play (really, a
reach, and probably highly unlikely if
not impossible), perhaps one might see
reason for naturalistic hope in the fol-
lowing articles.

On the other hand, one might read the fol-
lowing and come to the conclusion that
a naturalistic (and pleasant) continuation
is a futile hope, merely a dream and a wish
without any realistic chance of being true.

In any case, the nature of nature is truly
mysterious, and much remains to be dis-
covered regarding it, and until we do,
it's likely that my hope will reside in the
naturalistic areas that remain mysterious,
although I remain open to being talked
out of hope of a pleasant continuance
(after death in this particular space-time
continuum / dimensions) nature, if some-
one can make a convincing case that there
really is no naturalistic hope, at all, and
that one's naturalistic fate solely resides
in this particular dimension / space-time
continuum.

Even so, even if one constrains their hope
to this dimension, a very long life far be-
yond anything possible 'til now, that re-
sides on the horizon, if pro-human scien-
tific advances are manifested in this real-
ity, and if it doesn't happen in time for
me to get it, at least I have hope that my
daughter or (if she has children) one of
my grandchildren will get it, and in that,
my hope in being a part of a long-lived
and better future, at least if not for me,
for my children and potential grand-
children and humankind, would reside.

Really, disbelievers, in my view, should
open our minds to a much grander natural
world of possibilities, and stop buying
into the "believe or else" mindset of reli-
gionists, and start turning our backs on
their attempt to blackmail folks into
believing that without 'blind faith', with-
out a God who, per their own beliefs,
will torture or murder most humans for
forever, hope is futile.

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

Many-worlds interpretation
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Are There Other Universes?
space.com
  http://tinyurl.com/douv

Particle Accelerator May Reveal
Shape Of Alternate Dimensions
Science Daily  -- February 04, 2008
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131161812.htm

When the world's most powerful particle
accelerator starts up later this year, exotic
new particles may offer a glimpse of the
existence and shapes of extra dimensions.
Researchers from the University of Wis-
consin-Madison and the University of
California-Berkeley say that the telltale
signatures left by a new class of particles
could distinguish between possible shapes
of the extra spatial dimensions predicted
by string theory.

Could a hole in space save man from
extinction? -- Michio Kaku
-- Telegraph  -- January 05, 2005
  http://tinyurl.com/holeinspace-savefromextinction

Michio Kaku argues that new space probes
will provide critical new information on
parallel universes, cosmology, and worm-
holes that humanity will need to survive
in the long-term.

Zillions of Universes?
Or Did Ours Get Lucky?
-- New York Times  -- October 28, 2003
  http://tinyurl.com/zillionsofuniverses

Cosmologists debate the anthropic principle
and the existence of multiple universes at
a recent conference.

Parallel Universes
-- Scientific American  -- April 14, 2003
  http://www.uboeschenstein.ch/boe/themes/multiversum.html

The frontiers of physics have gradually
expanded to incorporate ever more abstract
(and once metaphysical) concepts such as
a round Earth, invisible electromagnetic
fields, time slowdown at high speeds,
quantum superpositions, curved space,
and black holes.

Over the past several years the concept
of a multiverse has joined this list. It is
grounded in well-tested theories such
as relativity and quantum mechanics,
and it fulfills both of the basic criteria
of an empirical science: it makes pre-
dictions, and it can be falsified.

Scientists have discussed as many as four
distinct types of parallel universes. The
key question is not whether the multi-
verse exists but rather how many levels
it has.

- - -

In response to someone who wrote:

> [...] Hitler and his ilk paid lip service to
> the Church, because they couldn't rise
> to power in opposition to it.

So, Hitler, raised a Catholic, your assertion
is that any pro-God or pro-Church support
for "the Church" prior to gaining power is
mere "lip service", or is it just pro-Church
stuff you're referring to?

Of interest, your absence of addressing the
multitude of evidence regarding anti-Semi-
tism of Catholicism, how that impacted
Luther, himself born and raised a Catholic,
and all the plethora of European Christian
anti-Semitism which preceded -and- directly
contributed to the German substantially
Christian mindset that led up to the Holo-
caust:

Anti-Judaism
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Judaism

Luther and antisemitism
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_and_antisemitism

Spanish Inquisition
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Portuguese Inquisition
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition

Blood curse
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_curse

Blood libel against Jews
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews

Host desecration
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

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

Witch-hunt -- Antiquity
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials#Antiquity

Witch-hunt -- Middle Ages
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials#Middle_Ages

Witch-hunt -- Early Modern Europe
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials#Early_Modern_Europe

In response to someone who wrote, regarding
Hitler:

> Once IN power, the religious gladhanding and appeals
> to God disappeared.

So, once in power, your assertion is that Hitler
stopped "religious gladhanding and appeals to
God." So, I take it that you view the following
as what, disingenuous again? When, exactly,
do you perceive that Hitler was "IN power",
as historical records state that occurred early
in 1933?

Most of the following website documents his
pro-God pro-religion anti-atheist statements
*after* he came "IN power", a plethora of them,
so I suppose you are forced to use your Giant
disingenuous eraser for much longer than you
mentioned in your "Once IN power, the religious
gladhanding and appeals to God disappeared"
statement, up to just a few months before he
died:

The Christianity of Hitler revealed
in his speeches and proclamations
  http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

One excerpt, from a radio address Hitler gave
on January 30, 1945:

God the Almighty has made our nation. By
defending its existence we are defending His
work....

Only He can relieve me of this duty Who
called me to it. It was in the hand of Provi-
dence to snuff me out by the bomb that
exploded only one and a half meters from
me on July 20, and thus to terminate my
life's work. That the Almighty protected
me on that day I consider a renewed affir-
mation of the task entrusted to me....

Therefore, it is all the more necessary on
this twelfth anniversary of the rise to power
to strengthen the heart more than ever before
and to steel ourselves in the holy determina-
tion to wield the sword, no-matter where
and under what circumstances, until final
victory crowns our efforts....

In the years to come I shall continue on this
road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my
people's interests, oblivious to all misery
and danger, and filled with the holy convic-
tion that God the Almighty will not abandon
him who, during all his life, had no desire
but to save his people from a fate it had never
deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor
by way of its importance....

In vowing ourselves to one another, we are
entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask
Him for His grace and His blessing. No peo-
ple can do more than that everybody who can
fight, fights, and that everybody who can work,
works, and that they all sacrifice in common,
filled with but one thought: to safeguard
freedom and national honor and thus the
future of life.

-Adolf Hitler, in a radio address, 30 Jan. 1945

- - -

In response to someone who wrote, regarding
Hitler:

> All that was left is what you get when amoral,
> godless statists [...]

Godless? It appears that your anti-atheism
and the anti-atheism of Hitler has much
in common, with you (on multiple times
in here) calling for my death, but then
again, I suppose that Christian apologists
will whip on their disingenuous eraser
and try to make all that disappear, were
a Christian such as youself to be impli-
cated in a premature ending to the life
of yours truly.

- - -

In response to someone who wrote:

> [...] humanism - nothing is quite as dehumanizing.

Humanism is humankind's greatest hope.

Religion, and all the anti-humanism it has
caused over time, is humankind's greatest
failure.

- - -

In response to a poster who objected to
another poster claiming supporters of reli-
gion initiated this particular post:

> [...]  You said it was the "believers" who
> are bringing it into this group.  Clearly,
> and easily provable, it is not.

Of course, the 'sin' of discussing religion
is only considered 'sin' when someone
discusses it in a way that fellow religious
folks might object to, and even then, in
here, few (if any) folks bring themselves
to object when a fellow christian is in
debate, even when a fellow christian de-
cides to threaten a disbeliever with death.

Telling.

I suspect that says a lot more about reli-
gious faith than the faithful are willing
to admit, the manner in which they seem
to lose their voices to object to likeminded
believers calling for the death of a dis-
believer.

I suspect that's because their religious
documents are loaded with threats against
disbelief, and as such, they tend to empa-
thize with the threats, rather than taking
a stance against them.

Of course, also at play, in a particular
religious poster's case, is the manner in
which he viciously attacks others, so
one suspects not only likeminded reli-
gion underlying the lack of objections,
but also fear of what that poster might
say to anyone who objects to his admir-
ation of death for a disbeliever.

Oh well, many were silent when the
Jews were rounded up in Germany, too,
and most of the silence came from Chris-
tians, so it appears that the "silence is
golden" principle has a very dark side
that the silentists would rather ignore.

- - -